Atlantigas Corp. v. Nisource, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that contacts must be so continuous and systematic that they serve as notice of general jurisdiction to the nonresident defendant
• holding that lobbying activities conducted from an office in the District of Columbia “are precisely the type of activities protected by the government contacts exception and cannot serve as the basis for personal jurisdiction
• noting that normally a \plaintiff cannot aggregate factual allegations concerning multiple defendants in order to demonstrate personal jurisdiction over any individual defendant.\
• holding “[w]here there is no showing of how jurisdictional discovery would help plaintiff discover anything new, ‘it [is] inappropriate to subject [defendants] to the burden and expense of discovery.’ ”
• noting that normally a “plaintiff cannot aggregate factual allegations concerning multiple defendants in order to demonstrate personal jurisdiction over any individual defendant.”
• denying plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery “to confirm that the ... [defendants have customers in the District of Columbia or otherwise ‘transact business’ in the District of Columbia” because “such generalized predictions are not enough to justify jurisdictional discovery.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).