A judge analyzing a motion to dismiss for lack of territorial jurisdiction typically follows a structured, multi-step process guided by constitutional due process standards. First, the judge examines the plaintiff’s factual allegations and any evidence (like affidavits or contracts) to determine if the plaintiff made a prima facie case that jurisdiction exists, viewing disputed facts in the plaintiff’s favor. Next, the judge applies the state’s long-arm statute to assess whether the defendant’s in-state conduct falls within its scope. If so, the core "minimum contacts" test under the Due Process Clause is applied, evaluating whether the defendant purposefully directed activities toward the state such that they could reasonably expect to be sued there. Finally, the judge considers "fairness" factors—like the burden on the defendant, the forum state’s interest, and judicial efficiency—to decide if exercising jurisdiction would align with "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." If any step fails, the case is dismissed.
