Also known as: purposefully avails · purposefully availed · purposefully availing · purposeful availment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A requirement in the minimum-contacts analysis for specific personal jurisdiction under which a defendant must take deliberate action to invoke the benefits and protections of the forum state's laws. Unilateral activity by the plaintiff or a third party cannot satisfy the requirement.
Pilar Pena, a resident of State A, moved to State B with her children after separating from her ex-husband. The ex-husband remained in State A and had no other contacts with State B. When Pilar sought child support in State B court, the ex-husband moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion because the ex-husband took no deliberate steps to invoke State B's benefits.
Phoenix Technologies sold a machine to a buyer in State C. The buyer later transported the machine to State D and was injured there. Phoenix had never marketed or sold products in State D. When the buyer sued in State D, Phoenix moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion because Phoenix had not purposefully directed any activities toward State D's market.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Parker Phillips, a franchisee in State E, negotiated a long-term agreement with Prism Analytics through repeated calls and emails directed to Prism's State E headquarters. The contract required ongoing performance in State E. When a dispute arose, Prism sued in State E. The court denied Parker's motion to dismiss because the repeated, targeted negotiations showed deliberate availment of State E's laws.
Preston Pratt consented to his child living temporarily in State F with the child's mother for school. Pratt had no other ties to State F and never visited. When the mother sought support enforcement in State F, Pratt moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion because Pratt's limited consent did not constitute purposeful availment of State F's protections.
Pamela Phillips owned shares in a corporation incorporated in State G. She never attended meetings, conducted business, or took any action in State G. When a shareholder derivative suit was filed there, Pamela moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion because mere ownership did not show purposeful availment of State G's laws.
Pierce Patterson visited State H for a week-long business conference and was served with process there during his stay. He had no other ongoing contacts with State H. When he challenged personal jurisdiction, the court denied the motion because his voluntary presence and activities in State H satisfied the purposeful availment requirement.
No. Mere foreseeability that a product might reach the forum state is insufficient. The defendant must take affirmative steps to target the forum market, such as advertising or maintaining service centers there.
Supporting sources
It depends on whether the communications reflect deliberate targeting of the forum. A contract alone is not enough, but ongoing negotiations, customized performance, and financial ties directed at the forum can demonstrate purposeful availment.
Supporting sources
Yes when the site is used to sell customized products or services specifically for forum properties and includes direct consultations about forum projects. Passive national websites without such targeting do not suffice.
Supporting sources
Yes in intentional tort cases. Creating content that singles out forum locations and purchasing ads shown only to users in the forum shows express aiming at the state and supports jurisdiction over related claims.
Supporting sources
…emphasize that the decision does not preclude a state from exercising jurisdiction in appropriate cases where the defendant has purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of the state’s laws. Concurring — Justice Stevens I concur in the judgment and in most of the Court’s opinion. The Delaware sequestration…