over a defendant who “[pjarticipated in tortious acts within Puerto Rico personally or through his agent....” Puerto Rico R.Civ.P.Rule 4.7(a)(2). The Rivera Court found this provision could be satisfied by tortious acts committed outside the jurisdiction where the defendant knew that the effects of his actions “were going to be felt specifically” in Puerto Rico. Rivera, 145 F.R.D. at 620. [Jjurisdietion may be asserted under 4.7(a)(2) where a defendant ... commits a tortious act within or without the Commonwealth that he knows or reasonably should know will cause injury within Puerto Rico. Id. at 620 (quoting Mangual v. General Battery Corp., 710 F.2d 15, 19 (1st Cir.1983)). Massachusetts courts have applied a similar rationale. Murphy v. Erwin-Wasey, 460 F.2d 661, 664 (1st Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>). The Murphy court’s analysis rests on the
holding that nonresident defendants failure to make payments in florida coupled with forum selection clause sufficient for court to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident printing customer despite the fact that texas printer solicited the business in alabama and nonresident sent no personnel to texas because nonresident placed additional orders from which it expected to profit sent payments to texas sent and received printing materials to and from texas paid for shipping of printed goods from texas and sent payments to texas the transactions were governed by texas law and substantial part of performance occurred in texas holding that absence of evidence that appellee internet company directed advertising towards pennsylvanians via its website and the initiation by appellant to receive information via mail precluded a finding of general jurisdiction holding that californias tolling statute could not constitutionally be applied to a nonresident entering into a sales transaction with a resident since the nonresident was engaged in interstate commerce holding that a nonresident defendant who knowingly sent false information about billing commissions into massachusetts via us mail in order to deceive the plaintiff into accepting a lower percentage than was due him was subject to specific jurisdiction