Personal Jurisdiction Flashcards
Personal Jurisdiction
Power of court over the party to the case
Personal Jurisdiction - Broad 2 Questions
- Whether statute permits PJ
- Whether U.S. Constitution permits jurisdiction
PJ - Q1 Whether statute permits PJ
- In Rule 4(k)(1)(A): federal court has same statutory jurisdiction as state court in that state
- State jurisdictional statute – 2 varieties
1. Coextensive with constitution (copy of U.S. Const)
2. Grocery list variety (state statute of jurisdiction that will subject to long-arm jurisdiction)
CHECK TO SEE IF STATE STATUTE SATISFIED WITH RESPECT TO JURISDICTION
PJ - Q2 Whether U.S. Constitution permits jurisdiction
Traditional Basis of Jurisdiction;
if no traditional–> general
if no general –> Specific (Shoe analysis, min contacts/stream of commerce, relatedness, reasonableness)
Traditional Basis for Jurisdiction Meaning & Types
Meaning: automatic jurisdiction
- Explicit consent
- Presence in state
- Citizenship or domicile
- Voluntary appearance
- Tagging (personal service when in state)
No reasonableness check
General Jurisdiction
If no traditional basis, look to see if general jurisdiction:
When a defendant is at home in forum state
Individual: domicile
Business: At home = where corporation is incorporated or where corporation has its principal place of business (NERVE CENTER, high level officers that direct and control operations)
–There are some exceptional exceptions where a corporation is at home that are beyond state of incorporation and principal place of business
–Exception: Wartime invasion and the corporation is operating elsewhere
No reasonableness check - if subject to general jurisdiction → there is jurisdiction over all claims
Specific Jurisdiction - Meaning & Process
If no trad basis or general jurisdiction, look for specific jurisdiction (Shoe)
3 Step Process:
1. Are there sufficient minimum contacts to warrant PJ?
2. Relatedness
3. Reasonableness
Minimum contacts
1st of 3 steps for specific jurisdictional analysis
Minimum contacts (factors)
–Personal availment of forum by defendant;
–Defendant must be targeting state (the unilateral action of customer is not enough)
Overall big picture Q: Did defendant purposefully avail themselves to or target the forum state?
–Can be shown by
1. Direct contract with forum
2. Stream of Commerce
PLUS RELATEDNESS & REASONABLENESS
Purposeful availment - Meaning & Examples
Core element in determining minimum contacts for specific jurs of PJ
Done by:
1. Direct contract with forum
Contract between out-of-state and in-state party
Contract with forum resident is not automatically minimum contacts. You must ask the circumstances and facts of the contract: Who solicited who? Was there a contractual negotiation? *Must ask those questions if contract will give rise to minimum contacts.* Different results between Chalek v. Klien & Burger King
- Stream of Commerce
Pure and Plus
Stream of Commerce
Factor to support purposeful availment –> min contacts –> Specific jurs (Shoe)
Definition: When a business than other than you put the product in states
Court is SPLIT on how to handle this
Stream of Commerce Plus: Justice Kennedy - placement of product without something more is NOT an act of defendant’s purposefully directing to forum state
Awareness of forum as destination is not enough, need intent or purpose to serve market in forum state (designing product, marketing specifically for forum state)
Stream of Commerce Pure: Ginsburg – If you reasonably anticipate that products will flow into the forum state through commerce, this is ENOUGH to justify minimum contacts
Court is split on whether targeting counts
Kennedy - no
Ginsburg - yes
Court advises another fact pattern – intentional torts and effects test (Kalder, alden)
Intention conduct and not negligent, we expect that the defendant had knowledge of the intentional conduct and the defendant expressly aimed at or targeted forum state (activities occurred, activities were particularly targeted for citizens of the state). Bad acts must have some specific connection to state other than plaintiff just being there (Walden- the cops bad behavior in the state is not enough)
Relatedness
STEP 2 of Determining Min Contacts
Arises from or related to contact with forum
Analyzing defendant’s contacts and the claim
Does the defendant’s claim arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts?
“Ford:” Substantial connection, in wake of test, even what the defendant is dong in state with respect to state, we wouldn’t we expect claim or injuries to occur in wake of activities – common sense more than pure causation – relatedness
Reasonableness - Definition and Factors
STEP 3 in determining min contacts reasonable to exercise PJ over defendant
5 factors:
1. Burden on defendant
2. Forum state interest
3. Convenient and effective relief of Plaintiff
4. Efficient resolution of controversy (access to witnesses, evidence)
5. Shared interest of states in serving public policy (balance)
Analyze the whole bundle of 5 factors
Defendant must make compelling cases for unreasonableness to defeat jurisdiction
—-Another jurisdiction that is just more convenient IS NOT SUFFICIENT - there must be more
—-Burger King - Brennan - If jurisdiction is super reasonable, maybe the minimum contacts can be a little bit lower
