AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Tsuta and Jerry Newton (Appellants) sought to establish personal jurisdiction over William Stuart Newton, Nila Newton, and Farmers Insurance Group (Appellees) in New Mexico. The Appellants argued that the Appellees had continuous contacts with New Mexico sufficient to establish general jurisdiction. However, the asserted tortious act causing the Appellants' injuries occurred in Texas.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued that personal jurisdiction over the Appellees could be established without strictly applying the specific requirements of the long-arm statute, based on the Appellees' continuous contacts with New Mexico (paras 2-3).
• Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction based on the assertion that the Appellees' continuous contacts with New Mexico were sufficient to establish general jurisdiction (para 1).
• Whether the injury occurring in Texas affects the jurisdictional claim in New Mexico despite the Appellees' alleged continuous contacts with the state (paras 4-5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order dismissing the case with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction (para 6).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with JONATHAN B. SUTIN and MICHAEL E. VIGIL concurring, the Court found that to establish personal jurisdiction over non-residents, a three-part test must be satisfied, which includes the necessity of the defendant's act being one of the five enumerated in the long-arm statute, the plaintiff's cause of action arising from the act, and establishing minimum contacts sufficient to satisfy due process (para 3). The Court noted that the due process of minimum contacts test applies to defendants over whom jurisdiction can be obtained because of their transaction of business in the state. However, since the asserted tortious act occurred in Texas, the Appellees' minimum contacts with New Mexico were deemed immaterial for jurisdictional purposes under these circumstances (paras 4-5).