Personal jurisdiction Flashcards
when does court have power over plaintiff?
always - court has PJ over the P when she files because filing = consent
what is personal jurisdiction
court’s power of the parties, mostly concerned with the defendant
what is the big question when it comes to PJ?
does the D have sufficient contacts with the forum state so that the exercise of JP is fair and reasonable?
what is the analysis for whether there is PJ over the D?
(1) the exercise of PJ must fall within a state statute
.
.
State statutes generally confer jurisdiction over defendants who:
(a) are present in the forum at the time of service [PRESENCE]
(b) are domiciled in the forum state [GENERAL].
(c) have given express or implied consent to jurisdiction [CONSENT],
or
(d) meet the requirements of the forum state’s long arm statute or other statute authorizing personal jurisdiction [SPECIFIC]
(2) the exercise of PJ must satisfy Constitutional due process such that the defendant possesses minimum contacts with the state, which means the defendant purposely availed himself of the forum’s power and such availment made it foreseeable he could be sued in the forum. Then, the claim then must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the state OR if the claim is unrelated to the contacts, the defendant must be domiciled in the forum state, or present and served with process in the forum state.
.
.
[A] General jurisdiction – PJ over D where D is “at home”
individuals – domicile
corporations – place of incorporation or principal place of business [nerve center or head quarter]
— acts in a forum state must be so continuous and systematic as to make corporation basically “at home” in that forums Tate
.
.
.
[B] Consent/waiver
includes contractual waiver/forum selection clause as long as it was fundamentally fair, failure to object to lack of personal jurisdiction [failure to make 12b2 motion or make a 12 motion but don’t include PJ]
making special appearance to contest PJ does NOT count as consent
.
.
.
[C] Presence/tag jurisdiction
Non-residents that are physically in a state be subject to JP by being validly served with process while in that state. This is sometimes called “tag jurisdiction.”
.
.
.
[D] Specific jurisdiction - minimum contacts
The D must have minimum contacts with the forum so jurisdiction so that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant is fair [MIN CONTACTS]
To clarify, Supreme Court has indicated that individuals who are domiciled and corporations who are “at home” in the forum state, and those who are present in the state and are validly served with process are subject to the jurisdiction of forum state. The claims against these individuals or corporations do not have to relate to or arise out of their contacts with he forum state; their presence or domicile in the state is enough to confer jurisdiction. But defendants who are non residents and have not availed themselves of jurisdiction through presence alone must avail themselves of the forum state’s jurisdiction by way of having “minimum contacts” with the forum state. This is called “specific” personal jurisdiction.
The contacts must show that the defendant
(a) personally availed himself of the forum state’s laws [PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT];
AND
(b) knew or reasonably should have anticipated that her activities in the forum state made it foreseeable that she may be “haled into court” there [FORESEEABILITY].
Moreover, a court will find that jurisdiction as to that claim is fair and reasonable if the claim arises out of or relates to the defendant’s contact with the forum state.
A claim arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state if:
(a) defendant’s contact with the state caused harm to the plaintiff,
OR
(b) if the defendant had substantial contact with the forum state and the claim relates to that contact
Finally, specific PJ must be fair or reasonable under the circumstances. A court will look to the following:
(a) burden on the D and witnesses
- D must show more than some inconvenience - must show grave inconvenience that severely disadvantages him in the litigation [difficult to show - wealth is not a factor]
(b) state’s legitimate interest in provided redress for its residents
- Ex: forum state may want to provide a courtroom for its citizens who are being harmed by out-of-state Ds
(c) plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
-Ex: plaintiff is injured in forum states and/or wants to sue at home
(d) interstate judicial system’s interest in efficiency
(e) shared interest of the states in furthering social policies
is there any difference between the analysis of PJ in state or federal court?
no
limits on state statutory personal jurisdiction
states generally require that D
(1) is present in forum state at time of service,
(2) is domiciled in forum state,
(3) has consented to jurisdiction (express or implied),
OR
(4) long arm statute applies
elements of specific jurisdiction - outline
STATUTORY COMPLIANCE
– typically state long-arm statute
CONSTITUTIONAL COMPLIANCE:
(1) MINIMUM CONTACTS SUCH THAT
- personal availment
- foreseeable she will be haled into court as a result of her contacts
(2) RELATEDNESS
- claim arises out of contacts with state or relates to her substantial contact with the state
(3) FAIRNESS
- balance burden on D and Ws, state’s interest, P’s interest
examples of constitutional purposeful availment in the forum state
(1) Marketing a product in the forum/creating a market for a product in a forum;
(2) using the roads in a forum;
(3) establishing a domicile in the forum;
(4) traveling in the forum;
(5) sending a tortious email into the forum (note that the defendant here need not be physically present in the state);
and
(6) maintain- ing an interactive website within the forum may be sufficient for PJ if the defendant was targeting customers or readers within the forum.
significance of putting a product into the stream of commerce
Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court
The Supreme Court has stated that merely putting a product into the stream of commerce, even with the knowledge that it might eventually end up in a particular state, is an insufficient basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer or seller.
examples of activities that do not purposely avail a defendant to a court’s jurisdiction
(1) casual activity, accidental
(2) single, or isolated activity in many cases [but not mcgee - insurance situation]
(3) intangible property (stocks)
(4) situation where a party buys a product in one state, moves to another state and then attempts to sue in the second state
(5) stream of commerce situations where the seller does not deliberately exploit the state’s market (no agents, no ads, no shipping in that state); or just targets the United States as a whole and few products end up in that state
