Because evidence establishes a business plan for eventual profitability undercapitalization is not per se proof of being a mere instrumentality of another corporation.
As there is no culpable conduct establishing that the foreign corporation used their control over the domestic corporation to effect a fraud or wrong on the complainant, there is insufficient basis to piece the corporate veil.
Jurisdiction is proper in the district under the FRCP, since the cause of action arises under federal law, the foreign entity is not within the jurisdiction of any other state, and the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with the US constitution and laws.
Under Fifth Amendment due process, foreign company sufficiently purposefully availed itself of the American market generally by launching the domestic company and retaining a measure of control over it. The marketing faxes at issue sufficiently relate to the purpose of these minimum contacts, even though the foreign company might not be culpable for the sending of the faxes. Asserting first US jurisdiction over the foreign company is reasonable, since there is a federal interest in the enforcement of the laws, and the plaintiff will not be able to find financial redress from the domestic corporation.
The regulation making culpable under the statute the person whose goods and services are advertised only applies to persons who have some level of knowledge that an unsolicited fax has been sent.
Consistent with agency findings, fax-to-computer transmissions are within the Act, as the receiving machine has the capacity of transcribing the image to paper.
Given proffer of eventual admissibility, the class was correctly certified using unauthenticated telephone logs, as nonexpert evidence may be sufficiently probative at the early stages of the litigation.
As the logs were generated by a machine, they were not hearsay -- hearsay requires the assertion of a person. Court correctly excluded expert testimony.
List of affected phone numbers reasonably necessitated the claims administration procedure.
In a federal class action, the court need not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant as to each plaintiff. The question of jurisdiction looks to the relationship between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation -- it does not depend on unnamed class members.
CONCURRENCE/ DISSENT:
As state courts couldn't resolve the clams of out of state class members, neither can federal courts resolve the claims of those outside its jurisdiction.
14A Determines the due process limits on federal jurisdiction under the 5A in federal court.
The statute doesn't apply to faxes received on computers, since, on its own, a computer can't receive messages from a phone line or print the fax on paper; additionally, Congress listed computers as senders, but not receivers.