Personal Jdx 1 Flashcards
1
Q
PJ is about whether
A
fair for D to be pulled into this court
2
Q
For PJ first ask if
A
state statute allows
3
Q
After determining if statute allows PJ then
A
ask if constitutional
4
Q
PJ is limited by
A
Due Process
5
Q
4(k)
A
service establishes PJ for general jdx in state where district court located
6
Q
Rule 4 is FRCP says
A
refer to state rules of PJ
7
Q
In personam is the power to
A
enter money judgment against D, follows D
8
Q
In rem is power over
A
property in state’s borders for claims against that property
9
Q
Quasi in rem is basically
A
abandoned in Shaffer
10
Q
Pennoyer is about
A
territorial Jdx
11
Q
Pennoyer rule
A
served while in forum/consents to PJ/D domiciled there
12
Q
Pennoyer holding
A
no PJ in first suit so Neff keeps the land
13
Q
Pennoyer was replaced by
A
International Shoe
14
Q
Pennoyer reason 1
A
The property was not attached when jurisdiction was first attached, so it can’t be attached later to a judgment that has nothing to do with it.
15
Q
Pennoyer reason 2
A
Due Process cabins Full Faith and Credit Clause. Okay to seize land but notice given insufficient (had to know property at stake).
16
Q
Under Conneticut you _____ if follow procedures
A
seize property against absent D
17
Q
International shoe is about
A
minimum contacts
18
Q
IS rule
A
For out of state D to be subjected to in personam jurisdiction, due process requires that the D have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (Doesn’t define anything)
19
Q
IS holding
A
company has PJ because sufficient minimum contacts
20
Q
IS reason 1
A
Company activities were continuous and systematic enough (as opposed to casual presence/isolated activities) to satisfy the demands of Due Process.
21
Q
IS reason 2
A
Not unfair because of benefits received (protection of society, contracts only useful due to WA courts, salesmen living there)
22
Q
IS doesn’t overturn Pennoyer for __ only for __
A
in territory rules, out of
23
Q
What are the two prongs in IS test
A
contact and fairness
24
Q
Specific Jdx established based on ____
A
Extent to which defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state [Minimum Contacts Analysis]
25
Stream of commerce theory for specific jdx
If D can reasonably predict its products will make their way to a forum state in sufficient numbers (WWV) to establish specific jurisdiction, then selling on an open market = availment
26
SoC definitely does not __
support general jdx (Daimler)
27
Brennan/Ginsburg Soc theory
contact if put component into stream and can reasonably anticipate it gets to state C, and make money off that
28
Scalia/Kennedy SoC theory
Brennan + show intent to serve State C, without additional targeting no purposeful availment
29
Do we have final answer on SoC
no, plurality in Nicastro disapprove but not binding
30
WWV holds for SoC that
Foreseeability relevant to availment but not enough product ends up in state, whether foreseeable will be sued there (circular?)
31
Walden holding
P contacts irrelevant to PJ, D must target state
32
Hanson holding
Minimum contacts at the time the DF acted, not the time of the lawsuit
33
For minimum contacts need to know __
extent to which D purposefully availed himself of the state + extent to which P's claims arise out of or are related to those activities
34
Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice prong
whether PJ constitutionally reasonable (Burger King test)
35
BK factor 1
burden on D
36
BK factor 2
Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
37
BK factor 3
Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
38
BK factor 4
Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution
39
BK factor 5
Shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies
40
Daimler holds there is no ____ test in general jdx
reasonableness
41
Asahi holding
Can skip the minimum contacts analysis if the reasonableness test lands conclusively against jurisdiction (was an F-cubed case).
42
WWV about
foreseeability not enough for purposeful availment
43
WWV rule
Mere foreseeability that a product could end up in a certain state does not meet minimum contacts or purposeful availment of the forum.
44
WWV holding
No specific jurisdiction over the NY-based distributors.
45
WWV reason
If foreseeability was the test, “every seller of chattels would in affect appoint the chattel his agent for service of process”
46
BK holding
Jdx upheld because DF did establish minimum contacts and it was fair.
47
BK reason 1
DF “reached out” beyond his state and created continuing obligations in FL. (Purposeful availment).
48
BK reason 2
Also burden to be unfair that so gravely inconvenient that D severe disadvantage. High bar, didn’t care about distance or relative wealth.
49
Specific jdx usually decided under ___ and then only ___
first two prongs, discuss third for something to talk about
50
Nicastro takeaway
still no binding SoC precedent
51
Nicastro plurality reason 1
Difference from IS, (sales intentionally directed at state). Targeted US but not NJ specifically. sovereignty first, fairness to D almost like a defense
52
Nicastro plurality reason 2
Says no sovereign power here, No Jdx over unconsenting D
53
Nicastro plurality reason 3
In Fed system, if state can reach out and grab D, deprives other state of right to adjudicate
54
Nicastro plurality critique
But foreign countries not coequal in Fed system? (Critique)
55
Brennan concurrence Nicastro
don’t need SoC, Determined by WWV
Sovereignty is power to govern, broader than Jdx
56
Ginsburg Nicastro dissent
Most important fact: don’t care about the law just want money in the email
Nicastro specific
Accuse Kennedy of retrograding on due process analysis
57
Ford rule
Arise out of OR relate to. If little D activity in the forum, arise out of. If lots, relate to is good enough no causation required.
58
Ford reason 1
Not overruling BMS, distinguish because about specific Jdx
59
Ford reason 2
P not forum shopping, in home state
60
Ford reason 3
Selling the car not a contact, but so many contacts in state
61
Ford reason 4
Language sounds like continuous and systematic but not give Gen Jdx
62
Ford reason 5
Building and maintaining market there so people want Fords even if secondhand so fairness supported Jdx
63
Ford footnote 5
even if P just arrived in state doesn’t matter (ads didn’t induce)
64
Ford critique
too big to fail PJ?
65
After BNSF, current court believes general jdx ___
almost just based on domicile. No more continuous and systematic contacts test for general Jdx.
66
Goodyear rule
For general Jdx over a corporation, they must have systematic and continuous contacts with the forum state so as to effectively render it at home in that state.
SoC does not warrant a determination of general jurisdiction.
67
Daimler reason 1
If allowed, companies would be subject to suit in every state they sold substantially in. Billion in sales in CA but small percentage of worldwide sales.
68
Daimler reason 2
No reasonable test in general Jdx (Sotomayor proposes but it fails). If not, P gets to forum shop (chattels as agents of service)
69
Sotomayor concurrence Daimler
Could rule personal jdx would be unreasonable given that it is an F-cubed case with a more appropriate forum in Germany, under the Asahi test. Will shift the risk of loss from huge corporations to individuals harmed by their actions.
70
BNSF takeaway
even major assets don't confer general jdx
71
BNSF rule
A state court may not exercise general personal jdx over a railroad unless in-state activities are so continuous and systematic as to render it at home in the state.
72
In BNSF, Majority not ____ but seems to be
overruling anything, limiting reach of courts to grab Ds
73
If large amount of business but not incorp or PPB must __
do specific jdx for PJ
74
BNSF Opens possibility of ___
third state but hard to see when possible (maybe NJ in BMS
75
BMS takeaway
occurrence must be in forum state for specific pj
76
BMS rule
If occurence not in forum state no specific Jdx. DF's relationship with a third party is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction, even when third parties can bring similar claims.
77
BMS holding
No specific jdx; sliding scale approach violated Due Process.
78
BMS reason 1
Anything else going back to general Jdx and Walden P activity in forum irrelevant.
79
BMS reason 2
Jdx trumps joinder, must litigate in home states
80
Consequence for Ps in BMS
. (Proportionality for discovery now 8x smaller)
81
What if BMS class action
current standard is that as long as there is no PJ issue over the claims of the named plaintiffs, a nationwide class action is ok, because absent plaintiffs are not parties.
82
After BMS, ___ in part now depends on PJ
joinder
83
Shaffer rule
Property in a state is not enough to bring suit against D in that state. There must be minimum contact, just like in personam jurisdiction.
84
Shaffer holding
quasi in rem jdx violates Due Process. IS governs both in rem and in personam actions.
85
Shaffer reason 1
jurisdiction over a thing is just jurisdiction over the interests of persons in a thing.
86
Shaffer reason 2
Property in a state can bear on jurisdiction by providing contacts when the claims are related to the property. Here not enough availment.
87
How would Shaffer come out now
DE long-arm statute now says that by accepting a directorship of a DE corp, you are consenting to jurisdiction
88
Burnham takeaway
“Tagging” in forum state is always sufficient (binding rule, not binding reason)
89
Burnham rule
A non-resident is properly served if he is physically present in the forum state, General Jdx, No due process violation.
90
Scalia plurality in Burnham
long-standing tradition, so comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Legislatures are free to amend this if they would like, but they have not. Physical presence replaces minimum contacts, no IS test.
91
Brennan plurality in Burnham
determine fairness via IS test. (Shoe replaced Pennoyer)
92
Carnival takeaway
Forum selection clauses presumptively valid
93
Carnival rule
Parties may consent to a forum via a forum selection clause, regardless of whether it was negotiate because they are not fundamentally unfair.
94
Carnival reason
No IS analysis needed, about K fairness not Due Process.
95
Mallory rule
P States can require you to consent to general Jdx to do business there, IS test not required.
96
Mallory holding
Mallory can sue Norfolk in Penn despite fact that Norfolk domiciled in VA and so was Mallory at time of filing (lived in Penn for minute but exposed to carcinogens in Ohio and VA)
97
Mallory reasoning
Penn Fire controls here, not overruled or affected by IS
98
If Mallory stayed in Penn seems like
like Ford analysis
99
Critique of Mallory
doesn’t this just make Daimler barrier easy moot, Long arm basically coercing consent
100
Venue is
where an action should be brought if there are multiple courts with jdx
101
Venus is the P choice unless
the location of the parties or the site of the injury makes venue inappropriate elsewhere.
102
Remedy for improper venue is
always transfer, never dismissal
103
Fed statute about venue
1404
104
1404(a)
Federal courts have discretion, for the sake of “convenience” to transfer a case to any other district court where the action could have been brought.
105
Remedy for PJ under 1404(a)
12(b)(1) dismissal or transfer to a district court that does have PJ.
106
1404 cannot
transfer a federal case to a state court (remand is only for returning cases removed from state court).
107
Defendants can move for, and courts should grant under 1404 transfer of venue if
traditional common law factors of forum non conveniens apply:
108
Forum non conviens frequently applies in
Frequently in international cases. While availability of compulsory process matters to FNC, differences in substantive law and remedy do not.
109
Courts can condition venue transfer on
defendant’s waiver of personal jurisdiction and/or statute of limitations defenses.
110
Courts can dismiss for venue if ___
transfer not possible
111
Even if satisfy all Q of personal Jdx, still have
venue Q
