Is there any reason to dismiss a motion to dismiss an action brought by an individual against an individual who is also a partnership and corporate defendant?

It is difficult to conclude that there has not been notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard when process has been delivered to an individual defendant, who also is admittedly one empowered to receive process for partnership and corporate defendants. It must be concluded that the court acquired jurisdiction to proceed. Nevertheless the question remains as to whether jurisdiction should be exercised under the circumstances of this case. Sections 36 and 37 of the 1971 Restatement predicate the existence of jurisdiction upon whether its exercise is reasonable in the light of the nature of the acts or the effect produced, and the individual's relationship to the state of the forum. In Wangler v. Harvey (1963) 41 N.J. 277, 196 A.2d 513, in rejecting the immunity rule, the New Jersey court concluded, 'Pursuant to the usual practice under a motion to dismiss based on Forum non conveniens the granting of immunity will be considered an exception rather than the rule. The court will retain jurisdiction unless there is an affirmative showing that it would violate traditional concepts of fair play and substantial justice to subject the defendant to its jurisdiction. If unfairness is shown, the court might dismiss outright or condition its dismissal upon certain assures by the defendant. (Citation.)' (41 N.J. at p. 286, 196 A.2d at p. 518.)