Plaintiff-Appellant Vermeulen appeals the district court’s order dismissing Defendant-Appellee Regie Nationale Des Usines Renault (“RNUR”) from plaintiff’s product liability suit for lack of personal jurisdiction under the Georgia long-arm statute. Because we do not find Georgia’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over RNUR to be inconsistent either with Georgia law or with the Due Process Clause of the Four
I.BACKGROUND
In January 1988, the appellant purchased a 1982 Renault LeCar from her brother. At the time of the purchase, both seller and buyer were residents of North Carolina. Appellant subsequently moved to Georgia. On February 16, 1988, she suffered an accident on State Route 316, near Law-renceville, Georgia, sustaining a spinal injury that has left her quadriplegic.
On April 18, 1989, contending that her injuries were the result of the negligent manufacture and design of the LeCar’s passenger restraint system, appellant filed suit in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, against RNUR, the French manufacturer and designer of the subject vehicle; Renault, U.S.A., RNUR’s wholly owned American subsidiary;
In an order dated November 19,1990, the district court granted RNUR’s motion to dismiss without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the issue, Vermeulen v. Renault U.S.A., Inc., et al., No. 1:89-cv-1042-HTW (N.D.Ga. November 19, 1990) (hereinafter “November 19 Order”), holding that Georgia’s exercise of jurisdiction over RNUR was inconsistent both with the Georgia long-arm statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91, and with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on January 15, 1991, stating that its dismissal of RNUR from plaintiff’s suit was based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County,
II.STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the district court’s dismissal for lack of in personam jurisdiction de novo. Olivier v. Merritt Dredging Co., Inc.,
III.FACTS RELATING TO JURISDICTION
RNUR, the manufacturer and designer of appellant’s 1982 LeCar, is a French corporation, wholly owned by the French government. It is undisputed that RNUR (1) has never been a corporation organized or existing under the laws of the State of Georgia; (2) has never been registered as a foreign corporation doing business in Georgia; (3) has never appointed any agent to act for it or to accept service of process in Georgia; (4) has never owned real estate or personal property located in Georgia; (5)
A. The Agreements Between RNUR and AMC/AMSC
In 1979, RNUR entered into a series of commercial agreements with AMC and its wholly owned subsidiary, AMSC, pursuant to which AMSC agreed to act as the exclusive marketer and distributor of Renault automobiles in the United States.
Although the distribution agreement indicated that AMSC would take full responsibility for marketing and distributing Renault vehicles in the United States, id. at 4, the parties contemplated that Renault would be fully involved in decisions affecting the sales of its product. AMSC covenanted to “use its best efforts to carry out the Market Representation Plan.” Id. at 6. This plan, not itself part of the record but referenced and defined in the Distributor’s Agreement, was a “mutually agreed upon plan, initialled on behalf of the parties [to the Distributor Agreement], for the franchising of Dealers to sell Renault products within the [United States].” Id. at 3.
The Distributor’s Agreement also provided that “Renault may from time to time advise [AMSC] of suggested retail prices for Renault vehicles.” Id. at 6. Further, the Built-Up Sales Agreement indicated that “[t]he estimated quantities of Renault Products to be purchased and sold hereunder during any Contract Year shall be mutually agreed.” R3-34-Ex. B, p. 2.
Although the Distributor Agreement provided that AMSC would take responsibility for maintaining “a sufficient number of trained and competent personnel” and for instructing such personnel concerning the preparation, servicing and repair of Renault products, it also stated that RNUR would “use its best efforts to provide [AMSC] with suitable assistance in connection with [such] training and instruction responsibilities.” R3-34-Ex.A, pp. 7-8.
Article VII of the Distributor Agreement contemplated that AMSC would maintain responsibility for “determining assortments, minimum quantities, geographical distribution and other matters relating to” parts and accessories offered for sale by Renault pursuant to the Sales Agreements entered into by the parties. The Distributor’s Agreement provided, however, that AMSC would “discuss such matters with Renault and give serious consideration to Renault’s recommendations.” Id. at 8.
Article IX of the Agreement stated that AMSC “shall print such business forms, bearing Renault trademarks and Renault trade names, for exclusive use in its ‘Re
Under Article X of the Agreement, Renault retained the full and exclusive right to and ownership of the “Renault” trademark. The Agreement provided that “[a]ny particular use of any [Renault] trademark which, in the sole judgment of Renault, is inconsistent with the image or goodwill of Renault or its business, advertising or public relations policies, will be discontinued immediately after the same comes to the attention of Renault if Renault so notifies [AMSC].” Id. at 11.
Although Article XI of the Agreement provided that AMSC would retain full and exclusive responsibility for advertising, promoting and merchandising Renault products, AMSC covenanted to “work closely with Renault in the planning and developing of themes and strategy and the related budget”; to “build upon the Renault name and image as the manufacturer and designer of outstanding small cars”; and to “verify the technical content of any representation concerning Renault Products.” Id. at 12. Article XI continued:
[AMSC] shall not publish or permit to be published any advertising material relating to Renault Products which is likely to mislead or deceive the public or to impair the image or good will of Renault or the reputation of Renault Products. If Renault notifies [AMSC] that any advertising is injurious to Renault’s business, or is likely to mislead or deceive the public, or is at variance with the business, advertising or public relations policies of Renault, or is likely to impair the image or good will of Renault, [AMSC] agrees to discontinue immediately any such advertising.
Id. at 13.
In Article XII, AMSC agreed to appoint AMC/Renault dealers in accordance with the Market Representation Plan, discussed supra at 6, and undertook to “use its best efforts to assure that Dealers will comply with all sales and service manuals that Renault may from time to time issue relating to the sale and servicing of Renault Products and other matters covered by this Agreement or the Dealer Franchises.” Id. at 14. Article XII also stated that “[A]ny dealership or dealerships operated by [AMSC] for the sale of Renault Products at retail shall at all times satisfy the standards for Renault dealerships prescribed by this Agreement, the Dealer Franchises and the sales and service manuals that Renault may issue from time to time relating to Dealers.” Id. AMSC was responsible for the actual appointment, training and termination of such dealers. Id. at 13.
Under Article XIII, Renault warranted its products to AMSC. Id. at 14. Although AMSC warranted the product to the ultimate consumer, Renault covenanted to reimburse AMSC “for warranty work performed by [AMSC] itself or by Dealers within [the United States] with respect to Renault vehicles sold therein.” Id. at 15. Article XIII also provided that RNUR would hold harmless and indemnify AMSC against any judgment resulting from lawsuits commenced against AMSC seeking damages for alleged design or other defects in Renault products, and permitted Renault to take over the defense of any such lawsuit if Renault so chose. Id. at 17-18.
Article XV of the Agreement required AMSC to provide RNUR on a regular basis with certain reports and records pertaining to the distribution of Renault products. AMSC was required to provide Renault with (1) a monthly written analysis of its inventories of Renault products; (2) thrice-monthly reports of the then-current dealer stocks of Renault vehicles and the sales of Renault vehicles during the preceding 10-day period; (3) a quarterly report of all Dealer Franchise Agreements entered into
Finally, Article XVI of the Agreement stated explicitly that “[t]his Agreement does not constitute [AMSC] the agent or legal representative of Renault for any purpose whatsoever.” Id. at 29.
The Master Agreement between Renault and AMC, R3-34-Ex. E, also contained certain provisions relevant to the new distribution arrangements between RNUR and AMC/AMSC. Prior to 1979, Renault U.S.A., RNUR’s wholly-owned American subsidiary, had acted as RNUR’s distributor in the United States. Under Section 4(c) of the Master Agreement, Renault agreed to cause Renault U.S.A. to transfer all its capital stock in several of the latter’s distribution subsidiaries to AMC, and to cause Renault U.S.A. to sell to AMC certain inventories held by those subsidiaries or by Renault U.S.A. itself. R3-34-Ex. E, pp. 10-11.
Section 4(e) of the Agreement created a “Policy Committee” consisting of equal numbers of “senior executives” from each company. This committee was charged with the responsibility “for reviewing the matters contemplated by this Agreement, and for recommending solutions to policy conflicts that may arise between them in connection therewith.” Id. at 15. Section 4(e) also stated that “no decision shall be taken by either party with respect to the image or product positioning of the products of either party except by mutual agreement.” Id.
B. Implementation of The Agreements Between RNUR and AMC/AMSC
Implementation of the new alliance between RNUR and AMC/AMSC took many forms. First, through a number of financial agreements, RNUR invested significant amounts of capital into AMC. Between the years 1979 and 1984, RNUR committed $545,100,000.00 to AMC through various stock, warrant and debenture purchases. R2-27-Ex. 6, p. 28.
Third, RNUR also reimbursed AMC for launch costs, marketing and other operating programs in the amounts of more than $6 million in 1980, more than $22 million in 1981, more than $91 million in 1982, and more than $28 million in 1983. R2-27-Ex. 4, p. 21; -Ex. 5, p. 26.
Throughout this time period, RNUR maintained several seats on the AMC Board of Directors, although not on the AMSC Board. See, e.g., R2-27~Ex. 2, p. 47; -Ex. 3, p. 40; and -Ex. 4, p. 30. Further, Renault U.S.A. or RNUR would send its executives to work in key positions in AMC or AMSC. Deposition of Richard Willman, at p. 15. Renault U.S.A. leased these employees to AMC, but retained them on its own account. Id. at 18.
The actual process of sale and resale of Renault vehicles in the United States took the following course: as noted supra, AMSC purchased the Renault vehicles in France and exported them to the United States; the decision as to where in the United States to send the Renault vehicles rested with AMSC. Rl-23-Ex. A. Renault officials met several times yearly, and engaged in frequent conversations by phone, with representatives from AMC/ AMSC regarding the production, distribution and promotion of Renault vehicles. Deposition of Richard Everett, pp. 16, 20. During these meetings, the participants from both companies exchanged ideas regarding volume forecasts, monthly projections for orders, changes in vehicle specifications and marketing strategies. Id. at 21, 24. This exchange of ideas resulted in modifications of Renault vehicles designed to accommodate the American market. Id. at 45-47, RNUR built those vehicles bound for the United States in conformance with the federal regulations governing automobile production in this country. Id. at 17. RNUR was aware of the number of Renault dealerships in the United States; RNUR officials from time to time toured these dealerships. Id. at 35. There is no evidence as to whether or not RNUR officials visited any of the six Renault dealerships in Georgia. There is also no evidence that either RNÜR or AMC directed any advertising specifically toward Georgia.
C. Results of the Distribution Arrangement Between RNUR and AMC
As of December 1980, there were 1302 Renault franchised dealers in the United States, six of which, as mentioned supra, were located in Georgia. R2-27-Ex. 2, p. 3.
RNUR profited immensely from its alliance with AMC/AMSC. In 1980, RNUR led all auto manufacturers in import sales improvement with a 34% increase over 1979 volume. R2-27-Ex. 2, p. 3. RNUR led in the same category in 1981, increasing its import sales 22% over 1980 volume. R2-27-Ex. 3, p. 2. Renault sold more than 37,000 vehicles to AMSC in both 1980 and 1981, more than 50,000 vehicles in 1982, and more than 40,000 vehicles in 1983, earning over $1.3 billion dollars as a result of purchases of Renault cars, components and service parts during that four-year period. R2-27-Ex. 4, p. 21; -Ex. 5, p. 26. Sales of LeCars comprised a large percentage of these import sales. See, e.g., R2-27-Ex. 3, p. 8. In 1984, the United States was the largest market for Renault sales outside of France. R2-27-Ex. 6, p. 14.
IV. ANALYSIS
In a diversity action, a federal court may assert jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only to the extent permitted by the long-arm statute of the forum State, and only if the exercise of jurisdiction comports with the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Morris,
A. The Georgia Long-Arm Statute
Both the Georgia courts and federal courts applying Georgia law have construed the Georgia long-arm statute, O.G.C.A. § 9-10-91, to confer jurisdiction to the maximum extent allowable under due process. First United Bank of Mississippi v. First National Bank of Atlanta,
B. Due Process
A defendant is amenable to a forum’s specific jurisdiction if (1) it possesses sufficient minimum contacts with the forum State to satisfy due process requirements, and (2) the forum’s exercise of jurisdiction comports with “ ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
i. Minimum Contacts
To trigger specific jurisdiction, the defendant’s minimum contacts must satisfy three criteria. First, the contacts must be related to the plaintiff’s cause of action or have given rise to it. Burger King,
In recent years, the Supreme Court has grappled with this issue through its consideration of the so-called “stream of commerce” theory of personal jurisdiction. In
The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that “ ‘foreseeability’ alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 295,
[I]f the sale of a product or manufacturer or distributor such as Audi or Volkswagen is not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to serve directly or indirectly, the market for its product in other States, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of those States' if its allegedly defective merchandise has been the source of injury to its owner or to others. The forum State does not exceed its powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State.
Id. at 297-98,
The Court concluded that the defendants in World-Wide Volkswagen, New York corporations without any association with the Oklahoma market, had not delivered their products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they would be purchased in Oklahoma. Thus, the Court held that the “stream of commerce” analysis did not furnish a basis for Oklahoma’s exercise of jurisdiction over the defendants.
In Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court,
In a plurality opinion authored by Justice O’Connor, four justices concluded that As-ahi did not possess sufficient minimum contacts with California to permit California’s exercise of jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. The plurality determined that minimum contacts did not exist where “the defendant acted by placing a product in the stream of commerce, and the stream eventually swept defendant’s product into the forum state, but the defendant did nothing else to purposefully avail itself of the market in the forum State.” Asahi,
The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State. Additional conduct of the defendant may indi*756 cate an intent to serve the market in the forum State, for example, designing the product for the market in the forum State, advertising in the forum State, establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum State, or marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State.
Id. at 112,
The plurality also concluded that California’s exercise of jurisdiction over Asahi in this case did not comport with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,” and that therefore, regardless of whether Asahi possessed minimum contacts with California, the State’s exercise of jurisdiction over Asahi violated due process. Id. at 113-116,
Justice Brennan, although concurring in the plurality's holding that California’s exercise of jurisdiction did not comport with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” and therefore violated due process, did not join the plurality’s holding that Asahi did not possess minimum contacts with California.
[A]s long as a participant in [this flow of products] is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise. Nor will the litigation present a burden for which there is no corresponding benefit. A defendant who has placed goods in the stream of commerce benefits economically from the retail sale of the final product in the forum State and indirectly benefits from the State’s laws that regulate and facilitate commercial activity.
Id. at 117,
Finally, Justice Stevens, although concurring in the judgment, also declined to join the plurality’s holding regarding minimum contacts on the grounds that that discussion was unnecessary given the plurality’s decision regarding the “fair play and substantial justice” prong of the due process analysis.
As is evident from the foregoing discussion, the current state of the law regarding personal jurisdiction is unsettled. Because, however, Georgia’s exercise of jurisdiction over RNUR in this case is consistent with due process under the more stringent “stream of commerce plus” analysis adopted by the Asahi plurality, we need not determine which standard actually con
Before considering the “stream of commerce plus” analysis in the context of this case, we must address certain issues raised by the appellees that, in our opinion, are irrelevant to our jurisdictional inquiry.
First, the fact that title to the Renault vehicles passed to AMSC in France rather than in the United States in no way determines the degree of contacts between Georgia and RNUR; “ ‘ [i]f International Shoe stands for anything ..., it is that a truly interstate business may not shield itself from suit by a careful but formalistic structuring of its business dealings.’ ” Benitez-Allende v. Alcan Alumino Do Brasil, S.A.,
Second, the fact that RNUR did not maintain a physical presence in Georgia is also irrelevant to a determination of whether minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum State. Burger King v. Rudzewicz,
Third, the appellee argues, and the district court held, that no “alter ego” relationship existed between RNUR and AMSC, and that, consequently, RNUR cannot be said to have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Georgia as a result of the activities of AMSC there. November 19 Order at 10. Although we agree that (1) no “alter ego” relationship existed between AMSC and RNUR, and that (2) to impute the actions of the former to the latter would therefore be improper, the fact that no alter ego relationship existed between the two entities does not mean that RNUR could not possess minimum contacts with Georgia as a result of its own independent role in the process that brought the appellant’s 1982 Renault LeCar to the United States. The question is not whether the contacts between AMSC and Georgia establish minimum contacts between Georgia and RNUR, but rather whether RNUR, by virtue of its relationship with AMSC, purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Georgia such that it could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. That RNUR did not exercise sufficient control over AMSC to establish an alter ego relationship does not necessarily mean that it had insufficient contacts with Georgia as a result of its own actions and its participation in the decisions that resulted in AMSC presence and activity in Georgia. See Warren v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.,
As noted supra, Justice O’Connor stated in Asahi that “the placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State.” Asahi,
The remaining question under the Asahi plurality’s analysis is whether RNUR engaged in any additional conduct such that it could be said to have “purposefully availed” itself of the privilege of conducting business in Georgia. We hold that RNUR did engage in such activity under the standards announced by the Asahi plurality.
First, RNUR designed the Renault Le-Car for the market in the forum State. Asahi,
Second, RNUR advertised its product in the forum State. Asahi,
RNUR contends that, to the extent its vehicles were advertised in the United States, AMSC, not RNUR, was exclusively responsible for such advertising. The record does not support this contention. Article XI of the Distributor’s Agreement does state that AMSC would have full and exclusive responsibility for advertising Renault products; however, AMSC covenanted to “work closely with Renault in the planning and developing of themes and strategy and the related budget.” R3-34-Ex. A, p. 12. The record also reflects that such coordination did in fact occur. Everett Depo. at 16, 20, 21, 24. Further, Renault reserved the right to veto any advertising that it deemed “injurious to Renault’s business, ... likely to mislead or deceive the public, ... at variance with the business, advertising or public relations policies of Renault, or ... likely to impair the image or goodwill of Renault.” R3-34-Ex. A, p. 13. See also Id. at 29; R3-34-Ex. E, p. 15. This reservation indicates that Renault reviewed all advertising before AMSC used it. RNUR placed great emphasis on the nature and quality of the marketing strategies used to market its products, and retained for itself a great deal of ultimate, if not daily, control over such marketing. Under these circumstances, RNUR, as well as AMSC, was responsible for the marketing and advertising of the LeCar in the United States. See Sinatra v. National Enquirer,
Third, RNUR, in conjunction with AMSC, established channels for providing regular advice to customers in Georgia. Asahi,
Although AMSC exercised day-to-day control over the establishment and termination of Renault dealerships in the United States, Renault itself set the terms according to which all these dealerships conducted business: AMSC covenanted to “use its best efforts to assure that Dealers will comply with all sales and service manuals that Renault may from time to time issue relating to the sale and servicing of Renault products and other matters covered by [the Distributor's Agreement] or the Dealer franchises.” Id. at 14. The Distributor’s Agreement also stated that “[A]ny dealership or dealerships operated by [AMSC] for the sale of Renault Products at retail shall at all times satisfy the standards for Renault dealerships prescribed by this Agreement, the Dealer Franchises and the sales and service manuals that Renault may issue from time to time relating to Dealers.” Id.
Further, RNUR took an active role in training AMSC personnel in the repair, servicing and preparation of Renault products. R3-34-Ex. A, pp. 7-8. Finally, the record reflects that RNUR and AMSC jointly engaged in the financing of retail dealerships throughout the United States. R3-34-Ex. C, pp. 2-3; -Ex. D, pp. 6-7. There is no evidence that the aforementioned six Georgia dealerships were not among those dealerships financed by Renault. See Morris,
Fourth, RNUR created and controlled the distribution network that brought its products into the United States and Georgia. Asahi,
In sum, RNUR designed the Renault LeCar for the Georgia market, advertised the LeCar in Georgia, established
Because RNUR satisfied all the criteria identified by the Asahi plurality as indicative of purposeful availment, we hold that RNUR possessed minimum contacts with Georgia sufficient to satisfy the first prong of the due process inquiry into personal jurisdiction. Through its association with and involvement in the distribution network for Renault products, RNUR benefit-ted from the protections provided by Georgia law, and was placed on notice that it was subject to suit in Georgia. World-Wide Volkswagen,
ii. Fair Play and Substantial Justice
Even if a non-resident defendant possesses minimum contacts with the forum State, the State’s exercise of jurisdiction nevertheless violates due process unless it comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum State, and the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief. It must also weigh in its determination “the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and the shared interest of*761 the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.”
Asahi,
As noted supra, Asahi was an indemnification action brought by Cheng Shin, the Taiwanese manufacturer of an allegedly defective tire, against Asahi, the Japanese manufacturer of the component tire valve that Cheng Shin integrated into its final product. The individual injured as a result of the alleged defect in the tire had already obtained relief in the California courts from Cheng Shin, which sought indemnification by Asahi.
The Asahi Court, upon consideration of the factors outlined above, determined that California’s exercise of jurisdiction over As-ahi did not comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The Court noted that the burden on Asahi was severe, in that it had to (1) “traverse the distance between [its] headquarters in Japan and the Superior Court of California,” and (2) “submit its dispute with Cheng Shin to a foreign nation’s judicial system.” Id. at 114,
This case is different in kind from Asahi. First, the plaintiff in this case is not a foreign corporation seeking indemnification from another foreign corporation, as in As-ahi, but rather a Georgia resident, who seeks relief for the crippling injuries she suffered as a result of an alleged defect in her Renault LeCar. Her interest in having her case adjudicated in Georgia is manifest.
Second, this case, unlike Asahi, is not about indemnification but rather about product safety. Georgia’s interest in adjudicating this dispute is also manifest, given that it has a compelling interest in protecting its residents from unsafe products that find their way into the state. Morris,
Third, RNUR’s interest in having this dispute adjudicated abroad is minimal; whereas Asahi was burdened because it was forced to submit its dispute with Cheng Shin to a foreign nation’s judicial system, RNUR stands ready to undertake the defense of any lawsuit against AMSC that arises from injuries alleged to have been caused by defects in Renault vehicles, having expressly reserved the right to take over the defense of any lawsuit in the United States involving allegedly defective Renault products. R3-34-Ex. A, pp. 17-18. Thus, subjecting RNUR to Georgia’s adjudicatory system works no unfair surprise against it. Moreover, in light of the relative burden that would be caused plaintiff if this case were adjudicated in France, the burdens on RNUR caused by adjudication in Georgia are by no means unfair. Delong Equipment Co.,
Fourth, although witnesses and evidence concerning the LeCar’s manufacture and design are located in France, evidence and witnesses concerning the accident itself are located primarily in Georgia; furthermore, dismissal of RNUR from the plaintiffs suit would not end the litigation, but would merely splinter it, leaving plaintiff and the other defendants in Georgia, while allowing plaintiff to proceed against RNUR in France. Thus, efficient resolution of this case suggests that jurisdiction be asserted over RNUR in Georgia. Morris,
In short, this is not “one of those rare cases in which ‘minimum requirements inherent in the concept of “fair play and substantial justice” ... defeat the reasonableness of jurisdiction even [though] the defendant has purposefully engaged in forum activities.’ ” Asahi,
Thus, we hold that RNUR possesses sufficient contacts with Georgia to satisfy due process requirements, and that Georgia’s exercise of jurisdiction over RNUR comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over RNUR. We therefore REVERSE the dismissal of RNUR from the plaintiff’s lawsuit, and REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Notes
. Renault U.S.A. was subsequently dismissed as a defendant pursuant to a stipulation between the parties. R3-45.
. Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint to reflect the purchase of Jeep Eagle Sales Corporation by Chrysler Corporation. Rl-16.
. The agreements executed between Renault and AMC/AMSC included: a "Distributor Agreement," R3-34-Ex. A; a "Built-Up Sales Agreement,” R3-34-Ex. B; and a "Master Agreement," R3-34-Ex. E. These agreements contemplated several different commercial arrangements between the parties, including the manufacture of Renault cars at AMC’s American plants and Renault's European distribution of AMC vehicles. Thus, the distribution arrangement between AMSC and Renault regarding the United States market was only one aspect of a wide-ranging alliance created by the parties through these agreements.
. RNUR contends that AMSC had sole responsibility for determining the quantity and type of vehicles to be purchased from RNUR. Appel-lee’s Brief at 22. As noted supra, however, where the district court has not conducted an evidentiary hearing, and the evidence presented by the parties’ affidavits and deposition testimony conflicts, the court must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Delong, supra; Morris, supra. Therefore, we accept as true plaintiffs allegation that RNUR was fully involved in determining the quantity of cars to be purchased by AMSC from Renault.
. The "Dealer Franchises," as defined in the Distributor Agreement, were "Renault Dealer Franchise Agreement[s]” drafted by the parties, a sample of which was attached to the Distributor Agreement as Annex A-l.
. Renault U.S.A. continues to exist today, but does not play a role in the distribution of Renault products in the United States. Renault U.S.A. played no role in the distribution of the 1982 Renault LeCar at issue in this case.
. For a complete chronology and discussion of these financial transactions, see R2-27-Ex. 2, p. 28; -Ex. 3, pp. 4-5. 29; -Ex. 4, pp. 21-22; -Ex. 5, pp. 22-23; and -Ex. 6, p. 26-27.
. During this time, several members of AMC's management team, including Jose Dedeur-waerder, AMC's President from 1982-1984 and CEO in 1985 and 1986, were former employees of Renault. ' See, e.g., R2-27-Ex. 3, p. 2; -Ex. 7, p. 3.
. Renault dealerships existed in 49 out of 50 states. Everett Depo., Ex. 1.
. It is unclear whether AMSC, RNUR or any other entity was responsible for the creation of this pamphlet and its placement in the glove compartment of plaintiff's LeCar.
. The Eleventh Circuit, in the en banc decision Bonner v. City of Prichard,
. In Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A v. Hall,
.O.G.C.A. § 9-10-91 provides, in part:
A court of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-resident ... as to a cause of action arising from any of the acts, omissions, ownership, use or possession enumerated in this Code section, in the same manner as if he were a resident of the state, if in person or through an agent, he:
(1) Transacts any business within this state;
(2) Commits a tortious act or omission within this state, except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act; [or]
(3) Commits a tortious injury in this state caused by an act or omission outside this state if the tort-feasor 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 state....
The parties in this case agree that § 9-10-91(3) is the statutory provision relevant to the question of whether Georgia possesses jurisdiction over RNUR in this case.
. Appellees in this case, and courts in other cases, have maintained that the decision of the Georgia Supreme Court in Gust v. Flint,
Because the Georgia Supreme Court has not overruled its longstanding precedents regarding the broad scope of the Georgia long-arm statute, we do. not believe that recourse to the literal language of that statute is necessary or appropriate in this case. As the Georgia Court of Appeals stated in Gust after the case had been remanded from the Georgia Supreme Court:
In Coe & Payne v. Weed-Mosaic Corp., [supra], the [Georgia] Supreme Court had expressed the view that our long-arm statute authorized the exercise of jurisdiction over nonresident defendants “to the maximum extent permitted by procedural due process.” In its decision in the present case, the Supreme [Cjourt would appear to have abandoned that view and to have adopted the position that our long-arm statute is not susceptible to such an interpretation. However, since Coe & Payne was not overruled, clarification of the Supreme Court’s position on this important issue will have to await a future litigation.
Flint v. Gust,
. Indeed, the Court noted that "there was no showing that any automobile sold by [the distributor or the retailer] has ever entered Oklahoma with the single exception of the vehicle involved in the present case." World-Wide Volkswagen,
. Justice Brennan was joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun and White.
. Justices White and Blackmun also joined Justice Stevens.
. We note, however, that in the absence of further guidance from the Supreme Court, several courts have declined to follow the Asahi plurality’s analysis, and have instead continued to apply the "stream of commerce” approach adopted in World-Wide Volkswagen. See, e.g., Irving v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corp.,
. We also note that the additional circumstances suggested by Justice Stevens to establish minimum contacts are present in this case, ,Asahi,
. Although it would strengthen the case for specific jurisdiction further if appellant had obtained her car in Georgia, purchasing the vehicle in the forum state is not necessary to invoke that jurisdiction. Minimum contacts analysis, with its roots in the Due Process Clause, is a totality of the circumstances inquiry. The Due Process Clause is satisfied when, as here, the litigation is related to the defendant’s in-forum activities in such a way that the defendant’s due process right to "fair warning” that its activities may subject it to the forum’s jurisdiction is protected. See Burger King,
. Bond v. Octagon Process, Inc.,