Personal Jurisdiction Flashcards
What is the long arm statute that many states follow?
Federal Rule 4k(1)A: In General. Serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located. (Copied from the Constitution)
What is the first two questions that must be asked in a personal jurisdiction case?
Does the defendant come within the terms of the applicable state long arm statute?
Does the Constitution permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction? [Federal Rule 4k(1)A]
How do federal courts approach tagging?
Personal jurisdiction exists with tradition, or weak Shoe (Tagging + voluntary presence in the state)
When does jurisdiction automatically exist?
When the defendant consents to jurisdiction or when the defendant’s domicile is within the jurisdiction.
What are the three steps to the International Shoe test for personal jurisdiction?
- Are there sufficient minimum contacts with the state to warrant personal jurisdiction? (Did the defendant purposefully avail himself to the protection and laws of the forum state?)
- Relatedness Requirement: Does arise from/relate to contacts with the forum - Specific Jurisdiction
- Reasonableness/Fairness
a) The burden on the defendant
b) The forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
c) The plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient relief
d) The interstate judicial system’s interest in the most efficient resolution of controversies.
e) The interests of other states in furthering their substantive policies.
What did we learn in Chalek v. Klein?
For the minimum contacts prong of Shoe, there can be a passive or an active party.
Passive party - order by telephone/mail - doesn’t give rise to personal jurisdiction.
Active Party - dictates or vigorously negotiates terms
What is O’Conner’s view on Stream of Commerce?
Stream of Commerce theory plus some additional “action of the defendant purposely directed toward the forum state” Examples Below
1) advertising or soliciting sales
2) establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum state, or
3) creating creating or controlling the distribution system that brought its products into the forum state.
What is Brennan’s view on Stream of Commerce?
Pure Stream of Commerce Theory: If reasonably anticipate products will flow into the forum state, that is enough to satisfy that the defendant has purposefully availed himself to the forum state.
What does Nicastro tell us?
Targeting a region does not count as targeting a state under Stream of Commerce (e.g. targeting the U.S. does not count as targeting New Jersey, by plurality)
Justice Ginsburg says yes, but there is no law on the subject)
What does Calder v. Jones tell us about the effects test?
When dealing with intentional conduct, not mere negligence, but when the defendant had knowledge
1) his conduct would cause harm in the forum state
2) defendant expressly aimed or targeted the forum state
(Writer and editor in Florida defamed women in California where the magazine had its largest circulation)
What does the Kulko case show us?
Courts are skeptical of creating minimum contacts from family acts. (Father is in NYC, ex wife is in CA, father buys daughter plane ticket to CA, not enough to establish minimum contacts)
What is general jurisdiction?
When contacts are so profound, we can say defendant is at home.
For Corporations: HQ and Principle Place of Business
For an individual: Domicile
No relatedness requirement for General Jurisdiction
What is the relatedness requirement?
It is the 2nd prong of the International Shoe minimum contacts test for specific personal jurisdiction. The actions must arise out of, or relate to contacts with the forum. Sliding scale
What test is used for the relatedness requirement?
Substantial connection test: If some substantial connection exists between the claim and the contacts with the state, this element is satisfied.
When is reasonableness/fairness analyzed?
If there is no General Jurisdiction, and steps one and two are met of the International Shoe test, the defendant must make a compelling case that it would be unreasonable/unfair as to violate the Due Process Clause.
