Cited by

Marquette Nat’l Bank of Minneapolis v. Norris

No threshold number of contacts is necessary to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state party and a “single, isolated transaction between a nonresident defendant and a resident plaintiff can be a sufficient contact to justify exercising personal jurisdiction.” Marquette Nat’l

When determining whether dismissal was appropriate, we “must consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., (citing Marquette Nat’l ).

A “single, isolated transaction between a nonresident defendant and a resident plaintiff can be a sufficient contact to justify exercising personal jurisdiction.” Marquette Nat’l

We also note that there is no bright- line rule or threshold number of contacts necessary to exerci se personal jurisdiction, and even a “single, isolated transaction between a nonresident defendant and a resident plaintiff can be a sufficient contact to justif y exercising personal jurisdiction.” Marquette Nat’l Bank of Minneapolis v. Norris , (listing cases and affirming exercise of personal jurisdiction ba sed on a single, transactional contact to Minnesota).

7 Quantity of contacts No threshold number of contacts is necessary to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state party; indeed , even a “single, isolated tr ansaction between a nonresident defendant and a resident plaintiff can be a su fficient contact to justify exercising personal jurisdiction.” Marquette Nat’l 3 Appellants assert that the qua ntity of their contacts with Minnesota is “virtually nonexistent.” They contend that, under Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285-86, 134 S. Ct.

See, e.g., Marquette Nat’l (recognizing that, 5 when the defendants’ contacts with the state consisted of a single transaction, the forum-interest, litigation-convenience, and quantity -of-contacts factors were not decisive and the nature-and-quality factor was dispositive).

at 337 ; see also Marquette Nat'l Bank of Minneapolis v. Norris , , 292 (Minn. 1978) (lack of physical presence in state by nonresident appellants was of no consequence when transaction accomplished by mail and telephone).

.” (emphasis added)); see Marquette Nat’l (“For purposes of a Rule 12.02, Rules of Civil Procedure, pretrial motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the factual allegations in the complaint and supporting affidavits are to be taken as true.”).

P. 12.02(e), “[t]he reviewing court must consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., (citing Marquette Nat’l ).

Stork, 549 F.3d at 1312 ("Traditionally, when an entity intentionally reaches beyond its boundaries to conduct business with foreign residents, the exercise of specific jurisdiction [by the foreign jurisdiction over that entity] is proper.”) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted); (stating that the mere fact a company does not have a physical presence in the state but conducts its business via telephone and mail does not bear on whether the company is subject to the state’s jurisdiction).

v. Norris, (“The fact that the nonresident appellants were never physically present in the state in the course of their transaction, which was accomplished entirely by telephone and mail, is clearly of no significant consequence.”).

“The reviewing court must consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., (citing Marquette Nat’l ).

(citing Marquette Nat’l ).

199, 201 , 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957); Marquette Nat’l

Marquette Nat’l -96 (Minn.1978).