who published defamatory electronic messages, with knowledge that the messages would be published in New Jersey and could influence a claimant’s efforts to seek a remedy under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, may properly be subject to the State’s jurisdiction”); Lebel, supra, 115 N.J. at 320, 558 A.2d 1252 (considering that the defendant actively solicited the business of a New Jersey plaintiff); Goldhaber v. Kohlenberg, 395 N.J.Super. 380, 389-90, 928 A.2d 948 (App. Div. 2007) (recognizing that the defendant “not only knew that plaintiffs resided in New Jersey, he knew the municipality in which they resided and made specific disparaging references to that municipality in many of his postings”); cf. Matsumoto v. Matsumoto, 335 N.J.Super. 174, 180-85, 762 A.2d 224 (App. Div.) (<HOLDING>), aff'd in part, mod. in part on other grounds,
recognizing new jerseys interest in deterrence of tortious misconduct as a relevant factor in choice of law decisions applicable where two of defendants were new jersey residents from whom damages were sought for their negligent acts in new jersey holding there was no personal jurisdiction over a foreign national who helped her son in an outofstate conspiracy to violate his former wifes custody rights under their new jersey divorce decree even if she had retained title to the new jersey marital home holding purposeful and deliberate omission on enactment of new jersey sales and use tax of exemption found in new york counterpart act which served as the model for new jersey act recognizing that pennsylvania had no interest in denying its residents the greater damages available under new jersey consumer fraud statutes for claims against a new jersey seller recognizing israel had no interest in denying its citizens the substantive advantages of new jersey defamation law in new jersey residents claims for defamation published in new jersey