Page:Soma v. SCB.pdf/10

 "Any person… who in person or through an agent does any of the following enumerated acts, submits himself… to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any claim arising out of or related to:
 * (1) the transaction of any business within this state;
 * (2) contracting to supply services or goods in this state;
 * (3) the causing of any injury within this state whether tortious or by breach of warranty;"

Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-24. The legislature has declared that the long-arm statute must be interpreted broadly “so as to assert jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the fullest extent permitted by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” § 78-27-22; see also Starways, Inc. v. Curry, 980 P. 2d 204, 206 (Utah 1999) (“We have held that the Utah long-arm statute ‘must be extended to the fullest extent allowed by due process of law.’”) (quoting Synergetics v. Marathon Ranching Co., 701 P. 2d 1106, 1110 (Utah 1985)). The long-arm statute itself defines the transaction of business broadly, as “activities of a non-resident person, his agents, or representatives in this state which affect persons or businesses within the state of Utah.” Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-23.

The Utah Supreme Court has stated that it “frequently make[s] a due process analysis first because any set of circumstances that satisfies due process will also satisfy the long-arm statute.” SII MegadiamondMegaDiamond [sic], Inc. v. American Superabrasives Corp., 969 P.2d 430, 433 (Utah 1998); see also Far West Capital, Inc., 46 F. 3d at 1075 (proceeding directly to constitutional analysis).