This rule sets out five bases for jurisdiction, generally paraphrased as:
- A promise, to plaintiff or for his benefit, to perform services within Oregon, or to pay for such services performed by plaintiff;
- Services actually performed in Oregon by one party for another;
- A promise, to plaintiff or for his benefit, to deliver or receive goods, documents of title, or “other things of value” in Oregon;
- An action relating to goods, documents of title, or “other things of value” sent from Oregon by defendant to plaintiff at plaintiff’s order or direction;
- An action relating to goods, documents of title, or “other things of value” actually received in Oregon by plaintiff from defendant.
Purchasing an item from a third party, at defendant’s suggestion, is not a basis for personal jurisdiction under this rule. Webformix, Inc. v. Airspan Networks, Inc., 2010 WL 5292588, *3 (D. Or 2010) (unreported). A license covering the use of certain rights is a “thing of value” under this rule. Nike, Inc. v. Lombardi, 732 F Supp2d 1146, 1152 (D. Or 2010). And, ORCP 4 E(3) applies to an out-of-state trustee’s promise to make distributions to a beneficiary within Oregon. Dreher v. Smithson, 162 Or App 645, 650, 986 P2d 721 (1999).
As with the other ORCP 4 subsections, if ORCP 4E is found to apply to the transaction between the parties, the court must still “inquire whether that transaction presents sufficient contacts with Oregon that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Boehm & Co. v. Environmental Concepts, Inc., 125 Or App 249, 253, 865 P2d 413 (1993).