M3: Personal Jurisdiction Flashcards
What are the three types of personal jurisdiction?
In Personam: virtue of the defendant’s relationship with forum state
In Rem: defendant owns property in in forum state
Quasi Rem: defendant owns property in forum state
H: Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon, alleging that Neff hired Mitchell to perform legal services in Oregon and failed to pay Mitchell the resulting legal fees. This suit arose after International Shoe was decided. Mitchell found Neff in California and served Neff with process in California. Would it be constitutional for the Oregon court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Neff?
Yes, because Neff had contact with Oregon and the claim arose out of Oregon.
Demo (a PA company) sends one of its products by mail to Paula, a California citizen. The product injures Paula in California and she sues Demo in California.
Would it be constitutional for a court to exercise in personam jurisdiction over Demo?
Yes, because Demo made a deliberate contact with Paula, a citizen of California. The claim arose out of the voluntary act with the state.
Demo (a PA company) sends one of its products by mail to Paula, a California citizen. Paula then moves to Arizona and sues Demo there.
Would it be constitutional for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Demo?
No to general jurisdiction, because Demo does not appear to have sufficient contacts with Arizona.
No to specific jurisdiction because the claim does not arise from a contact with Paula in Arizona.
Did the state of Washington have both general and specific jurisdiction over International Shoe? If not, which one was it able to exercise?
Specific Jurisdiction: contacts through Washington through reps who sold shoes. Ongoing sales and moving of product to Washington, but not enough to support general jurisdiction.
Why is personal jurisdiction (vs. subject matter jurisdiction) so easily waived?
Personal jurisdiction is a defense that is personal to the defendant, whereas subject matter jurisdiction implicates systemic concerns.
A party can raise SMJ for the first time long after a case has begun, or even on direct appeal.
True or false: The Constitution automatically confers personal jurisdiction on the courts of a state.
False. The state legislature does this! Each state specifies how expansively its courts can exercise personal jurisdiction (as long as it is within constitutional bounds).
True or false: The Constitution automatically confers personal jurisdiction on the courts of a state.
False. The state legislature does this! Each state specifies how expansively its courts can exercise personal jurisdiction (as long as it is within constitutional bounds).
True or false: Courts can exercise personal jurisdiction ONLY IF it has the constitutional authority to do so and the relevant statute authorizes it.
True. A case must fall into both circles (long arm statute and permitted by the Constitution) for a court to have authority to hear it for in personam jurisdiction.
H: Lowell Franklin purchased an insurance policy from International Life Insurance Co. while living in North Carolina, then moved to California a week before his death. The beneficiary of the policy had always lived in California.
If the insurance company had no other connection to California, would a California court have authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over the insurance company if the company makes a timely objection?
No. Personal jurisdiction in this case would probably be unconstitutional.
California’s long arm statute: “foreign corporations to suit in California on insurance contracts with residents of that State even though such corporations could not be served with process within California’s borders”
Here, the California statute is valid because Franklin moved to California before his death. However, in personam jurisdiction is unconstitutional because the purposeful contacts are not met.
H: You are a New Mexico citizen traveling to Arizona. You enter a local hardware store looking for a chainsaw. You tell the owner that you intend to bring the chainsaw back to New Mexico and the owner sells you a chainsaw. You return to New Mexico and are injured by the chainsaw, filing a lawsuit in New Mexico against the hardware store. Would it be constitutional for the New Mexico court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the store?
No. The claim does not arise out of the defendant’s contacts with New Mexico.
There would not be personal jurisdiction because the defendant did not direct the chainsaw to New Mexico. The defendant did not otherwise avail itself of the privilege of doing business in the state.
H: Imagine that during a driving trip to Pennsylvania to Maine, Donald takes a wrong turn and, unbeknownst to him, drives to Vermont. Before Donald discovers his error, he hits Penelope. Penelope sues Donald in Vermont and Donald moves to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Assuming Vermont’s long-arm statute authorizes jurisdiction over the action, the motion should be…?
Denied, because the case arises out of Donald’s contacts in Vermont.
A Vermont court would have a strong interest in hearing the case. All of the witnesses would likely be in Vermont. Fairness favors Vermont because the plaintiff is located there.
Purposeful availment doesn’t have to mean that Donald intentionally drove to Vermont (he didn’t!), but instead means that Donald purposefully drove his care into an area that happened to be Vermont.
H: Keeton sues Hustler Magazine for libel in New Hampshire. Keeton is a citizen of New York whose only connection to New Hampshire was that the libelous magazine had been distributed there. New Hampshire was also the only state where the statute of limitations for her claim had not yet expired.
Keeton’s libel claim alleged damages to her reputation in New Hampshire and nationally, though her damages in New Hampshire were relatively small.
How would the court rule with regards to personal jurisdiction?
There is personal jurisdiction because the claim arises out of Hustler’s contact with the state of New Hampshire. Keeton’s contact with the state has nothing to do with the test!
Specific jurisdiction constitutional only when:
1) Defendant had deliberate and purposeful contact with the forum state;
2) Plaintiff’s claim arose out of those contacts;
3) Personal jurisdiction is reasonable based on a consideration of the these factors
+ Forum state’s interest
+ Plaintiff’s interest
+ Interstate judicial system’s interest
H: Dudley, a Georgia citizen, works in security at an airport in Atlanta, Georgia. While at work, Dudley stops Lucky, a Nevada citizen, who was at the airport for a brief layover during his trip home to Nevada after vacationing in Puerto Rico.
During the layover, Dudley confiscated a significant amount of cash from Lucky, who claimed to have won it while gambling at a Puerto Rico casino.
Lucky returned home to Nevada without his money, while Dudley filed an affidavit in Georgia as part of an effort to have the money forfeited to the government. Dudley knew that Lucky was on his way home to Nevada at the time Dudley confiscated the money. Dudley also knew that Lucky was in Nevada at the time Dudley filed his affidavit.
Lucky sues Dudley in Nevada state court, alleging Dudley’s affidavit was knowingly false. Assuming Dudley moves to dismiss the Nevada case on personal jurisdiction grounds, the motion would likely be…?
Granted because Dudley did not purposefully direct any contact to Nevada.
True or false: Choice of law provision within contracts necessarily gives personal jurisdiction to courts of the state whose law is specified in the contract
False. Choice of law provision is usually binding but it does not automatically grant personal jurisdiction to the chosen state in the agreement.
Choice of law adds weight to an argument between parties in a dispute re: personal jurisdiction (you agreed to avail yourself in that state), but it’s not conclusive.
A more binding contract provision: forum selection clause, would lessen the arguments over personal jurisdiction.
Paula (a California citizen) sues David (an IL citizen) in federal district court in California. Paula alleges that while she was living in IL, David shot off fireworks that set Paula’s house on fire.
- -> Paula’s claim is based on a state law cause of action and the alleged damages exceed $75K.
- -> David has never set foot in California and California’s long-arm statute reaches as far as the Constitution allows.
David moves to dismiss for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. How should the court address David’s motion?
Would it be different if Paula files suit in IL state court for $50K? The IL long-arm statute reaches as far as the US Constitution allows. If David filed for dismissal, what would the court say?
If filed in CA federal court, the court should grant David’s motion regarding personal jurisdiction and thus cannot hear the case.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction exists: Two citizens from different states and AIC exceeds $75K. But personal jurisdiction is lacking since David has no contacts whatsoever in California.
If filed in IL state court, there is personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. State courts are not subject to the $50K AIC. Personal jurisdiction would be met, since David lives in IL and his actions were in IL.
Eugene (Idaho citizen) buys a computer from Nectarine (Delaware corp, main place of business in Mass), which his shipped to him from Nectarine’s plant in Mass. The computer catches on fire, causing Eugene to lose all of his valuable data. Eugene sues Nectarine and Trellis (Delaware corp, Delaware business) in Idaho state court, alleging the fire was due to a defective Trellis battery.
Trellis moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Assuming Idaho’s long-arm statute reaches as far as the Constitution allows, what would the US Supreme court actually hold regarding the stream of commerce method for establishing personal jurisdiction?
The US Supreme Court has left unresolved whether the Idaho state court would have personal jurisdiction over Trellis.
Marks rule: No single rationale –> the holding of the court may be viewed as that position taken by those members who concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds.
If you were representing a corporation in a stream of commerce case, what would you argue to an out-of-state jurisdiction to convince it that it should not be subject to specific jurisdiction?
What if you represent the plaintiff suing multiple parties in a stream of commerce case?
Defendant: Use O’Connor’s opinion from Asahi, Kennedy’s from McIntyre ==> Component part manufacturers do not direct their activity to any given state. Narrow approach, since the liberal approach is problematic (judicial economy, certainty)
Plaintiff: Use Brennan’s opinion from Asahi, Ginsburg’s from McIntyre. Liberal approach to stream of commerce (fairness, faith in the legal system)
Peter is injured in Indiana by a product that Damage Inc. (incorporated and principal place of business in Ohio) designed, manufactured, and sold in Indiana. Peter sues Damage in Ohio, because he recently moved to the state. Does the Ohio court have PJ (general or specific) in this case?
Specific jurisdiction: No. The claim did not arise out of anything that Damage Inc. did in Ohio.
General jurisdiction: Yes. Damage is HQ’d and does its business in Ohio, so they’re essentially “at home” in the state. Here in Ohio, a court has personal jurisdiction over any claim that a plaintiff might have against Damage, even if it arose in Indiana.
When is a company considered to be “at home” in a state for purposes of general jurisdiction? Is the at home test narrower than “continuous and systematic” test? If so, how?
At home = whenever it has its principal place of business or place of incorporation. Daimler exceptions mentioned: Perkins, where a company moved from overseas to Ohio due to WWII loss.
At home test is narrower and more difficult to satisfy. A company can have continuous and systematic contacts with many states but not be at home in any of them.
Larger companies are now subject to general jurisdiction in fewer states than when the test “systematic and continuous contacts”
True or false: After Daimler, a company can be sued in a state where its contacts give rise to claim but cannot be sued where it has its principal place of business or place of incorporation
Part true, part false.
Specific jurisdiction: a company can be sued in a state where its contacts give rise to claim.
General jurisdiction: a company CAN be sued where it has its principal place of business or place of incorporation.
Why does a change in general jurisdiction matter? And to whom does it matter?
Similar to Daimler, where a defendant is a foreign company that has its principal place of business + incorporation abroad –> when claims against the company arise out of conduct that occurred abroad, specific jurisdiction is not possible in the U.S. That makes general jurisdiction the only option.
Also, it makes recovery for the injured party more inconvenient.
Penelope buys a hot coffee at McDonald’s in Florida and spills it on herself, causing third-degree burns. Upon returning to her home in Georgia, Penelope sues McDonald’s in a Georgia state court for negligence, alleging that the store sold excessively hot coffee and caused her to suffer damages.
The Georgia long-arm statute reaches as far as the Constitution allows. McDonald’s is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Illinois. They have 75 stores in Georgia.
If McDonald’s moves to dismiss the case on personal jurisdiction grounds, what will the court say?
Grant the motion, since McDonald’s has its principal place of business and place of incorporation outside of Georgia, so a Georgia court cannot exercise general jurisdiction in Georgia because they’d not be “at home”
Even under the most liberal definition of “arising out of”, this case does not arise out of contact that McDonald’s had with Georgia, so there is no specific jurisdiction.
Before Daimler, the court may have denied the motion since general jurisdiction would have been allowed.
True or false: If a lawsuit has nothing to do with the forum state and the defendant is an individual, the defendant can’t be subject to general jurisdiction if the defendant is domiciled there.
False. General jurisdiction for individuals is based on wherever the individual is domiciled.
Larry (Arkansas citizen) purchases swampland in Florida. Carrie claims that she is the rightful owner of the swampland and that the land was sold to Larry without her permission.
Carrie brings a claim in Florida state court, asking the court to declare that the land belongs to her and not Larry. She files her suit and asks the court to issue an attachment order.
Does the court have in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction in this case?
Attachment order: filed at the registry of deeds to give notice to potential buyers that Carrie has a claim pending that might affect Larry’s ownership of the property.
By attaching the property at the outset of Carrie’s case, Florida court establishes quasi in rem jurisdiction. They can determine who has the better claim between Carrie and Larry (vs. in rem == who the true owner is against anyone else in the world)
–> this quasi in rem jurisdiction only applies to the specific plot of swampland, not every plot around the world that Larry owns
Patty sues Donald for negligence in Texas, where Donald is subject to in personam jurisdiction. The jury awards Patty monetary damages. Donald decides not to appeal and after final judgment, he refuses to pay Patty.
What can Patty do to collect from Donald?
Patty can ask a Texas court to attach (post-judgment) any assets that Donald owns in Texas, including bank accounts or real estate. The Texas court can even sell Donald’s real estate to ensure that Donald satisfies the judgment against him.
The Texas court could also garnish Donald’s wages.
–> Both are in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction
If Donald does not have assets to fully satisfy the judgment, Patty can take the Texas judgment to another state where Donald does have adequate assets. Other state court is bound by Full Faith and Credit Clause. –> Neither in rem or quasi in rem, but a way to get your money on a valid judgment entered by a court that had in personam jurisdiction
True or false: Under Pennoyer, a court could exercise jurisdiction based on the presence of a defendant’s property in the forum state, even if the debtor was not subject to personal jurisdiction in that state.
True!
Ex: If a debtor left a car in the state or piece of land, the court could seize and sell that property to satisfy debtor’s debt.
If the court in Shaffer v. Heitner had applied the Pennoyer approach to in rem or quasi in-rem jurisdiction (instead of International Shoe), would the Delaware courts have had quasi in rem jurisdiction over the executive’s stock?
Probably
Pennoyer: A court can exercise in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction as long as the asset was located within the forum state and was attached at the appropriate time.
A pre-Shaffer court would have likely have established quasi in rem jurisdiction because the stock was property that could support in rem or quasi in rem, plus it was considered physically present in Delaware. Plus there was proper attachment at the appropriate time.
