2) Personal Jurisdiction

Question 1

PJ (def)

Answer 1

power of court over a PARTY. Focus on the state in which suit was filed

Question 2

SMJ (def)

Answer 2

(vs SMJ: power of court over CASE)

Question 3

PJ (rule)

Answer 3

need BOTH:

1) PJ law of the state where the fed court sits (long arm statute)
2) PJ law in US const (14A DPC)

Question 4

PJ: long arm statutes

Answer 4

1) would state court in the same state assert PJ over that party? (if yes, move on to const analysis. If no, NO PJ!)

Question 5

PJ: long arm statutes: exception

Answer 5

Congress COULD subject a D to pj in fed court w/o considering state law (v. rare)

Question 6

const: kinds mnemonic

Answer 6

PJ
Rarely
Causes
Severe
Mental 
Anguish

Question 7

const: kinds

Answer 7

1) residency
2) consent/waiver
3) service
4) minimum contacts
5) at home general j

Question 8

const: residency: rule

Answer 8

if a party is a resident (citizen/domiciled) in state where lawsuit is filed, then PJ over D is const.

Question 9

const: residency: corporations

Answer 9

same rule as SMJ:

1) place incorporated AND
2) principal place of business (HQ, brains)

Question 10

const: residency: associations

Answer 10

DIFFERENT RULE than smj!

assn is resident of state where has HQ/principal place of business

Question 11

const: consent: rule

Answer 11

if party consents to fed ct’s PJ over him, then PJ is const

Question 12

const: consent: ways

Answer 12

1) contract
2) appointment (maybe)
3) R12 mxn

Question 13

const: consent: contract (def)

Answer 13

choice-of-forum clause in k. By signing you consented to power of court in that state

Question 14

const: consent: appointment (rule)

Answer 14

if business/agent appoints agent for service of process AND
state’s law defines appointment as consent, THEN
business MIGHT have consented to pj of fed ct
(court split)

Question 15

const: consent: R12 mxn

Answer 15

if party files a R12 mxn w/o objecting to PJ, then has consented ot court’s power

Question 16

const: service: def

Answer 16

if D served w process in the state where lawsuit filed, PJ over D is const

Question 17

const: service: exceptions

Answer 17

1) P coaxed D into state under false pretenses

2) D is in the state to participate in a legal proceeding

Question 18

const: minimum contacts: test/rule

Answer 18

for j to be const:

1) D must have established minimum contact w the forum state
2) claim against D arises from that contact w forum state
3) j will not offend fair play / justice (FORESEEABLE WOULD BE HALED INTO COURT THERE)

Question 19

const: minimum contacts: minimum contacts: def

Answer 19

have min contacts w a state if:

1) causes harm in the state
2) does business in the state OR
3) has interest in real property in the state

AND
his contact w the state must be purposefully established (availment)
(benefits from protections of forum state)
(don’t have to be in the state)

Question 20

const: minimum contacts: arising from: def + note

Answer 20

lawsuit arises from the contacts if the contacts PLAYED A ROLE IN CAUSING THE LAWSUIT

note: this is NOT required for any other kind of pj!

Question 21

const: minimum contacts: fair play/substantial justice: factors

Answer 21

balancing test

1) burden on D (how burdensome)
2) forum state’s interest
3) P’s interest in relief
4) efficiency (interstate)
5) public policy (shared state interest in)

Question 22

const: “at home” general j: rule

Answer 22

very high bar. corporation’s contacts are so substantial that “essentially at home” (it’s as if headquartered)