This interlocutory appeal concerns whether the New Jersey courts have personal jurisdiction over a defendant Utah company and its sole owner who entered into a contract to reserve a booth for plaintiff, a New Jersey company, at a biannual trade show in Germany planned for 2020. The 2020 trade show was eventually cancelled because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the company and its owner declined to refund plaintiff's payment or apply it to the next show in 2022.
Defendants argue they lacked the required "minimum contacts" to be sued in New Jersey, stressing that plaintiff originally initiated the parties' relationship in 2011 by asking defendants to arrange for space at an earlier trade show in 2012. They further contend it would offend constitutional principles of fair play and substantial justice to compel them to litigate this civil case in this distant state.
The court affirms the motion judge's finding of personal jurisdiction. Although cases that have found specific jurisdiction often have involved a defendant that first initiated contact with a plaintiff in the forum state, the court holds it is not dispositive that the New Jersey plaintiff originally initiated contact with the Utah company and its owner years before the present transaction. The record shows the Utah defendants sought and procured renewal contracts with plaintiff for the next four biannual trade shows, including 2020. In addition, the Utah defendants repeatedly solicited new or renewal business from at least ten other New Jersey pet company exhibitors during that time frame.
Given that conduct, the Utah defendants "purposely availed" themselves of doing business with New Jersey customers to a level sufficient to satisfy the criteria for in personam jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause.
In addition, the norms of fair play and substantial justice are not offended here. Defendants could have included a forum selection clause in their form contract but failed to do so. The parties have already taken depositions remotely, and defendants can request the trial court—in this modest non-jury case with few witnesses—to consider in its discretion allowing them to appear remotely at trial.