MEMORANDUM OPINION
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. A hearing was held on such motions on Wednesday, April 9, 2003. Defendants assert that they have insufficient contacts with the Virgin Islands for the Court to exercise in per-sonam jurisdiction under the Virgin Island long-arm statute, 5 V.I.C. § 4903 or the due prоcess clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1
I. The Breadth of the Virgin Islands Long-Arm Statute
The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant must comport both with the Virgin Islands long-arm statute and the due process clause. If the reach of the Virgin Islands long-arm statute is coextensive with the reach under the due proсess clause, then this collapses into a single inquiry: does jurisdiction satisfy due process?
See IMO Industries, Inc. v. Kiekert AG,
The Virgin Islands long-arm statute, which was аdopted from Article I of the Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act of 1962 (hereinafter “Uniform Act”) (withdrawn from recommendation *535 for enactment by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1977 due to it being obsolete) provides in relevant part:
(a) A сourt may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a claim for relief arising from the person’s
(1) transacting any business in this territory;
(2) contracting to supply services or things in this territory;
(3) causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this territory;
(4) causing tortious injury in this territory by an act or оmission outside this territory if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in this territory;
(5) having an interest in, using, or possessing real [*8] property in this territory; or
(6) contraсting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this territory at the time of contracting.
(7) causing a woman to conceive a child, or conceiving or giving birth to a child; or
(8) abandoning a minor in this Territory.
(b) When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a claim for relief arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against him.
5Y.I.C. § 4903(1997).
Arkansas, District of Columbia, Oklahoma, and Massachusetts are other jurisdictions that adopted their long-arm statutes from Article I of the Uniform Act. In interpreting Arkansas’ long-arm statute, the Supreme Court of Arkansas held that “the purpose of thе Uniform Act was to expand the state’s personal jurisdiction over nonresidents, within the limits permitted by due process of law.”
Nix v. Dunavant,
Congress, by adopting Article I of the Uniform Act, intended the District of Columbia’s long-arm statute “to be coextensive in reach with the exercise of personal jurisdiction permitted by the due process clause.”
Shoppers Food Warehouse v. Moreno,
Because other jurisdictions that have adopted Article I of the Uniform Act, have held that their long-arm statutes extend personal jurisdictiоn to its constitutional limits, and because by adopting Article I, the Legislature probably intended the Virgin Islands’ long-arm statute to have such reach, the Court holds that the Virgin Islands’ long-arm statute is coextensive with the maximum perimeters of the due process clause. Thus, the single question that the Court must answer in this case is whether its exercise of person *536 al jurisdiction over the Defendants violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
II. Jurisdictional Facts
Whether the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant involves an examination of the facts, as establishеd by competent evidence.
Time Share Vacation Club v. Atlantic Resorts, Ltd.,
TAB sent solicitations to attorneys throughout the United States, including the Virgin Islands. Attorney Lee J. Rohn of the Virgin Islands respоnded to such a solicitation around 1993 and inquired about using TAB’s services. Former TAB president, Joseph J. Gentile, II traveled to the Virgin Islands to meet with Attorney Rohn.
TAB has been providing its services— expert witnesses for civil litigation—to Attorney Rohn on a consistent basis since the 1993 meeting. TAB has provided serviсes in at least ten of Attorney Rohn’s cases. TAB has also provided services to four other Virgin Islands’ attorneys.
Defendant Joseph Gentile, III, became president of TAB upon his father’s retirement. He has never been to the Virgin Islands and owns no property in the Virgin Islands. Gentile, III has had several telephone conversations with Attorney Rohn.
Plaintiff alleges that she entered into an agreement, through Attorney Rohn, for TAB to provide her with an expert witness in her malpractice case. TAB engaged Dr. Kenneth Fawcett to provide Plaintiff with his expert report and to appear at trial. Before trial, Dr. Fawcett notified Plaintiff that he was no longer acting as an expert for TAB. Plaintiff, through Attorney Rohn, wrote to Gentile, III, requesting an explanation or assistance in getting Dr. Fawcett to keep his agreement. When Plaintiff received no response, Attorney Rоhn telephoned Gentile, III. According to Attorney Rohn, Gentile, III, “cavalierly said he couldn’t do anything about it, didn’t care and hung up the phone.” Complaint, ¶ 13.
III. Due Process Analysis
A. Whether this Court has Personal Jurisdiction over Defendant TAB
The fact that TAB is not physically present in the Virgin Islands does not preclude this Court from exercising jurisdiction over it. See
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.
462, 476,
The Court may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant when, as here, the plaintiffs cause of action is related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum.
See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia,
S.A.
v. Hall,
First, the plaintiff must show that the defendant has constitutionally sufficient “minimum сontacts” with the forum. Second, for jurisdiction to be exercised the court must determine, in its discretion, that to do so would comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
IMO Industries, Inc. v. Kiekert AG,
Plaintiffs action arises out of and relates to her counsel’s business relationship with TAB and to a contract between her counsel and TAB for TAB to supply her counsel with the service of an expert witness in Plaintiffs case — the contract that Plaintiff charges TAB with breaching. “The fact that a non-resident has contracted with a resident of the forum state is not, by itself, sufficient to justify personal jurisdictiоn over the nonresident. The requisite contacts, however, may be supplied by the terms of the agreement, the place and character of prior negotiations, contemplated future consequences, or the course of dealings between the parties.”
Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, Nat. Ass’n v. Farino,
Here, there is more than just an isolated contract between Plaintiffs counsel and TAB regarding services for Plaintiffs case. TAB initiated a business relationship with Plaintiffs counsel through a mail solicitation. It sent its former president to the Virgin Islands to establish a business relationship with Plaintiffs counsel. As a result of TAB’s contacting Plaintiffs counsel, TAB has been doing business with Plaintiffs counsel for a number of years. In furtherance of its agreement to provide Plaintiff with the services of an expert witness, TAB has corresponded with Plaintiffs counsel, provided Plaintiff with an expert report, and billed Plaintiffs counsel for such service.
“[W]here the defendant deliberately has engaged in significant activities within a State, or has created continuing obligations between himself and residents of the forum, he manifestly has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there, and because his activities are shielded by the benefits and protections of the fоrum’s laws it is presumptively not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum as well.”
Burger King Corp.,
It is not enough that TAB has minimum contacts with the Virgin Islands; the exercise of personal jurisdiction must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Pennzoil Products Co.,
Fairness factors include: the burden on the defendant, the forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiffs interest in obtaining сonvenient and effective relief, the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.
Id. at 205-06 (quotation omitted).
The burden is squarely on TAB to show that the assertion of jurisdiction wоuld be
*538
improper.
Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, Nat. Ass’n,
The Virgin Islands, like every other jurisdiction, “has a manifest interest in providing its residents with a convenient forum for redressing injuries inflicted by out-of-state actors.”
Burger King Corp.,
B. Whether this Court has Personal Jurisdiction over Gentile, III
As a general rule when a defendant’s contacts with a jurisdiction occur only in the defendant’s cоrporate capacity, there is no basis upon which the defendant can be subject to jurisdiction as an individual.
See, e.g., D & S Screen Fund II v. Ferrari,
Plaintiffs Complaint sounds in contract, not tоrt. Plaintiff does not specifically allege that Gentile III committed any tortious acts in his capacity as president of TAB or individually. Plaintiff has presented no argument or evidence that would warrant piercing the corporate veil. Thus, no exception applies to the rulе that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant when the defendant’s contacts with the jurisdiction occur only in the defendant’s corporate capacity. Accordingly, *539 the Court finds that it has no personal jurisdiction over Defendant Gentile, III.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasоns, the Court holds that the reach of the Virgin Islands’ long-arm statute is coextensive with the maximum reach of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court finds that its exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Defendant Technical Assistance Bureau, Inc. does not violate the due process clause, but that its exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant Joseph Gentile, III would violate Defendant Gentile, Ill’s right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss for lack of personаl jurisdiction. A hearing was held on such motions on Wednesday, April 9, 2003. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant Joseph J. Gentile, Ill’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Docket Item 69, is GRANTED; and Defendant Technical Assistance Bureau, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Docket Item 71, is DENIED.
Notes
. This amendment is incorporated by reference in the Bill of Rights of the United States Virgin Islands, 1 V.I.C. § 3.