Jurisdiction and Venue - Personal Jx Flashcards
A court MUST have personal jurisdiction
in order to adjudicate the rights and liabilities of a defendant.
If any of the following four “traditional bases” are satisfied, the court will have personal jurisdiction over the defendant:
Domicile
Physical Presence
Consent
Waiver
As to PJx and domicile
Domicile will be satisfied if the defendant is domiciled in the forum state. If the defendant is a corporation, it must be “at home” in the forum state (e.g., state of incorporation + principal place of business).
As to PJx and Physical presence
Service of process on the defendant while he is physically present in the forum state will satisfy this base UNLESS the defendant was in the state only to answer a summons or was brought there by force or fraud.
As to PJx and Consent
Out-of-state defendants may consent to personal jurisdiction (can be express or implied by conduct).
As to PJx and waiver
Unlike subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction can be waived by the defendant. A defendant waives any objection to personal jurisdiction by substantial participation on the merits before raising the objection (e.g., making a general appearance).
If none of the traditional bases are satisfied, personal jurisdiction may still be obtained by using
a state long-arm statute.
A state long-arm statute requires (via Constitutional Due Process) that
minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state.
Sufficient minimum contacts for the constitutionality of a long-arm statute exist when
General or specific Jx is present
AND
The exercise of such jurisdiction does NOT offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
courts weigh the following factors to determine fairness of the forum jurisdiction in regard to the defendant:
Convenience for the defendant;
Whether the forum state has a legitimate interest in providing redress;
Whether the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief is proper;
The interstate judicial system’s interest in efficiency;
AND
The shared interest of the several states in furthering social policies.
General Jurisdiction is present when
the defendant is “essentially at home” in the forum state (most often, this is where the defendant is a citizen).
When general jurisdiction is present, the defendant can be
sued on ANY claim (even if the claim is unrelated to the defendant’s contact with the forum state).
Specific Jurisdiction gives courts
jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants for the defendant’s specific contact with the forum state. The claim MUST arise out of the defendant’s specific contact with the forum state.
Specific jurisdiction is present if:
The defendant purposefully availed himself of the benefits of the forum state (e.g., using state highways);
AND
The defendant knew or reasonably should have anticipated that his activities in
the forum state made it foreseeable that he may be “hailed into court” there.
Specific Jx and Stream of Commerce Cases.
Generally, there will be specific jurisdiction over a defendant if the defendant:
Places a product in the stream of commerce in the forum state;
AND
Commits some other act to show intent to serve the forum state.
Specific Jx and Internet Cases.
Generally, internet cases involve either passive or active websites.
Generally, the maintenance of a passive website, without more activity in the forum, is insufficient for general jurisdiction. However, it may be sufficient for specific jurisdiction if the defendant is targeting readers in the forum.
The maintenance of an active website may be sufficient for general jurisdiction if the defendant is conducting significant business in the forum state such that the defendant is at home in the forum.
Passive Websites.
A passive website is a website that is used for information purposes rather than online sales and commerce.
Active Websites.
An active website is a website that is used for online commerce to make sales.
Are minimum contacts in the forum state required for PJx in a federal-question case where federal statute authorized nationwide service?
NO.
the Supreme Court has never held that minimum contacts with the state where the federal court sits are necessary if the suit is based in part on a federally-created right of action. And, in fact, in those instances where Congress authorizes nationwide service of process for a particular type of federally created claim, it’s often the case that the defendant does not have minimum contacts with the stat e where the federal court is hearing the case. The due process inquiry in this setting is determined by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and focuses on the defendant’s aggregate contacts with the nation.
When Congress enacts a statute creating a federal cause of action,
and includes a nationwide service-of-process provision, the question is whether the federal
court’s exercise of power comports with
the Fifth Amendment standard of due process. That in turn requires the court to decide whether the defendant has the requisite minimum contacts with the entire nation, not merely with the state where the federal court hearing the suit is located.
So even if Defendant has no contacts whatsoever with New York, personal jurisdiction over Defendant will be constitutional if the
sum of its contacts with all U.S. states and/or territories satisfies the requirement of Fifth Amendment due process.
Quasi in rem jurisdiction may be invoked
when a plaintiff seeks to secure a preexisting claim in the property;
it ALSO may be invoked when a plaint iff seeks to assert jurisdiction over the property as a way to litigate a personal claim against defendant that is unrelated to the property that is attached.
As to the second use of quasi in rem Jx, the property may be attached as permitted under state law, but ONLY IF plaintiff shows “that personal jurisdiction over a defendant cannot be obtained in the district where the action is brought by reasonable efforts to serve a summons.”
So if unrelated to the property, need to make reasonable efforts to serve D before using this method.
a federal court does not have power to transfer a federal lawsuit to
the court of a different system, including the court of a state system in the United States.
The transfer rules that apply in federal district court allow a district court to change the venue of an action, and an action may be transferred to a district court in a state different from the state in which the transferor court sits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
However, a federal court may not transfer the venue of a federal action to a state court, even if it is the state in which the federal court sits.
While SMJx is always challengeable and appealable, PJx is
only challengeable by motion before answer, or in the answer; and if not, the right to challenge is waived
if motion to dismiss for lack of PJx denied by trial court, not ripe for appeal until after the trial on merits
If there is specific Jx and D has minimum contacts, then requiring D to have suit in that state would not offend
the D’s 14th amendment DP rights
If P solicits customers in France, then D eats pasta from P in France, then returns home to state court in State A, where P has no minimum contacts or “at home”ness; can D sue in State A
No, because would have to be based on general juris since the incident didn’t occur in State A, and no specific juris because not incorporated or headquartered or otherwise at home there.
