Page:Soma v. SCB.pdf/5

 Soma alleges it has made a prima facie showing of general and specific personal jurisdiction.


 * I. General Jurisdiction

As the Utah Supreme Court has stated, “[g]eneral personal jurisdiction permits a court to exercise power over a defendant without regard to the subject of the claim asserted. For such jurisdiction to exist, the defendant must be conducting substantial and continuous local activity in the forum state.” Arguello v. Woodworking Mach. Co., 838 P. 2d 1120, 1122 (Utah 1992); see also Harnischfeger Eng’rs, Inc. v. Uniflo Conveyor, Inc., 883 F. Supp. 608, 611–12 (D. Utah 1995); Buddensick v. Stateline Hotel, Inc., 972 P. 2d 928, 930–31 (Ut. Ct. App. 1998); cert. denied, 982 P. 2d 88 (Utah 1999), cert. denied, 68 U. S. L. W. 3079 (1999).

The Utah Court of Appeals recently observed that the following factors are relevant to the issue of whether general personal jurisdiction exists:
 * Whether the corporate defendant is
 * 1. engaged in business in this state;
 * 2. licensed to do business in this state;
 * 3. owning, leasing, or controlling property (real or personal) or assets in this state;
 * 4. maintaining employees, offices, agents, or bank accounts in this state;
 * 5. present in that shareholders reside in this state;
 * 6. maintaining phone or fax listings within this state;
 * 7. advertising or soliciting business in this state;