Personal Jurisdiction

Question 1

personal jurisdiction (PJ)

Answer 1

the court’s ability to exercise authority over parties or their property

core concept is fairness

ET: must determine for each D

Question 2

PJ analysis

Answer 2

jx must be authorized by both:
1. Statutory: an applicable state law must authorize jx (usually long-arm statute)
2. Constitutional: jx must satisfy due process
* minimum contacts w/ forum state
* adequate notice + opportunity to be heard

for both state + fed court

Question 3

only need to analyze Ds. Why?

Answer 3

Because P consented to PJ when P filed the case

Question 4

types of PJ

Answer 4

• in personam
• in rem
• quasi in rem

Question 5

in personam

Answer 5

jx over persons (Ds)
* court may render judgment (money or injunction) against an individual based on contact w/ forum state

This type of Jx most likely to be tested

Question 6

in rem

Answer 6

jx over property or status, including ownership disputes
* court adjudicates rights of parties w/r/t property located in forum state

NOTE: judgment is binding as to disposition of property rights or status NOT as to parties personally

often involves estate issues, business proceedings, property disputes (eg action to quiet title)

Question 7

quasi in rem

Answer 7

permits a court w/out PJ to determine certain types of disputes between P and D when property is located in forum state
* property is attached for some reason not necessarily involving property itself (eg, action against D and his assets due to fears D will flee state)

NOTE: court may render judgment as to persons w/r/t property rather than judgment over person or property itself

Question 8

statutory authority on PJ

Answer 8

state laws often determine when courts may exercise jx
* a fed court must analyze jx like state ct in which it sits and must follow applicable state statuts

NOTE: court’s exercise of jx must also satisfy constitutional requirements

Question 9

statutory limitations on PJ

Answer 9

most state statutes grant courts in personam jx if:
* service of process
* domicile
* consent
* long-arm

Question 10

service of process

Answer 10

D is personally served in forum state
* D must be present in forum state @ time of service

NOTE: duration of D’s presence irrelevant

Question 11

domicile

Answer 11

D is domiciled in forum state
* court can exercise jx over domiciled persons even if they are NOT physically present when served

Question 12

domicile definition

Answer 12

1. D maintains permanent home in forum state (only 1 state), or
2. conducts systematic + continuous business in state such that D is “essentially at home” therein

Question 13

consent

Answer 13

D consents to jx
* can be express or implied

Question 14

long-arm statute

Answer 14

D’s acts fall w/in state’s long-arm state

Most common

Question 15

two types of long-arm statute

Answer 15

1. general/unlimited long-arm statute
2. limited/enumerated long-arm statute

Question 16

general/unlimited long-arm statute

Answer 16

confers state’s cts w/ jx to the extent allowed by Const.

apply Const. test

Question 17

limited/enumerated long-arm statute

Answer 17

specifies when state cts can exercise jx

Question 18

long-arm analysis on MEE

Answer 18

1. if long-arm statute provided, apply it
2. if NO long-arm statute, state it’s needed + state you’re assuming it’s met THEN move onto constitutional analysis

Question 19

constitutional limitations on PJ

Answer 19

to be subject to PJ, D must have such minimum contacts w/ forum state that exercising jx does NOT offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

• TR: physical power
• MR: due process standard (three factors)
  1. minimum contacts
  2. relatedness
  3. fairness

Question 20

const. limitations on PJ requirements

Answer 20

minimum contacts + relatedness + fairness

1. Minimum contacts: D must have sufficient minimum contacts with forum state; inquiry focuses on:
   * Purposeful availment: did D avial herself of forum state’s laws?
   * Foreseeability: did D know of or anticipate being held accountable for her in-forum activities?
2. Fair play & substantial justice: given D’s contacts, exercise of jx must NOT offend these notions; inquiry focuses on:
   * Convenience: would litigating in the forum severely disadvantage D?
   * State’s interest: does forum state have an interest in providing redress for residents or an interest in the outcome?

Question 21

minimum contacts

Answer 21

• Purposeful availment: D must purposefully avail herself of forum state’s laws (ie, voluntary act, non-accidental manner)
• eg using roads, doing business in-state, etc.
• Foreseeability: D must know or reasonably anticipate that she could be held accountable for her activies in the forum state
• foreseeable that D can be sued in forum

Question 22

minimum contacts examples

Answer 22

1. marketing a product in the forum
2. using forum’s roads
3. establishing domicile in forum
4. traveing in forum (so being present)
5. sending tortious email in forum (even if D is NOT present)
6. putting goods in stream of commerce
7. targeting forum state
8. maintaining interactive website targeting customers + readers in forum

Question 23

website

Answer 23

interactive sites are more likely to have requisite minimum contacts; passive sites less likely
* Interactive: two-way communication between user & operator (eg, information exchanged for the purpsoe of soliciting business; purchases allowed)
* Passive: site makes information available to interested viewers, but NO business is transacted

Question 24

putting goods into stream of commerce

Answer 24

manufacturers may be held liable if they could reasonably expect consumers to purchase their products in forum state
- Mere awareness that component parts may reach forum as part of another product is insufficient

Question 25

targeting forum state

Answer 25

increasingly, the SCT has equated minimum contacts w/ a targeting of forum state.
- This requires some deliberate activity w/in & cultivation of state

Question 26

fairness requirement

Answer 26

due process requires that the exercise of jx must be fair

ie, must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

Question 27

fairness factors

Answer 27

1. relatedness of contacts & claim
2. convenience
3. state’s interest

Question 28

relatedness of contacts & claim

Answer 28

does P’s claim arise from (or relate to) D’s contact w/ forum state (relating can be enough)
* specific jx
* general jx

Question 29

specific jx

Answer 29

claims arise/related to D’s in-state contacts
* only minimum contacts must be established
* D can only be sued for claims arising from in-state contacts