Also known as: purposefully avails himself · purposeful availment · purposefully availed · purposeful availment test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Conduct by which a nonresident defendant deliberately directs activities toward the forum state in a manner that invokes the benefits and protections of its laws. Such conduct creates the minimum contacts required for specific personal jurisdiction when the claim arises out of or relates to those activities.
Pilar Pena manufactures tires in State X and sells them exclusively to a distributor there. A consumer buys one and drives the car to State Y, where an accident occurs. Pilar moves to dismiss the State Y suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because Pilar took no steps to serve the State Y market, the court finds no purposeful availment and grants the motion.
Pablo Perez negotiates a long-term franchise agreement with a Florida corporation. The contract requires payments and reports to Miami headquarters and subjects the deal to Florida law. When a dispute arises, Pablo contests jurisdiction in Florida. The court holds that his deliberate outreach to the Florida company constitutes purposeful availment of Florida law.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Penelope Price agrees that her daughter may spend extra time with the mother in California. The father lives in New York and never visits or conducts business in California. When the mother sues for increased support in California, the father moves to dismiss. The court rules that his consent to the child's travel does not amount to purposeful availment of California law.
Priscilla Parks visits California for a week to attend a conference and is served with process there. She has no other ties to the state. When she challenges jurisdiction, the court notes that her voluntary decision to enter the state and conduct activities there does not establish purposeful availment for specific jurisdiction.
Patrick Phan owns shares in a Delaware corporation but never attends meetings or directs corporate affairs in Delaware. A shareholder sues him in Delaware over corporate mismanagement. The court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction because mere stock ownership does not constitute purposeful availment of Delaware's corporate laws.
Parker Phillips operates a website that accepts orders, processes payments, and ships goods directly to residents of Pennsylvania. A Pennsylvania buyer sues over a defective product. The court finds that the site's interactive commercial features directed at forum residents establish purposeful availment supporting specific jurisdiction.
No. A contract alone is insufficient. The defendant must have deliberately reached out to the forum through additional contacts such as payment obligations, choice-of-law clauses, or ongoing performance directed at the forum.
Supporting sources
No. Mere foreseeability that a product will enter the forum through the unilateral act of a consumer does not constitute purposeful availment. The defendant must have targeted the forum market or invoked its protections.
Supporting sources
Yes, when the communications are repeated, directed at the forum party, and accompanied by other indicia of targeting such as customized reports or forum-specific performance adjustments.
Supporting sources
No. A parent's consent to a child's residence in another state for family reasons does not by itself invoke the benefits and protections of that state's laws for jurisdictional purposes.
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 statute, as…