Should the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction have been granted?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW A cargo interest plaintiff sought recovery against a contracting air carrier (petitioner UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. [“UPS-SCS”]) for alleged damages to shipments from the United States to Korea pursuant to the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, May 28, 1999, S. Treaty Doc. No. 106-45 (2000) (the “Montreal Convention”). The contracting air carrier (petitioner UPS-SCS) brought a third-party complaint in the action against the acting carrier (respondent EVA Airways Corporation [“EVA”]) for indemnity and contribution pursuant to the Montreal Convention. The acting carrier (respondent EVA) challenged personal jurisdiction in the forum where the underlying cargo claim was brought. Should the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction have been granted? Specifically, did the District Court and/or the Court of Appeals correctly interpret and apply the requirements of treaty law contained in the Montreal Convention to the personal jurisdiction analysis utilized to rule on and/or review the Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss?