As a threshold issue, although Capital's telemarketing activities may be imputed to EBF, the parties' agency relationship, with nothing more, is not sufficient to subject EBF to the Court's specific jurisdiction: "[t]he mere fact that a principal-agent relationship exists does not confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident principal." Scott v. Lackey, No. 02-1586, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4350, at *35 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2010) (citation omitted); see also Rychel v. Yates, No. 09-1514, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38824, at *38 (W.D. Pa. April 11, 2011); Alcoa Inc. v. Alcan Inc., No. 06-451, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51565, at *8 (D. Del. July 17, 2007); Myelle v. Am. Cyanamid Co., No. 92-5243, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3977, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 1, 1993); Applied Biosystems, Inc. v. Cruachem, Ltd., 772 F. Supp. 1458, 1464 (D. Del. 1991). Rather, Plaintiff, in order to satisfy his jurisdictional burden, must demonstrate that EBF purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in the forum state of New Jersey through the actions of its agent, i.e., Capital.
Furthermore, "regulatory filings present[ing] the assets, liabilities, and financial earnings of its subsidiaries as one indistinguishable whole" do not prove agency. Alcoa, Inc. v. Alcan, Inc. , 495 F.Supp.2d 459, 462 (D. Del. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). For the same reasons, Nestlé setting the corporate policies and procedures for all subsidiaries is not sufficient evidence of agency.
See Nottingham v. Gen. Amer. Commc'ns Corp., 811 F.2d 873, 880 (5th Cir. 1987) ("Rule 19 does not require joinder of persons against whom [defendants] have a claim for contribution."); Rochester Methodist Hosp. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 728 F.2d 1006, 1016 (8th Cir. 1984) (rejecting argument that party was necessary based on duty to indemnify: "[c]omplete relief can be granted as between [the plaintiff and defendant] without the presence of [the indemnitor]"); Alcoa Inc. v. ALcan Inc., 495 F. Supp. 2d 459, 465 (D. Del. 2007) (rejecting argument that city was necessary party to action determining liability for city-ordered remediation costs, explaining that underlying remediation order would not be called into question); Babb v. Mid-America Auto Exch., Inc., No. 06-2230-CM, 2006 WL 2714273, at * 2 (D. Kan. Sept. 22, 2006) ("[A] defendant's potential right to contribution or indemnification from an absentee does not make the absentee necessary under [r]ule 19." (citing 4 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 19.06(2) (3d ed. 1997))).