personal jurisdiction Flashcards
personal jurisdiction
the ability of a court to exercise jurisdiction over a specific party
centered around the defendant
can be waived
types of personal jurisdiction
general
specific
tag
consent
general jurisdiction
where an entity is considered at home, they can be expected to be hailed into court there
for individuals: their domicile is home
for corporations: their place of incorporation and principal place of business is home
always start with general jurisdiction
specific jurisdiction authorities
is there constitutional due process?
- minimum contacts + arises out of or related to + fair and reasonable
if yes, …
is there a long-arm statute granting authority?
specific jurisdiction constitutional authority
3 requirements
1) minimum contacts with the forum
2) those contacts arise of out of or relate to the forum
3) the forum is fair and reasonable
1) and 2) looking at D not P
the minimum contacts test
1) purposeful availment: did the defendant purposefully avail themselves to the forum state? –> did they deliberately direct their conduct towards the forum?
2) nexus requirement: did the dispute that’s subject of the litigation arise out of or relate to the defendant’s conduct with the forum?
if yes to BOTH, minimum contacts test is satisfied
fair and reasonableness
WWV and BK tell us the factors to consider:
- P’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
- interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies
- shared interest of the state in furthering fundamental substantive social policies
- the relationship between D and the forum
- burden of the defendant
- forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
** minimum contacts must be satisfied before looking at these factors **
not all of these factors need to be met in order for a forum to be fair and reasonable
stream of commerce theories
plus test: placement of a product into the stream of commerce is not enough to suffice contact, you need something additional
pure test: as long as participant is aware that final product may end up in the forum, that is enough for a contact to suffice under stream of commerce
** this matter is still unresolved ** you need to explain both theories, there is no right answer
internet??????
?????
International Shoe case
lays the foundation for modern personal jurisdiction
courts no longer focus just on where a person lives or where they were served to determine jurisdiction, but also the contacts they have with the jurisdiction
RULE: due process requires that the defendant have a certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
Pennoyer
McGee
gives us an illustration of how a court will reason through minimum contacts
Volkwagen (WWV) – P bought car in NY, got into a car accident in OK and tried to sue in OK
before even getting to reasonableness factors – if D did not purposefully avail themselves of the forum there is no specific jurisdiction
RULE: foreseeability alone is not sufficient to authorize a state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident that has no contacts, ties, or relations with the forum state
Burger King – two guys buy a store of the franchise in MI, fighting jurisdiction in FL even though they made a contact with the office in FL
simply having a party in a given state does not = purposeful availment on it’s own
need to look at:
- is there consent to be bound by contract?
- what do prior negotiations indicate?
- did parties contemplate future consequences?
- what was actual course of dealing?
this case ruled their contact was enough and therefore there was PJ in FL
RULE: the court must look to the purposefully directed activities of the defendant toward the forum state and whether the harms arising out of or relating to those activities are the cause of litigation
service of process under rule 4
requires: summons and complaint
any person above age of 18 and not a party (can’t be D or P) can serve process
serving process individuals: rule 4(e)(2)
- process server must leave them with a person
- that person must live at that address
- person receiving the papers must be of suitable age and discretion
serving process corporations: rule 4h
papers may be delivered personally to an officer or a managing agent of the corporation, or to a person authorized by law to receive serve of process
rule 4(e) serving to individuals
method 1: service by delivering the papers to the defendant personally
method 2: leaving papers at the defendant’s home with a person suitable age and discretion residing there (rule 4e2)
method 3: delivering the papers to a person who has been appointed as the defendant’s agent for service of process
method 4: allows the plaintiff to use state law methods for service of process
Asahi case
RULE: the placement of a product into the stream of commerce is left widely unresolved of whether it constitutes as a minimum contact or not
two theories developed from this case about stream of commerce
Ford case – MN and MT ppl sue Ford in home states even though they didn’t buy their car there
defines arises out of “or relates to”
this case says because Ford had substantial connections directed at the forum state (ads, repairs, sold models), there was a sufficient contact even though it didn’t arise out of –> it related to!
There is a strong relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation
Burdick case (facebook) – Burdick made defamation post at his home in Illinois directed at the Plaintiff
RULE: the defendant’s tortious conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum state, not just with the resident plaintiff
Burdick did not make the post in CA, didn’t target his post towards CA, and didn’t have fb friends in CA, there needed to be a more direct contact directed at the forum (CA), not just directed at P
