Cited by

P. 4.2(a); accord Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 8 (App. 2013).

Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2013).

“To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must offer facts establishing a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.” Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2013).

See Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2013), aff’d as clarified

at *2 ¶ 12 (citing Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2013)), “viewing the facts in the light most favorable to [Danko] but accepting as true the uncontradicted facts put forward by [Alley],” Planning Grp.

sdiction over a defendant if he purposefully availed himself of the “privilege of conducting activities in the forum,” the “claim arises out of the defendant’s forum-related activities,” and “the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable.” Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 897 F.2d 377, 381 (9th Cir. 1990), reversed on other grounds, 499 U.S. 585 (1991) (cleaned up); Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 9 (App. 2013).

See Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2013) (“To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must offer facts establishing a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2013), affirmed as clarified

There must also be a “causal nexus between the defendant’s forum contacts and the particular claims asserted[.]” Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 24 (App. 2013).

4 DANKO v. AMEIKA Decision of the Court of jurisdiction.” Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2013).

¶13 Specific jurisdiction requires “(1) purposeful conduct by the defendant targeting the forum, rather than accidental or casual contacts or those brought by the plaintiff’s unilateral acts, (2) a nexus between those contacts and the claims asserted, and (3) that exercise of jurisdiction would be reasonable.” Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 9 (App. 2013).

We review the superior court’s personal jurisdiction conclusions de novo, Beverage v. 3 DANKO v. WHITING Decision of the Court Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2013), “viewing the facts in the light most favorable to [Danko] but accepting as true the uncontradicted facts put forward by [Whiting],” Planning Grp.

We review the superior court’s personal jurisdiction conclusions de novo, Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2013), “viewing the facts in the light most favorable to [Danko] but accepting as true the uncontradicted facts put forward by [the Wainscotts],” Planning Grp.

Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (citing Plan.

Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (citation omitted).

Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2013), aff'd as modified

¶ 18 (App. 2005); see also Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 9 (App. 2013), aff’d as modified

Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, ¶ 8 (App. 2013) (aff’d as modified, ).

¶18 Henderson and Stevenson rely on Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, LLC, P.3d 71 (App. 2013) to argue that directing communication into the forum state is enough to establish specific jurisdiction.

No. CV-13-0170-PR Filed January 24, 2014 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable Colleen L. French, Judge No. CV2011-091442 REVERSED Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Division One P.3d 71 (2013) AFFIRMED COUNSEL: Leo R. Beus (argued), A. Erin McGuinness, and Abigail M. Terhune, Beus Gilbert, P.L.L.C., Phoenix, for Bill and Sue Beverage Don P. Martin (argued) and Michael S. Catlett, Quarles & Brady, L.L.P., Phoenix, for Pullman & Comley, L.L.C., and D. Rober