Vapotherm, Inc. v. Santiago, 38 F.4th 252

Santiago, a Georgia resident, worked for Vapotherm (Delaware corp., principal place of business New Hampshire) from Jan 2016–Feb 2020 as an account/region manager focused on Georgia and Florida.
Before employment, Santiago signed a Confidentiality/Non‑Compete/Assignment agreement containing a one‑year post‑employment non‑solicit provision; the agreement had a Maryland choice‑of‑law clause but no forum‑selection clause.
After leaving Vapotherm, Santiago took a position at Vero Biotech; three former Vapotherm clinical managers (based in GA and FL) resigned and joined Vero. Vapotherm alleges Santiago solicited them in violation of the non‑solicit clause.
Vapotherm sued Santiago (and initially Vero) in the District of New Hampshire for breach of contract, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and sought equitable relief; limited jurisdictional discovery was conducted.
The district court granted Santiago’s challenge to personal jurisdiction and dismissed claims against him for lack of specific personal jurisdiction; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the claims "relate to" Santiago's contacts with NH (relatedness)	Santiago contracted with and worked for a NH‑based company; his breach/injury harmed a NH company, so claims arise from forum contacts	Santiago’s relevant acts (solicitation, employees, work) occurred in GA/FL; no conduct forming breach/tort occurred in NH	No — plaintiffs failed to show the contract formation or the solicitation tort arose out of Santiago’s NH contacts
Whether Santiago purposefully availed himself of NH law	By entering and performing a four‑year employment relationship with a NH company, Santiago should have foreseen being haled into NH courts	Santiago was recruited, worked primarily in GA/FL, had limited administrative contacts with NH, and lacked notice of forum governance (his contract cited Maryland law)	No — contacts were unilateral/insufficient; no purposeful availment shown
Whether exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable	NH has an interest in protecting its corporate residents; Santiago has litigated here before	The court need not reach reasonableness because minimum contacts absent	Not reached on the merits because minimum‑contacts analysis failed; dismissal affirmed

Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum‑contacts due process framework)
Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (relatedness requires a meaningful connection between forum contacts and the plaintiff's claim)
Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (limits relatedness for nonresident plaintiffs' claims)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (injury to a forum resident alone does not create jurisdictional contacts)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and foreseeability principles)
World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (foreseeability of being haled into court)
Adelson v. Hananel, 510 F.3d 43 (First Circuit standards on relatedness and purposeful availment)
Sawtelle v. Farrell, 70 F.3d 1381 (New Hampshire long‑arm construed to limits of due process)
Cossart v. United Excel Corp., 804 F.3d 13 (employment‑context relatedness can support jurisdiction where contract procured/performed in forum)
Phillips Exeter Acad. v. Howard Phillips Fund, 196 F.3d 284 (causal nexus analysis for tort/contract relatedness)