Chapter 5: The Jurisdiction of Courts over Persons and Property Flashcards
Personal Jurisdiction
- Refers to the power of a court over people and property. PJ is about whether a defendant may be “hauled into court” and subjected to that court’s power
- PJ is distinct from SMJ – a court’s power to adjudicate a particular type of matter
Classic View on Personal Jurisdiction
Based on a state’s power over its territory. Persons or property were fair game for a state court’s jurisdiction only if:
- They were domiciled in that state.
- The land or property at issue was in that state.
- Service of process could be made while a person happened to be in the state temporarily; or
- Consent could be inferred from the defendant’s engaging in
General Jurisdiction
- Allows the court to adjudicate any type of claim against the defendant, no matter where it arose
- Usually arises from the defendant’s domicile or the fact the descendant was served with process in the state
- The courts of a defendant’s home or domicile state will always have PJ over the defendant in any matter
Specific Jurisdiction
1) the defendant must take some act by which it purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conduct activities within the forum state, and 2) the plaintiff’s claims must then arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum contacts
General v. Specific Jurisdiction: Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall
Facts: A foreign corporation entered contract negotiations in Texas with decedents’ employer to provide helicopter services. They signed a contract in Peru that provided for decedents’ employer to make payments to the corporation’s United States bank account. The corporation did not maintain a place of business in Texas but purchased helicopter parts there and sent employees there for training. The decedents’ representatives filed a wrongful death action against the corporation following the decedents’ deaths in a helicopter crash in Peru. The Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the corporation’s contacts with the state were sufficient to allow a state court to assert jurisdiction over the corporation in respondent representatives’ cause of action against the corporation for the wrongful deaths of their decedents, which did not arise out of, and was unrelated to, the corporation’s activities within the state. The foreign corporation appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Rule: Even when the cause of action does not arise out of or relate to the foreign corporation’s activities in the forum state, due process is not offended by a state’s subjecting the corporation to its in personam jurisdiction when there are sufficient contacts between the state and the foreign corporation. Because the representatives’ causes of action for wrongful death arose out of the crash in Peru and were not related to the corporation’s contacts with the state, and the corporation’s business contacts with the state were not continuous and systematic enough to satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court concluded that the state court lacked personal jurisdiction over the corporation.
General v. Specific Jurisdiction: Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court
- Claims based on a sale of allegedly defective product in the forum (CA)
- No problem with specific jurisdiction for CA plaintiffs
- For specific jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s contacts with the forum must be tightly linked. Plaintiff’s claims must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum contacts
o Linkage is lacking: Claim by plaintiffs who bought Plavix in other states, not CA, cannot ride along just because they are otherwise factually and legally similar
Purposeful Availment and Foreseeability: World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
- Originally, only the manufacturer and the importer were named as defendants
- No PJ over defendant companies when an allegedly defective product simply found its way into the forum state through no purposeful action by the defendant
- The “foreseeability” the NY purchased auto could theoretically end up in OK is insufficient
- Contrast: a defendant who takes steps to create or serve a market in the forum, or intentionally directs or sells its products there
Stream of Commerce
company places a product into commerce with intention, or at least knowledge, that it will eventually reach or be purchased by consumers in the forum state
Purposeful Availment
company takes steps to secure the privilege of doing business in a specific state; makes efforts to create or serve a market for its products there; knowingly directs its products into the forum
Purposeful Availment and Foreseeability: Ford Motor Co. v. Montana 8th Judicial District Court
- Victims were injured by allegedly defective Ford vehicles in Montana and Minnesota. Victims also lived in those states
- The state courts have specific jurisdiction over Ford
- Unlike defendants in last case, Ford purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in these states
- Bristol Meyers was about forum shopping. Here, there is a strong relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation
- Even though the vehicles were not purchased in the forum states, Ford works hard to foster ongoing connections to its cars’ owners
- Plaintiffs resided, used the product, and were injured int these states
- Even if the accidents didn’t “arise from” Ford’s forum contacts, they still related to those contacts
Purposeful Availment and Foreseeability: Goodyear v. Brown
- The standard for general jurisdiction had previously been “continuous and systematic general business contacts” within the forum state
- NC appellate court seems to imagine this standard can be satisfied merely if some of a company’s products reach the state through the “stream of commerce”
- The Court: No
- The Goodyear subsidiaries’ contacts fall short of the continuous and systematic contacts required for general jurisdiction
- The Court also introduces the idea that GJ will usually apply in the state where a corporation is “at home”, tougher standard
- GJ over Goodyear USA isn’t disputed, but that does not help
Purposeful Availment and Foreseeability: Daimler AG v. Bauman
- Argentinian subsidiary of Daimler, a German company, allegedly violated human rights. Plaintiff sues Daimler in CA under federal law
- Daimler’s American subsidiary MBUSA (incorporated DE, principal place of business NJ) does extensive business in CA
- Court assumes without deciding that MBUSA is at home in CA; GJ is possible
- Court of Appeals said MBUSA’s relationship to CA could be imputed to Daimler on principles of an agency relationship
- SCOTUS: No. This would stretch GJ far beyond anything the Court had previously authorized
- Bottom line: Daimler, given its lack of direct contacts, cannot in any way be said to be at home in CA. Thus, no GJ and no suit
Purposeful Availment and Foreseeability: BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell
Facts: Respondent Robert Nelson, a North Dakota resident, brought a Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) suit against petitioner BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) in a Montana state court, alleging that he had sustained injuries while working for BNSF. FELA made railroads liable in money damages to their employees for on-the-job injuries. Respondent Kelli Tyrrell, appointed in South Dakota as the administrator of her husband Brent Tyrrell’s estate, also sued BNSF under FELA in a Montana state court, alleging that Brent had developed a fatal cancer from his exposure to carcinogenic chemicals while working for BNSF. Neither worker was injured in Montana. Neither incorporated nor headquartered there, BNSF maintained less than five percent of its work force and about six percent of its total track mileage in the State. Contending that it is not “at home” in Montana, as required for the exercise of general personal jurisdiction under Daimler AG v. Bauman, BNSF moved to dismiss both suits. Its motion was granted in Nelson’s case and denied in Tyrrell’s. After consolidating the two cases, the Montana Supreme Court held that Montana courts could exercise general personal jurisdiction over BNSF because the railroad both “did business” in the State within the meaning of 45 U.S.C. §56 and was “found within” the State within the compass of Mont. R. Civ. Proc. 4(b)(1). The Montana Supreme Court also held that the due process limits articulated in Daimler did not control because Daimler did not involve a FELA claim or a railroad defendant. Petitioner BNSF sought review.
Rule: A court violates the 14th Amendment when it exercises personal jurisdiction over a railroad where the railroad is neither incorporated nor maintains its principal place of there and its in-state business, which includes railroad tracks and employees, does not suffice to permit the assertion of general jurisdiction over the employees’ on-the-job injury claims that are unrelated to any activity occurring in the state.
