Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bell v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A., 986 S.W.2d 550, 554 (Tenn. 1999); United Agric. Servs., Inc. v. Scherer, 17 S.W.3d 252, 255 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1999); Chase Cavett Servs., Inc. v. Brandon Apparel Group, Inc., No. 02A01-9803-CH-00055, 1998 WL 846708, at *1 (Tenn.Ct.App. Dec. 7, 1998). The plaintiff in an action bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case that exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant is proper.

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Still N The Water Publishing, 327 F.3d 472, 477 (6th Cir. 2003); Third Nat'l Bank, 882 F.2d at 1089; Chenault, 36 S.W.3d at 52-53; United Agric. Serv., Inc. v. Scherer, 17 S.W.3d 252, 256 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2000);Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moore, 645 S.W.2d 242, 245 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1981). The Plaintiff must show that the Defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with the forum such that "the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"

1985); see also W .B. D unavant Co. v. Perkins, 498 S.W.2d 905, 909 (Tenn. 1973); United Agric.Servs., Inc. v. Scherer, 17 S.W.3d 252, 256 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1999); Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moore, 645 S.W.2d 242, 246 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1981). Although the statement from the Masada court was obiter dictum, the principle behind the statement has been widely accepted.

Courts recognize two types of personal jurisdiction: general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. United Agricultural Services, Inc. v. Scherer, 17 S.W.3d 252, 256 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1999). When a state exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a lawsuit not arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum, the state is exercising general jurisdiction over the defendant.

"When a state exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a lawsuit not arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum, the state is exercising general jurisdiction over the defendant." Law Offices of Hugo Harmatz v. Dorrough, 182 S.W.3d 326, 330 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom., S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 9 (1984); United Agric. Servs., Inc. v. Scherer, 17 S.W.3d 252, 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)). "For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction of a general nature over a nonresident defendant, the proof must show that the defendant maintains 'continuous and systematic' contacts with the foreign state."

"For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction of a general nature over a nonresident defendant, the proof must show that the defendant maintains 'continuous and systematic' contacts with the foreign state." Law Offices of Hugo Harmatz v. Dorrough, 182 S.W.3d 326, 330 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citing United Agricultural Services, Inc. v. Scherer, 17 S.W.3d 252, 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 317). "[I]n the absence of general jurisdiction resulting from continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state, specific personal jurisdiction exists when a commercial actor purposely directs his activities toward citizens of the forum state and litigation results from injuries arising out of or relating to those activities."

However, a defendant's physical presence in the forum state is not required to conduct business there. Masada, 697 S.W.2d at 334. In United Agric. Svcs., Inc. v. Scherer, 17 S.W.3d 252, 254 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1999), United Agricultural Services, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, provided environmental inspection services at the request of a mortgage company processing a loan guaranteed by Mr. Scherer to buy some property in Michigan. Id. at 259.

1981). In United Agricultural Services v. Scherer, 17 S.W.3d 252 (Tenn.App. 1999), the Tennessee Court of Appeals refined the Mohasco test into five parts: The Moore court noted that three primary factors are to be considered in determining whether the requisite minimum contacts were present: the quantity of the contacts, their nature and quality, and the course and connection of the cause of action with those contacts.

The burden to establish the jurisdiction of the Court is on the Plaintiff. Third Nat'l Bank v. Wedge Group Inc., 882 F.2d 1087, 1089 (6th Cir. 1989). Tennessee courts exercise personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Still N The Water Publ'g, 327 F.3d 472, 477 (6th Cir. 2003);Third Nat'l Bank, 882 F.2d at 1089; United Agric. Serv., Inc. v. Scherer, 17 S.W.3d 252, 256 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2000); Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moore, 645 S.W.2d 242, 245 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1981). Nevertheless, Plaintiff must show that the Defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with the forum such that "the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Still N The Water Publishing, 327 F.3d 472, 477 (6th Cir. 2003); Third Nat'l Bank, 882 F.2d at 1089; Chenault, 36 S.W.3d at 52-53; United Agric. Serv., Inc. v. Scherer, 17 S.W.3d 252, 256 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2000). The Plaintiffs must show that the Defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with the forum such that "the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"