Personal Jurisdiction Flashcards
What are the three types of personal jurisdiction?
In personam
In rem
Quasi-in rem
What must a P provide the D with under the Due Process right?
If the P abides by the state’s rule of procedure, is that sufficient to meet the adhere to the D’s rights under Due Process?
A plaintiff must provide the defendant with adequate notice of a lawsuit through service of process that complies with procedural rules and due process. In a state-court action, a defendant may be served by following the state’s rules of procedure.
HOWEVER, due process requires that service reasonably apprise the defendant of the pending suit so that the defendant may appear and present objections. This means that the plaintiff must notify the defendant of the lawsuit by the most reasonable means under the circumstances.
-> If the defendant’s identity and address are known or obtainable through reasonable efforts, then notice through personal service or some other means likely to notify the defendant is required.
What state statute will a federal court look at to determine if it has personal jurisdiction over a party?
The federal court will look at the state’s long-arm statute, for the state in which the federal court is located in (the forum state).
The forum state’s long-arm statute specifies when a federal court within the state can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.
Under the due process right, when can a federal court exercise PJ over a D through the state’s long-arm statute?
The D has “MINIMUM CONTACTS” with the forum state and the exercise of JX would be FAIR AND REASONABLE.
What is the “100 mile bulge” rule?
Due process requires that a court have personal jurisdiction over all the parties in a dispute. Federal courts have the same jurisdictional reach as the courts of the state in which they sit.
Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k) provides a special rule—the “100-mile bulge rule”—for federal courts to acquire personal jurisdiction over a party who is:
-> added to the suit through impleader (i.e., third-party practice) or required joinder
AND
-> served with process within 100 miles of the federal court where the suit is pending—even if the party is served in another state.
Can a party ever consent to PJ, if so, how?
A party may expressly, impliedly or voluntarily consent to PJ
What defenses can a D assert against a court asserting PJ over them?
When must such defenses be raised and what happens if you fail to raise them?
Defenses:
-> lack of JX
-> insufficiency of process or service of process
Must be asserted in responsive pleading (either answer or pre-motion answer - whichever comes first)
AND
failure to object waives the objection.
UNLESS
the defense is asserted in an amended answer filed within 21 days after the original answer was served.
When is in personam jurisdiction generally required?
generally required whenever judgment is sought that would impose a personal obligation on a D
What are the five bases for which in personam JX can be asserted?
Voluntary
-> appearance in court works unless the person is there to object to the JX
Domicile
-> if authorized by state, a state has JX over person domiciled in state (person with capacity intends to make that state his home)
Consent
-> D can expressly consent to JX by K, stipulation, or by authorizing an agent
-> impliedly through conduct
OR
-> voluntarily through appearance in court (unless to object to JX)
Long-arm statute
-> authorizes PJ over nonresidents who engage in some activity in state or cause some action to occur within state to extent permissible under Due Process Clause
Attachment of property
-> if claim is not related to ownership of attached property, there must be minimum contacts between D and forum state to establish JX
When is the due-process right satisfied to be said that a federal court has valid in personam JX?
Due process satisfied IF
-> in personam jurisdiction exists without usage of long-arm statue
OR
-> need to use long-arm statute and meet the statute’s requirements of minimum contact, and reasonable and fairness
What must be shown in order to fulfill the minimum contacts requirement under the Due Process Right?
Defendant purposefully availed themselves that it would be foreseeable for them to be sued in that state.
Defendant’s conduct is related to the action in question.
How is the purposeful availment element of minimum contacts satisfied via purposeful availment?
D’s contacts with forum state must be purposeful and substantial, such that D should reasonably anticipate (foresee) being taken to court there
How is the relatedness element of minimum contacts satisfied via specific or general JX?
Specific
-> when c/a arises out of or closely relates to a D’s contact with forum state, even if it’s the only contact
-> specific personal JX is for that action only
General
-> requires that D be domiciled in or have continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state
-> confers personal JX even when c/a has no relationship with D’s contacts with the state
How are minimum contacts satisfied via imputed contacts?
Partnership
-> each partner is generally an agent of partnership
Corporations
-> out-of-state corporation’s contacts with forum state doesn’t automatically establish JX over wholly-owned subsidiary unless it is parent’s alter ego or acting as agent
Employees/agent
-> contacts by nonresident employer’s agents/employees imputed to employer if acting within the scope of agency/employment (not usually applicable to independent contracts)
How is fair play and substantial justice determined under the due-process requirements (aka the “fair and reasonable” requirement)?
Once minimum contacts are established, a court must still examine the facts to determine if maintenance of the action would “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
