Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in Oregon

Background

“The exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is consistent with due process, and thus constitutional, if the defendant has "minimum contacts" with the forum state, and the assertion of jurisdiction would comport with notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (See Kotera v. Daioh Intl. U.S.A. Corp. (2002) 179 Or. App. 253, 265.)

“Minimum contacts are satisfied if the defendant has purposefully directed its activities at residents of the forum state and where the litigation arises out of or relates to those activities.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, we assume the truth of all well-pleaded allegations.” (See Kotera v. Daioh Intl. U.S.A. Corp. (2002) 179 Or. App. 253, 262.)

“Plaintiffs have the burden of alleging and proving facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.” (See id.)

“We construe pleadings and affidavits liberally to support jurisdiction. Once the jurisdictional facts are established, we review the determination of personal jurisdiction for errors of law.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“We review the determination of personal jurisdiction for errors of law.” (See Kotera v. Daioh Intl. U.S.A. Corp. (2002) 179 Or. App. 253, 270.)

“When reviewing the dismissal of a matter for lack of personal jurisdiction, and, as here, the historical facts are undisputed, we review for legal error the trial court's determination whether those facts establish personal jurisdiction over the nonresident party.” (See Vaughn v. Vaughn (2021) 308 Or. App. 619, 620.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “in reviewing a trial court's dismissal of a complaint against a defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction, we construe the pleadings and affidavits liberally in favor of jurisdiction.” (See Swank v. Terex Utilities, Inc. (2015) 274 Or. App. 47, 50.)

It is also well settled that “personal jurisdiction is examined as either a question of general personal jurisdiction or specific personal jurisdiction.” (See Wallace v. Holden (2019) 297 Or. App. 824, 828.)