25. Should the court grant the manufacturer's motion to dismiss?

D is correct. The court should not grant the manufacturer's motion because by advertising and selling his goods in State A, the manufacturer targeted citizens of State A, amounting to purposefully availing himself of the benefits of conducting business within State A. Based on this activity, it was foreseeable to the manufacturer that he could be called into court to defend a lawsuit. Because he has established minimum contacts with State A, the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer and his motion should be denied.

A is incorrect. This choice is a misapplication of the law to the facts. A defendant may demonstrate minimum contacts under due process by conducting business within a state, even if he has never been physically present there. Here, because the manufacturer advertised and sold products within State A, he has the minimum contacts required for personal jurisdiction.

B is incorrect. The issue presented here is not about removal, but about personal jurisdiction. It is true that a defendant may file a notice of removal in the appropriate federal district court, if that court would otherwise have subject-matter jurisdiction. However, the manufacturer has not sought to remove this case, but rather, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. As an aside, a proper notice of removal must be filed in the appropriate federal district court, not state court.

C is incorrect. Although the court should not grant the manufacturer's motion, it is not because state courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Although this is a true statement of law, this answer choice is referring to subject-matter jurisdiction, and the manufacturer's motion to dismiss is a challenge to personal jurisdiction.