Personal Jurisdiction

Question 1

Two-step analysis for Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 1

(1) The exercise of PJ must fall within a state statute, and

(2) The exercise of PJ must satisfy the Constitution (due process)

Question 2

Personal Jurisdiction Rule Statement

Answer 2

Does the defendant have sufficient contacts with the forum so that exercise of personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable?

Question 3

What if the question does not provide you with a state statute?

Answer 3

First, note that you need a state statute

Then, assume the statutory requirement has been met

Next, Move on to constitutional analysis

Question 4

Constitutional Prong Rule Statement

Answer 4

Does the defendant have such minimum contacts with the forum so jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?

Question 5

Constitutional Analysis Factors

Answer 5

Contact
- Purposeful availment (voluntary acts targeting forum)
- Foreseeability

P’s claim Related to D’s Contact
- Does it “arises from or relate to” Defendant’s contact with the forum?
- If YES: Specific Jurisdiction
- If NO: General Jurisdiction (then ask: Is D at home in the forum)

Fairness (Specific PJ only)
- NOT ENOUGH to say it is difficult. It must be so gravely inconvenient to put D at a severe disadvantage in the case (difficult to show)
- State’s Interest and Plaintiff’s interest

Question 6

What happens if the relatedness prong is NOT met?

Answer 6

The only way to proceed is with GENERAL PJ (D is at home)

Question 7

General Personal Jurisdiction over a person (individual)

Answer 7

General PJ requires the Defendant to be “at home” in the forum.

A person is “at home” in the state they are domiciled.

General Jurisdiction is also satisfied if the defendant is served with process in the forum.

Question 8

Where is a corporation “at home”

Answer 8

General PJ requires the Defendant to be “at home” in the forum.

A corporation is at home in:
State of incorporation
State of principal place of business

Question 9

Doofus makes valves in Pennsylvania and sells them to a company in Minnesota.

The Minnesota company then puts the valves into its widgets and sells the widgets nationwide.

A Doofus valve in one of these widgets explodes in Nevada, injuring Plaintiff (Doofus valve got into Nevada, but Doofus did not send it there.)

Is PJ in Nevada constitutional?

Answer 9

No clear right answer, come to a reasonable conclusion.

Constitutional Analysis:
Contact between D and Nevada?
- Purposeful Availment? Third party sent them there, but D makes money from that contact.
- Foreseeable? D knows it’s valves go to Nevada, knows valves can explode

Relatedness? Yes. If there is contact, then the valve cause the injury so it is related to P’s claim. Therefore, there is specific PJ.

Fairness? Hard to show, not enough that it is difficult

Question 10

Is the relative wealth of the parties relevant?

Answer 10

No