holding that the “fact that [the contracts at issue between a Taiwanese and New Jersey company] were for a one-time purchase of equipment that was to be shipped to Taiwan and were solicited and negotiated through the Taiwanese agents of the U.S. vendors seem[ed] . . . to negate any inference of ‘purposeful availment’”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the “fact that [the contracts at issue between a Taiwanese and New Jersey company] were for a one-time purchase of equipment that was to be shipped to Taiwan and were solicited and negotiated through the Taiwanese agents of the U.S. vendors seem[ed] . . . to negate any inference of ‘purposeful availment’”
- holding that the existence of one-time purchase contracts with United States companies and correspondence surrounding those contracts did not show that the foreign defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum, especially where the transaction itself had predominant roots in Taiwan
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALITO, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
Except with respect to the comments below, writing separately in this case would not serve a useful purpose. I do not join part IIIB of the opinion of the Court. Both FCFC and JOC merely mentioned the choice-of-law issue in passing in their briefs. See FCFC Br. At 41, 50 n. 7; JOC Br. At 17. “ ‘[A] passing reference to an issue ... will not suffice to bring that issue before this Court.’ ” Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am. v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir.1994) (citation omitted) (ellipsis in original). I would hold that no choice-of-law issue is properly before the Court in this appeal. Without full briefing from the parties, I am unwilling to join the Court’s novel application of New Jersey choice-of-law principles.