Deck 2 Flashcards
4(k)(1)(a)
Federal courts have personal jurisdiction to the extent that the corresponding state court would have.
Look to the state court and see what the state court can do. This includes the impact of long-arm statutes and 14A.
4(k)(1)(a) actual text
Serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant: who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district is located
4(k)(1)(c)
There is personal jurisdiciton when authorized by congressional statute.
What do you need to pass 5th due process for sufficient minimal contact (JOP)?
Contact with the state as a whole.
Is tag jurisdiction constitutional?
Yes.
Steps for JOP?
1) See if within long-arm. 2) Check constitutionality (minimum contacts test).
Shaftner
1) Minimum contact test applies across the board to all exercises of jurisdiction (in rem and in personam). 2) Quasi in rem is unconstitutional in its traditional form.
Why is quasi in rem unconstitutional
There is a contact, tie, or relation but the claim doesn’t arise out of anything relating to the contact. We can only get constitutional jurisdiction in this context if it the contact is continuous, systemic, and substantial. For example, owning one piece of stock in a corporation in that state does not rise to this level.
What are property rights?
Property rights aren’t rights in property. They are rights that have to do with the relationship between the property and people. Not between property and the owner, but instead between the owner and others in regards to the use of the propery.
What is JOP about (Worldwide Volskwagon)
Court says JOP not just about fairness. Also about state sovereignty.
Why JOP unconstitutional in Worldwide VW?
Seaway (NY retail dealer) and Worldwide (NY regional distributor) did not purposely avail themselves such that they could reasonably anticipate having to defend in OK. All of there contacts in OK are not a result of their purpsoeful action.
Interstate federalism places limits on JOP even if
D suffers minimal or no convenience, even if state has strong interest in applying law, even if most convenient place for trial.
Is foreseeablility enough for JOP?
NO. For example, in WVW forseeable that car would be driven there, that accident would occur there, and that they would be sued there. But this isn’t enough. It needs to be forseeable that Ds conduct and connection with state are such that they will be hailed into court there. They have to reasonbly foresee that they will have to defend in the forum state. The have to forsee that there will be JOP there.
Legal rules tell them what to anticiapte.
What is the central idea for JOP?
It’s more than just notice. It is notice that D is subject to suit there and therefore can act to alleviate risk of litigation by getting insurance, passing on the cost, or if to risky, sever interaction with the state.
D needs to have measure of control over wehther or not they an be sued in the forum state.
Control is central idea here. If you want to avoid the laws of a state you should be able to do so. Purposeful availabment is a separeate, but also central idea.
together: Purposeful availement and reasonble anticipation.
Seaway Connection with OK and purposeful availment?
Not result of purposeful availment. They are selling cars in North Eat. Connection is resutl of Robinson’s driving there. They had no idea where the robinsons were driving.
What is necessary to meet PA/RA?
There needs to be a constitutional contact, tie, or relationship.
Hypo: Robinson’s live in OK. Order car from Seaway to be delivered to OK. Seaway delivers it there. JOP in OK?
Yes.
Gray v American Radiator. Stream of commerce JOP case. Titan to AR to Gray. JOP?
Yes. Titan might have more control to keep product from being sold in forum state. Titan has more notice that good will go into forum state. Stream of commerce vs Delta. This makes it seem more purposeful.
Calder (JOP)
Purpose without control. Still JOP. The most important thing of PA/RA is PA.
Satisfies PA/RA because their actions were expressly aimed at someone in CA and they knew it would be sent to CA. It doesn’t matter that they didn’t have control. They have purpose. The story is about CA. It is aimed at CA. CA is the focal point.
Hypo: Seaway in El Paso, people from NM come to buy car, go back to NM, accident in NM. JOP?
NO JOP if we go strictly by WVW. Rule and intuitions are at odds here.
What if Audi objected instead of constenting to JOP in original case?
Yes, JOP under general jurisdiciton. Already had a lot activity in the state.
X (PA) has trustee in DE. X moves to FL. Trustee continues to communicate with X in FL. X dies in FL. X’s children fight over trust. Under FL law, the trustee has to be a part of the case. JOP over DE trustee in FL?
NO. X hauled trustee into relationship in FL. Trustee didn’t engage FL. This is a case of control without purpose.
Purpose without control. JOP?
Yes
Control without purpose. JOP?
No.