Jurisdiction Over Persons and Property

Question 1

Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 1

Personal jurisdiction refers to the court’s power over a particular defendant. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff will never be in issue since the plaintiff consents to jurisdiction by selecting the court in which to file.

Question 2

Traditional Basis of Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 2

Traditionally, there are three ways a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. They include: 1) when the defendant is personally serve with process while voluntarily present in the forum state, no matter how brief his stay might be 2) where the defendant has consented to jurisdiction AND 3) when the defendant is domiciled in the forum state. Domicile refers to the place where the defendant lives with the intent to remain
1) If none of the traditional basis are satisfied, the court will look to see if the defendant has minimum contacts with the state.

Question 3

Traditional Basis of Personal Jurisdiction

CALIFORNIA

Answer 3

California does NOT grant immunity from service of process for parties, witnesses, and attorneys who enter the state for the specific purpose of appearing in another case. Thus, in CA, if you get tagged, you’re it.

Question 4

ESSAY TIP

Answer 4

Start your discussion of personal jurisdiction with the 3 traditional bases of jurisdiction. If none of those are satisfied, mention whether the state has a long-arm statute. This is a very quick discussion. Then explain that due process requires both: 1) minimum contacts AND 2) fairness. The bulk of your time will be spent there.

Question 5

Long Arm Statutes

Answer 5

A long arm statute gives a state the power to reach out and grab a non-resident defendant. Certain long arm statutes reach non-residents who perform certain acts within the state while others exercise jurisdiction to the fullest extent allowed by the Constitution

Question 6

Long Arm Statutes

CALIFORNIA

Answer 6

California has an unlimited long arm statute. Thus, the constitutional analysis will be the same.

Question 7

Constitutional Requirements (Minimum Contacts and Fairness)

Answer 7

Under the Due Process Clause, a state my exercise personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant as long as the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state so that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington.
1) The constitutional analysis is a two step process: 1) first the court determines if the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state 2) if so, it determines whether the assertion of jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Question 8

ESSAY TIP

Answer 8

In order to satisfy due process, the defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum state and the exercise of jurisdiction must be fair. Thus, there are two elements that must be met.

Question 9

Minimum Contacts (Purposeful Availment and Foreseeability)

Answer 9

A minimum contacts analysis requires that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. A strong emphasis is placed on finding some purposeful act on the part of the defendant in order to support jurisdiction.
1) Additionally, the defendant must reasonably anticipate that his activities with the forum state make it foreseeable he might be “haled into court” there.

Question 10

ESSAY TIP

Answer 10

Minimum contacts has two parts: 1) there must be some purposeful act by the defendant within the forum state; and 2) it must be foreseeable that the defendant could be sued there. Without a purposeful act by the defendant, the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over him. Foreseeability alone, without an intentional act, does not suffice. Essentially, any intentional act by the defendant directed at the forum state or any purposeful act that occurs within the forum state satisfies minimum contacts. This will likely be the main issue to discuss on an essay!

Question 11

Purposeful Availment

Answer 11

In order to establish minimum contacts, it is essential that there be some act by the which the defendant purposefully avails himself of the benefits and protections for the forum state’s laws, e.g. trying to make money, using the roads.
1) Minimum contacts is based upon the premise that a non-resident’s enjoyment of the privilege of conducting business in the forum state carries with it an obligation to respond to suit there, especially when the defendant’s contacts with the state have given rise to the cause of action sued upon.

Question 12

Foreseeability

Answer 12

The foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis is not the likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum state. Rather, it is the defendant’s contacts with the forum state that determine whether he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.

Question 13

ESSAY TIP

Answer 13

If the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, the next step is to discuss whether those contacts are related to the lawsuit. 1) if the contacts are related to the lawsuit, very minimal contacts are required. In fact, a single act can suffice. This is what is referred to as specific jurisdiction, and the one in which 95% of the cases and essays deal with. 2) But if the lawsuit has no connection with the defendant’s activities in the forum state, the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant is much more difficult. If the defendant is NOT domiciled or incorporated in the forum state and does not have its principle place of business there, it is highly unlikely that the court can assert jurisdiction over the defendant. Thus, the assertion of general jurisdiction is extremely rare.

Question 14

Specific Jurisdiction (The Claim is Related to the Defendant’s Contacts)

Answer 14

Minimum contacts can be minimal so long as they are sufficiently related to the lawsuit. Even a defendant whose contacts with the forum state consist of only a single act may be subject to personal jurisdiction so long as the case arose out of those very contacts.
1) In other words, specific jurisdiction is satisfied even if the defendant has only a few contacts with the state, so long as those contacts relate directly to the plaintiff’s claim.

Question 15

General Jurisdiction (The Defendant is Essentially “At Home” in the Forum State)

Answer 15

Unlike specific jurisdiction, general jurisdiction does NOT require the cause of action to relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. If general jurisdiction is satisfied, the defendant is subject to suit on any claim.

1) The two undeniable forums in which a corporation may be sued on any and all claims (general jurisdiction) are its place of incorporation and principal place of business.
2) In an exceptional case, a corporation’s operations in a state may be so substantial and of such a continuous nature as to render it essentially at home in that state. General jurisdiction now requires a “proportionality” analysis. It is appropriately asserted only when the defendant’s contacts in the forum state are more continuous and systematic than the level of the defendant’s continuous and systematic contacts in other states. Daimler v. Bauman.

Question 16

ESSAY TIP

Answer 16

The final step in the personal jurisdiction analysis deals with the fairness factors. This is the second element of Due Process (the first being minimum contacts). If the lawsuit is related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state (specific jurisdiction), there is a strong presumption that the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant is fair. The fairness factors rarely play a huge role on essays. In fact, they generally only come into play when there is a foreign defendant from another country.
1) Note: Without minimum contacts, fairness considerations do not come into play.

Question 17

Fair Play and Substantial Justice (The Fairness Factors)

Answer 17

Once it is established that the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, a presumption arises that the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable, and the burden is on the defendant to make a compelling case otherwise.

1) The Supreme Court has listed several factors that are relevant in assessing whether jurisdiction over the defendant would be fair and reasonable.
2) The factors include 1) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute and making its courts available for its residents 2) the burden on the defendant in having to defend in an inconvenient forum AND 3) the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief. These factors are all relevant to determine whether assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Question 18

Personal Jurisdiction Snapshot

Answer 18

1) Traditional Bases: 1) voluntarily present in the state when served 2) consent 3) domicile
2) Constitutional Basis – Minimum Contacts and Fairness
1) Minimum Contacts
1) Purposeful availment: The requirement of a purposeful act
a. Stream of commerce/Internet: Must intentionally target the forum state
2) Foreseeability: Anticipate behind held into court there
3) Specific Jurisdiction: can consist of a single act
1) Cause of action must relate to the defendant’s contacts
4) General Jurisdiction: At home in the forum state
1) Corporation: place of incorporation and principal place of business
2) Individual: domicile
2) Fairness: 1) forum’s state’s interest 2) burden on the defendant 3) plaintiff’s interest

Question 19

Personal Jurisdiction Approach

Answer 19

1) Start with a one sentence definition of personal jurisdiction i.e. personal jurisdiction refers to the court’s power over a particular defendant
2) Quickly discuss the three traditional bases – consent, domicile, and presence. If any one of the traditional bases are satisfied, the analysis is at an end.
3) Mention whether the state has a long arm statute since that defines the limits the states chooses to subject non-residents to suit there. An unlimited long-arm statute (like California has) simply applies the due process analysis.
4) This begins the main part of the approach. The constitution requires that in order for a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant two elements must be met: 1) minimum contacts and 2) fairness.
5) Minimum contacts has two subparts: 1) a purposeful act by the defendant and 2) foreseeability. If the defendant has no contacts with the state, discussion over. A discussion about whether the defendant intentionally targeted the forum state, or any purposeful act that occurred within the forum state satisfies minimum contacts. This will likely be the main issue to discuss on an essay.
6) While this is still part of the minimum contacts analysis, a discussion of specific or general jurisdiction is necessary, i.e. is the plaintiff’s claim related to the defendant’s contacts with the state? In most cases, the claim will be related and specific jurisdiction will be satisfied.
7) Finally, wrap up the fairness factors and you are done.