Page:Soma v. SCB.pdf/4

 With discovery completed, the district court ruled on SCB’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that, under Utah law, it had neither general nor specific jurisdiction over SCB. We agree.

“To obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a diversity action, a plaintiff must show that jurisdiction is legitimate under the laws of the forum state and that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Far West Capital, Inc. v. Towne, 46 F. 3d 1071, 1074 (10th Cir. 1995). Thus, Utah law governs the exercise of personal jurisdiction over SCB. Soma, as the plaintiff, “‘bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant.’” OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F. 3d 1086, 1091 (10th Cir. 1998) (quoting Rambo v. American Southern Ins. Co., 839 F. 2d 1415, 1417 (10th Cir. 1988)). When, as in this case, a district court grants a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without conducting an evidentiary hearing, “the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction to defeat the motion.” Id. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Trierweiler v. Croxton & Trench Holding Corp., 90 F. 3d 1523, 1533 (10th Cir. 1996).