How to Analyze the First Module

Question 1

What is the ENTIRE TEST to determine personal jurisdiction?

Answer 1

1) Does defendant fall within the states long arm statute? (If yes, PJ analysis continues, if no, no jurisdiction)
2) Is there a “slam dunk” for general jurisdiction? (If yes, DP satisfied, If no go to step 2)
a) Presence (Burnham tests: 1) Long standing tradition, 2) analysis of international shoe)
b) domicile
c) Place of incorporation
d) Principle Place of business
3) Has defendant expressly consented to jurisdiction?
a) Forum Selection Clause
b) Agent for reception of process
3) Is there specific jurisdiction? - Defendant is OUTSIDE of state AND defendants contacts are RELATED to or give rise to cause of action?
a) Contacts must be minimally sufficient to avoid upsetting traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (Shoe Test).

DUE PROCESS TEST:

1) Minimally sufficient contacts:
a) Purposeful contacts by Defendant
b) Not done by third party
c) Activities avail state interest
d) Defendant could foresee being haled into court there.
2) Fairness Factors:
a) Burden on Defendant
b) Plaintiffs interests
c) States interests
d) Judicial interests
e) All states interest in the furtherance of public policy.
3) Balance the contacts and fairness factors. Defendant must fulfill the contacts or the fairness factors don’t matter. If there is a lot of contacts, then there must be a high level of unfairness to remove jurisdiction. If there is not many contacts, the level of unfairness can be much lower.

If due process is found, then PJ is found. If jurisdiction could only be given by violating DP then no jurisdiction.

4) Is the defendant a corporation OUTSIDE of the forum state AND the defendants contacts in the forum state are NOT RELATED TO the cause of action BUT the contacts DO NOT rise to the level of General Jurisdiction slam dunk? Then:
a) are the contacts so continuous, systematic and substantial that the corporation is fairly regarded as at home?

If this is granted, then PJ is established by general jurisdiction, just not the slam dunk version of general jurisdiction. This is very difficult to prove though.

Question 2

What is the Due Process test for Specific Jurisdiction?

Answer 2

Cause of Action DOES ARISE out of connection with the forum state:

1) Minimal Sufficient Contacts:
a) Purposeful activity
b) Not committed by a third party
c) Defendant collected the benefits and protections of the forums laws.
d) Foreseeable that Defendant could be haled into court here.
2) Fairness factors
a) Burden on defendant
b) plaintiffs interest and convenience
c) forum states interest
d) judicial system interest in efficiency
e) all states interest in furthering public policy.

Question 3

What is the due process test for General jurisdiction?

Answer 3

Cause of Action DOES NOT ARISE out of connection with the forum:

1) Is it a slam dunk?
a) Principle place of business - corporation
b) place of incorporation - corporation
c) Place of domicile - Individual
2) Not a slam dunk?
a) Continuous, systematic and substantial so that the defendant is like AT HOME. - Only available for corporations
3) Presumed to be fair because the contacts are so strong and significant.

Question 4

Simple Personal Jurisdiction (Like other Q without all the details):

Answer 4

1) Is long arm statute satisfied?
a) Yes - Continue on
b) No - No PJ
2) Is due process satisfied under International Shoe?
a) Specific Jurisdiction:
i) Minimum contacts
ii) Fairness Factors
b) General jurisdiction:
i) Contacts - More than minimum
1) Slam Dunk?
2) Continuous and systematic such that they are at home.
ii) fairness - presumed fair because contacts are so strong.

Question 5

What is the test for if a state law claim contains a federal issue?

Answer 5

1) Does it necessarily raise a federal issue?
2) Is the issue actually disputed and substantial?
3) A federal forum could hear the case without disturbing any congressional approved balance of federal and state?

Question 6

What is required for diversity jurisdiction?

Answer 6

1) Minimum of $75,000 in dispute
2) Controversy between one of the following:
a) Citizen of one state v. Citizen of another state
b) Citizen v. Foreigner
c) citizen + foreigner v. Citizen
d) citizen v. Citizen + foreigner
e) citizen + foreigner v. Citizen + foreigner