Defending personal jurisdiction: keeping the case in the chosen forum

You filed in the forum you wanted. The defendant has moved to dismiss for lack of personal [jurisdiction](/insights/glossary/jurisdiction). Your response brief has to do three things: build a record showing the defendant purposefully directed activity at the forum, fit the case into either specific or general jurisdiction under the controlling Supreme Court framework, and, where the existing record is thin, ask for limited jurisdictional discovery before the court rules. The plaintiff's burden at this stage is a prima facie showing, not proof by a preponderance, and the response brief should remind the court of that standard from the first page.

Personal jurisdiction is the most fact-intensive of the threshold motions. The constitutional doctrine has shifted substantially over the last fifteen years, with the Supreme Court tightening general jurisdiction while leaving specific jurisdiction's purposeful-availment core intact. A response brief that maps the contacts of this defendant onto the current doctrine, and that uses affidavits to fill gaps the complaint left open, normally survives.

The plaintiff's burden and the prima facie standard

When personal jurisdiction is challenged on the pleadings without an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff bears the burden of making a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. The court takes the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations as true and resolves factual conflicts in the plaintiff's favor. Where the defendant submits affidavits contradicting jurisdictional facts, the plaintiff may respond with its own affidavits, and the conflicts are again resolved in the plaintiff's favor for purposes of the prima facie ruling.

The response brief should state the standard explicitly in the legal-standard section. Defense briefs sometimes argue jurisdiction as if the court were resolving a contested factual record by a preponderance. That is not the standard at the pleading stage, and the brief should say so.

If the court orders an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff's burden rises to a preponderance. The response brief should resist conversion to an evidentiary hearing where the prima facie showing is strong on the papers, and should support that resistance with affidavits dense enough that further fact-finding would be redundant.

International Shoe and the minimum-contacts framework

The constitutional baseline is International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), which held that due process requires that the defendant have "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Id. at 316. The Supreme Court has spent eighty years interpreting that formulation.

Two threshold categories matter:

1. Specific jurisdiction, where the claim arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum contacts.
2. General jurisdiction, where the defendant's contacts with the forum are so continuous and systematic as to render the defendant essentially at home there.

Most modern cases turn on specific jurisdiction, because Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014), narrowed general jurisdiction dramatically. The response brief should usually lead with specific jurisdiction.

Specific jurisdiction: purposeful availment

Specific jurisdiction requires that the defendant "purposefully availed" itself of the forum's benefits. The leading articulation is Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985), which held that "where the defendant deliberately has engaged in significant activities within a State, or has created continuing obligations between himself and residents of the forum, he manifestly has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there." Id. at 475-76 (cleaned up).

Burger King identified several factors:

1. Whether the defendant initiated the contact with the forum.
2. The duration and nature of the relationship.
3. The defendant's reasonable expectation of being haled into court in the forum.
4. The forum's interest in adjudicating the dispute.
5. The plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief.

The response brief should lay out the contacts in a numbered narrative. For each contact, identify the date, the medium (visit, contract, communication, sale), and the consequences. Affidavit support for each contact is essential where the complaint did not allege specifics.

Contract-based contacts

Where the claim arises out of a contract with a forum resident, Burger King directly controls. The relevant facts include the negotiation history, the location of contract performance, the choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses (if any), the duration of the relationship, and any continuing obligations the contract created. A single contract does not always confer jurisdiction, but a contract embedded in a continuing course of dealing usually does.

Tort-based contacts

Where the claim sounds in tort, the response brief should consider the Calder effects test (discussed below) alongside traditional purposeful-availment analysis. The defendant's forum contacts may consist of the conduct giving rise to the tort, the forum-state effects, or both.

The Calder effects test

For intentional-tort claims where the defendant's conduct occurred outside the forum but caused effects inside it, Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), supplies an additional theory of specific jurisdiction. Calder held that California had personal jurisdiction over Florida-based defendants who wrote and edited an allegedly defamatory article about a California-based actress, because the defendants "knew that the brunt of [the] injury would be felt by [the plaintiff] in the State in which she lives and works." Id. at 789-90.

The response brief invoking Calder should plead three things:

1. The defendant committed an intentional act.
2. The act was expressly aimed at the forum state.
3. The defendant knew the brunt of the harm would be felt in the forum state.

The "express aiming" element is the one defense briefs most often attack. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014), clarified that the express-aiming requirement is not satisfied by the mere fact that the plaintiff lives in the forum and feels effects there. The defendant's own conduct must connect the defendant to the forum, not just to a plaintiff who happens to be located there. Id. at 289-90.

A response brief that anticipates Walden should identify forum-directed conduct distinct from the plaintiff's residence: forum-targeted advertising, forum-specific customers, forum-aimed misrepresentations, or other contacts that show the defendant reached into the forum rather than just toward the plaintiff.

Daimler and the narrowing of general jurisdiction

General jurisdiction, before Daimler, was sometimes asserted on the basis of substantial in-state operations. Daimler narrowed the doctrine: a corporation is "essentially at home" only where it is incorporated or maintains its principal place of business, except in an "exceptional case" where its operations in another forum are so substantial as to render it at home there. 571 U.S. at 137-39.

After Daimler, general jurisdiction is rarely available outside the corporate defendant's state of incorporation and principal place of business. The response brief should usually concede this and focus on specific jurisdiction.

Two exceptions are worth flagging:

1. Where the corporation has consented to general jurisdiction (often by registering to do business in the state under a registration statute that has been construed as consent). Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023), upheld one such consent-by-registration statute, opening the door to general jurisdiction in states with similar statutes. Check the forum state's registration law.
2. Where the defendant's in-forum operations are genuinely exceptional. This is a narrow theory, but it occasionally applies to companies with a dominant presence in a single non-home state.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and the aggregated-plaintiff problem

In mass-action and multi-plaintiff cases, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 582 U.S. 255 (2017), can pose a problem. Bristol-Myers Squibb held that a state court lacked specific jurisdiction over claims by non-forum plaintiffs against a non-forum defendant where the claims did not arise out of the defendant's forum contacts, even though the defendant had substantial forum contacts unrelated to those claims. Id. at 264-66.

The case is narrower than defense briefs sometimes suggest. Bristol-Myers Squibb does not eliminate jurisdiction over forum plaintiffs' claims. It does not eliminate jurisdiction over non-forum plaintiffs whose claims do arise from the defendant's forum contacts. It does not displace general jurisdiction where the defendant is at home in the forum. And it does not apply at all to federal-court actions where the relevant due-process analysis runs under Federal Rule 4(k)(2) or a nationwide-service statute.

A response brief responding to a Bristol-Myers Squibb argument should:

1. Identify which plaintiffs (if any) are forum residents and explain that Bristol-Myers Squibb does not affect their claims.
2. Identify, for non-forum plaintiffs, the specific forum contacts giving rise to their claims (forum-state purchases, forum-state interactions, forum-aimed marketing the non-forum plaintiffs received).
3. Where the case is in federal court, consider whether nationwide-service-of-process statutes change the analysis.

Jurisdictional discovery

Where the existing record is thin on jurisdictional facts and the plaintiff has a colorable basis for believing more contacts exist, the response brief should request limited jurisdictional discovery in the alternative. Federal courts have broad discretion to permit discovery on jurisdictional issues before ruling, and most circuits allow it when the plaintiff makes a threshold showing that discovery could establish jurisdiction.

The request should be specific: identify the categories of discovery sought (the defendant's sales records in the forum, the defendant's communications with forum residents, the defendant's marketing aimed at the forum), explain why each category would bear on jurisdiction, and propose a reasonable schedule. A general request for "discovery on personal jurisdiction" is often denied; a targeted request keyed to specific theories usually succeeds.

Affidavit practice

The plaintiff's response brief is normally supported by affidavits or declarations. The affidavits should:

1. Identify each forum contact by date and nature.
2. Attach supporting documents (contracts, communications, marketing materials, sales records).
3. Be made on personal knowledge by a witness who can authenticate the underlying documents.

Where the defendant's motion is supported by affidavits, the plaintiff's affidavits should address the defendant's specific factual assertions. Conflicts are resolved in the plaintiff's favor at the prima facie stage, but only if the plaintiff has put a competing fact in the record.

How to brief the opposition

A personal-jurisdiction response has a predictable structure.

Introduction

A short opening that identifies the defendant's contacts with the forum and tells the court which jurisdictional theory (specific, general, Calder effects) supports jurisdiction here.

Statement of facts

A factual narrative of the forum contacts, with citations to the complaint and the supporting affidavits. Include dates, identities, and supporting documents.

Legal standard

A short section that identifies the prima facie standard, cites International Shoe for the minimum-contacts framework, and identifies the specific or general jurisdiction theory the response will pursue.

Argument

Organized by theory. For specific jurisdiction:

1. Purposeful availment under Burger King.
2. Arising-out-of/relating-to nexus.
3. Fair-play-and-substantial-justice factors.

For Calder effects:

1. Intentional act.
2. Express aiming under Walden.
3. Forum-felt harm.

For general jurisdiction (where viable):

1. Daimler at-home analysis.
2. Any consent-by-registration theory.

Distinguishing the defendant's authorities

Address Daimler and Bristol-Myers Squibb directly. Defense briefs lean on both. The response should explain why those cases do not control here.

Request for jurisdictional discovery (alternative)

If the record is thin, ask in the alternative for limited jurisdictional discovery, with a specific proposal.

Conclusion

Ask the court to deny the motion. In the alternative, ask for jurisdictional discovery before any ruling.

Common errors that sink jurisdiction responses

Treating the prima facie standard as a preponderance burden. This concedes too much. The response brief should remind the court that factual conflicts go to the plaintiff at this stage.

Leading with general jurisdiction. After Daimler, general jurisdiction is almost never the plaintiff's best theory outside the defendant's state of incorporation or principal place of business. Lead with specific jurisdiction.

Ignoring Walden in tort cases. Defense briefs cite Walden aggressively to argue that the plaintiff's forum residence cannot supply jurisdiction. The response must affirmatively identify forum-directed conduct by the defendant, not just forum-located effects.

Failing to seek jurisdictional discovery in the alternative. Where the prima facie case has gaps, jurisdictional discovery is often the difference between dismissal and survival. The request must be specific.

The bottom line

A personal-jurisdiction response succeeds when the brief: states the prima facie standard, identifies the controlling theory (specific or general or Calder effects), walks through the defendant's forum contacts with affidavit support, distinguishes Daimler and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and, where appropriate, asks for jurisdictional discovery in the alternative. It fails when the response leans on general jurisdiction after Daimler, ignores Walden in tort cases, or accepts the defense's framing of the burden.

Personal jurisdiction is a constitutional minimum, not an evidentiary trial. A complaint supported by affidavits showing genuine forum-directed conduct should clear the bar. The response brief's job is to make those contacts visible and to fit them into the doctrinal framework the Supreme Court has actually established.