3
Of course, even if personal jurisdiction is contested and found initially on
the pleadings and by affidavit, it may be reviewed again at subsequent stages in
the trial court proceedings as evidence accumulates. See FDIC v. Oaklawn
Apartments, 959 F.2d 170, 174 (10th Cir. 1992).
4
Few such solicitous rules apply in the district court when personal
jurisdiction is assessed in an evidentiary hearing or at trial; in such cases, the
plaintiff generally must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
personal jurisdiction exists. Dennis Garberg & Assoc., Inc. v. Pack-Tech Int’l
Corp., 115 F.3d 767, 773 (10th Cir. 1997).
- 7 -
variety of ways – including by reference to the complaint and affidavits, a pre-
trial evidentiary hearing, or sometimes at trial itself.
3
When, as here, personal jurisdiction is found wanting on the basis of the
complaint and affidavits, our review of the district court’s dismissal is de novo,
taking as true all well-pled (that is, plausible, non-conclusory, and non-
speculative, see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007))
facts alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint. Similarly, any factual disputes in the
parties’ affidavits must be resolved in plaintiffs’ favor. FDIC v. Oaklawn
Apartments, 959 F.2d 170, 174 (10th Cir. 1992). We have further held that, at
this stage, plaintiffs need only make a prima facie showing of personal
jurisdiction. Wenz v. Memery Crystal, 55 F.3d 1503, 1505 (10th Cir. 1995).
4
Turning to the test for personal jurisdiction to which these rules of review
apply, our analysis begins with two questions. First, we ask whether any
applicable statute authorizes the service of process on defendants. Second, we
examine whether the exercise of such statutory jurisdiction comports with
Appellate Case: 06-1458 Document: 0101117697 Date Filed: 01/28/2008 Page: 7