Choice of forum Flashcards
Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington.
a Delaware corporation headquartered in St. Louis, had a team of salesman in Washington who were sending orders to the main office. Washington thought they should have to pay into an unemployment program. They sued to collect. The court found that in order for a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have such minimum contacts with the state so that exercising jurisdiction over the defendant would not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
2) McGee v. Int’l Life Insurance
a) Holding
i) Case where company bought company that had sold insurance to guy in another state. Even this single contact was significant because the D reached out to the forum; PJX established.
3) Hanson v. Denckla
Florida does not have personal JX over a trust fund that operates and is positioned in DE even though the owner of the trust fund was Domiciled in FL because the trustee did not avail themselves of the state of florida.
4) Shaffer v. Heitner
a) Shareholder’s derivative suit against Greyhound. Brought in Delaware, the state of incorporation of Greyhound, against several of its corporate directors and officers, who did not have minimum contacts with Delaware. Attempted to attach stock certificates which were statutorily in Delaware. No statute saying that they consented to suit by being corporate directors (DE later did enact this statute). This case absorbs in rem jurisdiction. Now the Int’l Shoe analysis applies even to cases where people are attempting to establish pj by attaching property. Property can still be relevant, but only as far as it contributes to contacts in the Int’l Shoe test.
5) Worldwide Volkswagen v. Woodson
a) NY residents buy car in NY, try to bring suit against manufacturer, importer, regional distributer and retail dealer all in Oklahoma court. Manufacturer and importer to do not contest pj (probably because they have enough contacts to establish specific jurisdiction), but regional distributor and retail dealer contest pj. Here the Supreme Court had to decide whether the “stream of commerce” theory would force the regional distributor and retail dealer, who had never purposefully availed themselves of the OK forum, to appear in OK on the theory that they should have known their cars could potentially be driven to such a forum as OK. They decided no – it is not enough to just know that your products are going out into the “stream of commerce.”
6) J. McIntyre v. Nicastro
a) Guy in NJ is hurt by machine made by English manufacturer who worked with a distributor elsewhere in US, never marketed to NJ. Question was, again looking at a “stream of commerce” argument, whether J. McIntyre could be hauled into court in NJ. Supreme Court plurality opinion. Some members of the court trying to make this case more broad to cover potential internet cases – but other said, no need to do that, our precedents clearly show that the defendant did not purposefully avail itself to the forum, so the old rule still works. We need at least a small affirmative gesture, or no pj.
7) Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
a) When determining if a defendant satisfies the minimum contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction, the court must look to the purposefully directed activities of the defendant toward the forum state and whether the harms arising or relating to those activities are the cause of the litigation.
8) Abdouch v. Lopez
a) D bought and sold a rare book that was stolen from the P. The P found out about the book and is filing suit against he D in violation of Privacy in her home state. D has very few contacts in the state and his contacts are unrelated to the P ‘s CoA
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown
a) Boys die in Paris in a bus accident, tires potentially at fault. P sues Goodyear in the U.S. The D are not liable to suit under General JX in the state of NC, because their business ties fail to render them essentially at home in the forum state.
2) Daimler AG v. Bauman
a) The residents contended that the substantial and continuous activities of the U.S. subsidiary of importing and distributing the corporation’s products in the forum state were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the corporation. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the corporation was not amenable to suit in the forum state for injuries allegedly caused by conduct of the foreign subsidiary which took place entirely outside the United States.
1) Carnival Cruise Lines
a) The D is not liable to be held in JX in WA, Because their consent clause gave up the P right to Sue them anywhere but FL. Any bad faith motive is bellied by the existence of D’s HQ in the state and the fact that most of their business is conducted there.
1) Burnham v. Superior Court
a) The P is liable for suit in the state of CA because while he may maintain few contacts there, he was physically present in the state when he was served.
Gibbons v. Brown
a) No. In order to acquire jurisdiction over a defendant under a long-arm statute, the plaintiff must allege sufficient jurisdictional facts within the coverage of the long-arm
statute and must show sufficient minimum contacts with the state to satisfy due process.
Redner v. Sanders
a) The court holds that the P (a U.S. Citizen) is not privy to claim subject matter JX in the federal Court when his physical location and domicile is out of the country.
2) Hertz Corp v. Friend
a) The Court holds that the D cannot remove to Fed Ct. due to Div JX, because their PPB is in the same forum state as the P. Even though they are incorporated elsewhere.
