ORCP 4A (local presence or status) gives the court personal jurisdiction over “a natural person present within this state” or “domiciled within this state.” The court also has personal jurisdiction over an Oregon corporation, over a foreign corporation engaged in “substantial and not isolated activities within” Oregon, and over a foreign corporation that has expressly consented to the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is not usually an issue with natural persons, see, Haley v. Haley, 215 Or App 36, 43, 168 P3d 305 (2007), but you may need to know that ORCP 4A does not apply to inhabitant of federally recognized tribal reservations. North Pacific Ins. Co. v. Switzler, 143 Or App 223, 234, 924 P2d 839 (1996).
Most cases invoking ORCP 4A involve arguments about whether a corporation has “substantial” or “continuous and systematic” contacts with Oregon. Webformix, Inc. v. Airspan Networks, Inc., 2010 WL 5292588 (D. Or 2010) (unreported). ORCP 4 A does not confer personal jurisdiction on the basis of an isolated activity. Kotera v. Daioh Intern. U.S.A. Corp., 179 Or App 253, 264, 40 P3d 506 (2002). Maintaining a website accessible to anyone over the Internet is not enough to establish general jurisdiction. Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F3d 414, 419–20(9th Cir.1997). Advertising in national magazines plus two sales in Oregon were found insufficient to meet the jurisdictional requirements of ORCP 4 A(4) in Showalter v. Edwards and Associates, Inc., 112 Or App 472, 477, 831 P2d 58 (1992).