personal jurisdiction Flashcards
why did we have to get rid of the power theory of jurisdiction?
the penoyer rule worked back when people weren’t really traveling from state to state, but with the modernization of transportation, the court began to adapt personal jurisdiction law to accommodate some of these changes
what did kane v nj tell us? the express consent case
Held NJ law constitutional that required an out of state driver to file an instrument appointing a NJ agent to receive service of process in the state prior to using the state’s highway
Express consent- the driver agrees that the states courts have jurisdiction over him or her in a case involving an accident that occurs while the out of state driver is in that state
what did hess v pawloski tell us about implied consent for personal jurisdiction
the implied consent was via the fact that the state law said Simply operating a car in the state, a driver consented to have the registrar as his or her attorney for all lawsuits resulting from car accidents that occurred while the nonresident was driving in the state
the court had an issue with this and said that an out of state driver receive notice of the lawsuit by mail because of the potential for unfair surprises
what question does internationl shoe answer for us
how to assert jurisdiction over a corporation
international shoe (shoe agent case)
fact: defendant corporation is sued in Washington, a place it has no office in, does no business in etc. they are sued by their salesmen who reside Washington whos principal activities are confined to that state
The salesmens actions are subject to approval from the defendant corporation’s office
Issue: For a defendant not present within the territory of a forum to be subjected to a court’s in personam jurisdiction, does due process require that the defendant 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?
due process requires that in order to have a defendant for a judgment in personam, if he’s not within the state, he needs certain MINIMUM CONTACTS with the state so that the maintaining of judgment does not offend the TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
what were the minimum contacts in international shoe
The activities carried on in behalf of the defendant company in the state of washington were neither irregular nor casual – THEY WERE SYSTEMATIC AND CONTINUOUS
They resulted in a large volume of interstate business, in the course of which D received the benefits anf protection of the laws of the state
define minimum contacts
the underlying events arose from the d’s activities in or toward the forum state OR the defendant had a continuous, systematic presence in the forum state
keytakeaway from international shoe
developed the modern personal jurisdiction framework; in personam jurisdiction against an out of state defendant requires that the defendant have minum contacts with the forum state
what did the ds in international shoe argue(hint they try to use pennoyer)
they may do business in the state but they are not physically present!
D was not a corporation of the state of washington and wasnt doing business in the state; did not have an agent within the state that service could be made – ie the sales people were just agents of the company and were not important enough to be served on behalf of the company; the appleant was not an employer
what does the international shoe court do to the power theory of jurisdiction (aka the pennoyer theory)
they reject it and replace it with the minimum contacts requirement
is the casual presence of the corporate agent in the state on the corporations behalf enough to establish minimum contacts?
no, for specfic personal jurisdiction, the contacts must be systematic and continuous within the state
how can a corporations presence be manifested in a forum state?
ITS PRESENCE CAN BE MANIFESTED VIA ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT ON ITS BEHALF BY THOSE WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO ACT FOR IT
what is the rationale behind the minimum contacts rationale
Quid pro quo- benefits and protections via state law, and you have certain obligations
what is the holding of int’l shoe/its holding
courts of a state may excersise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if she has such MINIUM CONTACTS with the states that it would be fair to require her to return and defend a lawsuit in that state
define minimum contacts
a non resident civil defendants connections with the forum state that are sufficent for the forum state to assert pj over that defendant
what is specfic jurisdiction
personal jurisction over a cause of action arising out of or closely related to a d’s conudct with the forum state
what is an easy spj fact pattern and what is a hard spj fact pattern
high contact, high relation – international shoe is an example of this
low contact, high relation
MOST CASES IN THE COURSE WILL FALL IN THIS CATEGORY
what is a no spj fact pattern
low contact, low relation
what is a gpj fact pattern
high contact, low to zero relatedness
If your contacts are so substantial, we don’t care how related it is under GENERAL PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Burham v Superior court (one of the surviing rules from pennoyer) – gotcha jurisdiction
Dennis and Francie Burnham were married but decided to separate. Francie moved to California with their kids, while Dennis stayed in New Jersey. Dennis filed for divorce in New Jersey, but didn’t serve Francie. When he visited California, he was served with Francie’s divorce papers. He tried to argue that California didn’t have the right to do this because he didn’t have enough connections to the state, but the courts disagreed. Dennis appealed to the Supreme Court
Issue: whether a person who doesn’t live in a state can be legally served papers while they are visiting that state for reasons not related to the case.
Service inside state borders can be about general jurisdiction, and that state has personal jurisdiction over them
a person who doesn’t live in a state can still be legally served papers if they are physically in that state. This means the state can have power over them in a legal case without violating due process.
McGee v International life insurance
an insurer sent an offer to re-insure to a policy holder in CA,
the sc held that the action of sending the offer was a deliberate reaching in that supported jurisdiction over the insurer
While casual or isolated contacts are insufficient to support jurisdiction, other SINGLE acts, because of their quality and nature will support specific in per]sonam jurisdiction, aka jurisdiction over claims arising out of that single act
Hanson v Denckla rule about defendant actions to establish pj (ie purposeful availment)
Unilateral actions of a third party that establish the defendant’s contacts with the state are INSUFFICIENT for the court to assert jurisdiction
The D has to make their OWN contact, a P cant make a contact on behalf of the D
Gray v american radiator and standard sanitary (interp of long arm stature and stream of commerce theory)
Placing a product in the stream of commerce with the EXPECTATION that it will end up in the state establishes sufficient contacts for the assertion of jurisdiction
not enough that you FORSEE it going in the state
what is general personal jurisdiction
the courts power to adjudicate a persons right REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE LAWSUIT
ie gen as the jurisdiction that allows a court to adjudicate your rights regardless of where the harm occured
what are long are long arm statues (ie a funcition of spj)
statues enacted by states that permitted their states’ courts to ‘reach out and grab’ an out of state defendant and assert pj over that defendant
what is the two step analyis with every spj issue
- is there a state statute that authorizes the court to excersise pj under the circumstances of the state
- if there is, the court must ask whetehr it would be constiomual under dp clause to do so
what are the three requirements of a case for a long arm statute to make it constuional via the dpc
remember - dont just conlcude that every assertation of jurisdction under a long arm statute is automatically constitiuonal just because the statue purports to authorize it
- purpseful availment – the d must purposfully establish minimum contacts with the forum state – forseeabilty not enough
- sustantial nexus – those contacts must have a substantial realtionship to the lawsuit
- fariness – jurisdction must not offend tradtinal notions of fair play and justice
shaffer v heitner:
Facts: heitner filed a suit in delaware court naming greyhound as defednat (he doesn’t live in delaware but owns stock in greyhound, which is a business incorporated under the laws of delaware
Greyhounds principle place of business in AZ
Hetiner attached 21 of the shareholder’s property located in delaware to get them in the state, to get pj via quasi in rem 2
The defendants argued lack of minum contact per international shoe
issue: the constiounallity of a deleware statute that allows a court of that state to take jurisdction of a lawsuit by sequestering any property of the d that happens to be located in deleware (ie quasi in rem jurisdction)
the statue was unconstituional ;
A state, in seeking to assert jurisdiction over a person located outside of its borders, may only do so on the basis of MINIMUM CONTACTS among the parties, the contested transaction, and the forum state
in the shaffer v heitner case, why wasnt spj or gpj met?
ie the greyhound stockholder case in deleware
Specfpc? – no! The relevant events occurred in oregon
General? - no! The defendants dont have a continuous, systematic presence in delaware
what is rule 4k(1)(a) saying?
“Serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant”
a) who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdction in the state where the district court is located
serving a fedral court summons establishes pj in that federal court IF it would establish pj in the state court in the state where the federal court sits
Establishing personal jurisdiction in federal district court is identical to the states way of establishing PJ in that state
if youre suing in FL, in federal court, how do you know whehter serving process establises jursidcato in that fl federal court
you look to fl long arm statute, to see whether fl long arm statue was complied with , and then do the due process analysis
burger king – keytakeway
They were given a franchise, and MacShara learned how to run a Burger King in Miami. Rudzewicz bought a lot of equipment from Burger King in Miami. They were supposed to pay fees to Burger King in Miami, but they couldn’t because they didn’t have enough money. Burger King sued them in Florida, but they said the court in Florida couldn’t make decisions about them.
Issue- is the exercise of long arm jurisdiction an offense to traditional conception of fair play and justice embodied in the due process clause? – ie was it random for them to sue in FL, or did the defendant purposefully establish minimum contacts in the forum state?
it adds the interst analysis factor for specfic personal jursidction – once minimum contacts and relatdenss to the suit are established , you go into the interest analyisis factro
what is the interest analysis that the burger case established (ie the burden on the defendant)
The forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
The plaintiff’s interest in abstaining convenient and effective relief
The interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution to controversies and
The shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies
what happens if the forum state has minimum contact and relatedness, if INTEREST FACTORS POINT AWAY from the forum state
no personal jurisdction
what is key takeaway from worldwide volkswagon
why was there no personal availment on the ds part
unilateral action by a plantiff cant subject a D to PJ in a state.
no purposeful availment because lack of deliberateness; The dealer had not sold the cars there, advertised there, cultivated OK customers, or deliberately focused on OK as a market
keeton v hustler key takeaway
why was personal avaliment met on ds end
issue: Is personal jurisdiction proper in a libel action against a magazine in a state where its only contacts are magazine sales?
Your reputation is where you are
Its foreseeable that sending a magazine into state that the harm would occur in that forum state and sender could be sued there
D had purposefully availed itself of the opportunity to engage in instate actives, by distributing its magazines within the state
asahi key takeaway via the fairness factors
A motorcycle rider is injured in an accident in CA, and his wife is killed
He files a product liability action in CA state court, and Ashai, a japanese corporation that manufactured the tube’s assembly valve is one of the ds
The president of Asahi stated that he never contemplated going to court in CA, he doesn’t have any employees in CA nor does in advertise in CA
The court concluded that the fairness factors required the case to be dismissed
Placing a product in the stream of commerce alone was insufficient for the assertion of jurisdiction
asahi key take away via stream of commerce
The majority rejected the premise that mere awareness that the stream of commerce may sweep goods into the state AFTER they leave the defendants hands suffices to satisfy purposeful availment
should we ignore the choice of law clause (ie like the one in burger king?)
`It’s just another way to establish D’s contact with the forum state ! – it’s not dispositive, but it’s not irrelevant
McInttyer (reevaluation of the asahi stream of commerce rule) – stream of commerce case in that hat an english manufacturer using an american distributor to get product to the Plainiff
P injured his hand while using a product made by the d, the accident occurred in NJ, but the product was made in England, which is where the D is incorporated. P brought a products liability suit and file it in NJ state court
issue: whether the NJ courts had jurisdction over the D, despite the fact that the D at no time either markted goods in the state or shipped them there
Holding: no pj; new jersey is without power to adjudicate the rights and liabilities of the d and any exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process
Key take away (and O’connors approach to stream of commerce): purposeful steps on the part of the Defendant are needed to establish the contact in the forum state
We need evidence that D targeted NJ to fulfill the Kenendy/O’connor standard of stream of commerce
what are the three approaches to stream of commerce via ashia and nicastro (work through nicastro in an exam not asahi)
O’connor (and kendendy via the nicastro case)
No minimum contact because D did nothing to target CA specifically
No purposeful contact with CA by D
So no stream of commerce argument under
O’connr’s standard
Brenan (ginsburg in Nicastro)
Stream of commerce based on foreseeability!
So available in a lot more places bc D could have EXPECTED it to reach CA
Stevens (concurrence in nicastro)
Fell in the middle
Inference based on the quantity ie the sliding scale approach used in the NJ SC
what is a stream of commerce fact pattern
Going to forum state/sending agents to forum state (int’l shoe, hess)
Sending your stuff that gives rise to action in a stare
Keeton v hustler (this is more of a direct sale; could be commercial or personal activity)
Indirect sending of stuff to state
Stream of commerce
Couple of steps in between
Must involve commercial activity
Walden v Fiore(minimum contacts case): the gambling couple case
A police officer seized money from a couple in an ATL airport while they were on a layover; p sued and their home state of nevada tried to assert jurisdiction
Issue: did the nevada court have jurisdiction over the D
Holding: no, no pj over the defendant officer
None of the connections to nevada originated with the defendant
The defendant never traveled or conducted any activities in nevada and therefore formed no jurisdictional relevant contacts with nevada
no PJ because D did not reach out, so minimum contact could not be established
calder v jones
The National Enquirer, a Florida newspaper, published a not-so-nice story about Shirley Jones, an entertainer. Jones, who lives and works in California, sued the newspaper, its editor, and the writer for saying bad things about her. The editor and writer, who also live in Florida, didn’t think it was fair for them to be sued in California.
Pj in calder because he reached out without having to step foot in the state
Calder had an intention to harm
Even though calder never had a tangible connection with the state, he made a METAPHYSICAL connection with the stat
bristol myers takeaway
Mass action case, some of the ps lived in CA but most didn’t, sued the D in CA on a tort suit surrounding a drug the d manufactured
All of the plaintiffs ingested the drug and were harmed from it
Issue: what does it mean for a claim to ‘arise out of or relate’ to the defendants activities in the state in the context of a mass action
no spj in this case; specific jurisdiction requires a link between the state and the non residents claim
No specific personal jurisdiction even when contact if p’s claim has NO RELATION to the forum states contact
Even when there is a giant mountain of contacts, if they cant be traced to Ps claim, NO SPJ
ford motor v Montana key takeaway (new rule of spj in this case)
establishes a new rule for PJ (ie the most current doctrine)
The new rule; if a company has sufficient contacts in a state AND they are related to P’s claim but don’t give rise to claims, spj can happen if the harm happens inforum state and/or injury in the state
New because this is first time we care about the Plaintiffs contact
ford motor v montana
two separate cases of a car crash in Montana with different models of ford cars
Ford: incorporated in delaware and headquartered in michigan, business is everywhere
They market sells and service its products across the country and encourages a resale market for its products
Engage in wide ranging promotional activities
Provide og parts to auto supply stores and repair stores
Montana accident sued in montana state court
Minnesota accident sued ford in minnesota state court
Issue- did the respective state courts have personal jurisdiction over ford
Holding- yes; the connection/relatedness between the plaintiffs claims and fords achieves in those states were close enough to support specific jurisdiction
ford has been doing all the ads and stuff to both models of the car
does gen pj care about relatedness?
no
what are we looking for in terms of general pj and a ds contacts
continous and systematice as to render D at home in the forum state
Perkins ( gen pj over a foreign corporation)
The case where the Philippines corporation prez moved to ohio because of japanese occupation
Issue: is it FAIR to sue d in ohio just because the company was ran from ohio?
Yes! Temp home in ohio still counted as the domicarly
Court held that the ohio courts could exercise gen jx over the d without offending the due process clause bc Ohio was the corporations principal, if temporary, place of business
Helicopters (gen personal jx)
arose out of a helicopter crash in peru
Four us citizens died, survivors brought suit in Tx state court against the owner and operator, a columbia operation
gen personal jx?
court held that while the company’s tx connections were regular, they did not resemble the continuous and systematic general business contacts found to exist in perkins
The contact was just regular! There is an important diff between REGULAR and CONTINUOUS
Goodyear (gen)- the bus accident in paris with the american boys being killed
Two boys from North Carolina died in a bus accident in France. Their parents sued The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and its subsidiaries in Turkey, France, and Luxembourg, saying a faulty tire from the Turkey plant caused the accident. Goodyear USA, which does business in North Carolina, agreed to be part of the lawsuit, but the subsidiaries didn’t. They said the North Carolina court had no power over them.
are foreign subsidiaries of a US parent corporation amenable to suit in the state court on claim UNRELATED (aka no spj) any activity of the subsidiaries in the forum state?
Because goodyear’s subsidiaries were in no sense AT HOME IN NC, the court held that they could not be required to submit to gen jurisdiction of Nc
Aka no continuous and so systematic to render a D at home
Daimler: (gen) Whether the fairness factors developed in those cases applied in cases revolving GENERAL PJ
People from Argentina sued DaimlerChrysler AG (Daimler) in California. They said that a Daimler subsidiary in Argentina worked with Argentinian forces to kidnap, torture, and kill workers during a war. These workers were the people suing or their relatives. The people suing said the court in California had power over Daimler because another Daimler subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz USA, did business in California.
HERE,the court rejected the two step minum contacts plus fairness factors analysis the court uses for SPJ cases
If a corporation meets the at home standard, the second step inquiry is not needed
bnsf: (gen) – get clarifcation
There were two separate suits
Nelson accident- brought a FELA suit against the defendant in Montana for knee injuries allegedly sustained while working for the ∆ as a fuel truck driver
Tyrell accident- his estate sued the D under FELA in Montana, alleging that he had developed a fatal kidney cancer from his exposure to carcinogenic chemicals while working for the defendant
They both sued the defendant via the montana long arm statue in montana
Issue: 1. Whether section 56 of FELA authorizes state courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over railroads doing business in their states but not incorporated or headquartered there( ie not continuous and systematic as to render it at home) , and
- whether the Montana courts’ exercise of Pj in the case comports with due process
A corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them!
So the business D does in the state would have been enough for specific jurisdiction, but because the injury Ps faced was not RELATED to the state (ie like the lack of relation in bristol) so no dice!
what are the four ways you can get gen jurisdction
domicile, conset, service of process, substamtial business
explain the domicle basis of gen pj
how do you determine where a company is domicled
courts have gen jx over a person who is domicled in the state in whcih the court is located
humans – where you reside and intend to reamin indefinity
corporations – where your PRINCPLE PLACE OF BUSINSESS is AND the state in whcih you are incorprated
explain the consent basis of gen pj
pj can be establised via conset – ie coming to court and failing to object to personal jursidction
explaiin the service basis of gen pj
D is voluntarily present in the forum state and is served with process while there
explain the substantial business basis of gen pj
must be so continious and systematic as to render the corporation essentially at home in the forum state
zippo – pj and the internet
what is the zippos sliding scale approach in determing if there was a minium contact in an internet case
low end of the specturm – completly passive webiste with zero interativity, just giving info and no transaction occurs – no minimum contact so no jurisdction
middle gray area – partially passive and partially interactive – jurisdiction determined by looking at the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of info
high end of the specturem – D clearly does businss on the internet – ie amazon so a clear minium contact and jurisdction
what is the schader approach in determing if minimum contact in interet case
they consider whether a D Deliberately directed its message at an audience in the forum state and intended to harm the P occurring primarily or particularly in the forum state
Plixxer – internet/spj case
Facts: german company named scrutinizer, Plixer(Maine company) has a product named Scrutinizer,
Both do the same thing
Harm- Plixer claimed that Scrutinizer’s use of the term Scrutinizer caused confusion, mistake, or deception as to the source of Scrutinizer’s services.
Issue: is a defendant that uses a website to engage in sizable and continuing commerce in a forum state subject to personal jurisdiction in that forum?
holding: a defendant that uses a website to engage in sizable an continuing commerce in a forum state is subject to personal jurisdiction in that forum
