ETS argues in support of a finding of jurisdiction that, prior to the incorporation of Review in March, 1984, Katzman:
1) made two phone calls from New York to ETS in New Jersey relating to test administrations in the New York City area and the scores of individual Review students. (Contact 1)
2) wrote one letter from New York to ETS at its New Jersey address relating to test administrations in the New York city area and the scores of individual Review students. (Contact 2)
3) visited ETS' offices in New Jersey on November 10, 1982, to resolve issues related to the 1982 Achievement test incident. (Contact 3)
4) provided copies of secure test questions for distribution in New Jersey to Pre-Test in or before February, 1984. (Contact 4)
5) ordered 7,600 copies of various ETS tests from ETS' New Jersey headquarters. (Contact 5)
ETS further alleges that, since the incorporation of Review in March, 1984, Katzman:
1) attempted to take the SAT at Dwight-Englewood School in Englewood, New Jersey on January 26, 1986, in violation of the 1983 Agreement. (Contact 6)
2) personally helped to establish a New Jersey branch of Review subsequent to the filing of this action. (Contact 7)
3) telephoned ETS five times regarding test administrations in the New York City area and the scores of individual Review students. (Contact 8)
4) wrote four letters to ETS regarding test administrations in New York and the test scores of individual Review students. (Contact 9)
5) placed two orders for ETS materials.
6) in his alter ego of Review, solicited employees through advertisements in at least eight New Jersey newspapers in July, 1985 and posted a notice in the Princeton University Placement Office. (Contact 11)
7) in his alter ego of Review, advertised in February and August, 1985 in The New York Times, which has a weekday circulation of 130,000 copies in New Jersey.
ETS argues that this court should consider Katzman's contacts with New Jersey in his corporate capacity on two grounds. First, ETS argues that New Jersey law does not limit the reach of its courts for the purpose of asserting jurisdiction over corporate officers. Second, it argues that Katzman's total control of Review as its founder and sole owner, officer, director, and shareholder justify viewing Review and Katzman as the same for jurisdictional purposes. ETS contends that these twelve contacts taken together establish sufficient minimum contacts between Katzman and New Jersey so as to satisfy the due process concerns of fair play and substantial justice.
Alternatively, ETS argues that under Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S. Ct. 1482, 79 L. Ed. 2d 804 (1984), Katzman is subject to jurisdiction under an "effects test" because of what ETS characterizes as intentional conduct that Katzman knew would injure ETS in New Jersey. Jurisdiction is proper, ETS avers, because the brunt of the harm caused by Katzman was suffered in New Jersey.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has developed a two step analysis for determining whether jurisdiction may be asserted over a non-resident defendant:
The initial determination that must be made is whether the claim or cause of action which is being pursued arises from the defendant's forum related activities [citation omitted]. . . . If the claim pursued arises from forum related activity, the court must determine whether there are enough contacts with the forum arising out of that transaction in order to justify the assertion of jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant. . . . If the claim pursued arises from non-forum related activity, the plaintiff must demonstrate that in other respects the defendant has maintained 'continuous and substantial' forum affiliations [citations omitted]. Reliance Steel Products Co. v. Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas, 675 F.2d 587, 588 (3d Cir. 1982). (emphasis in original)