Personal Jurisdiction Flashcards
When client first describes problem involving multiple jurisdictions, what is the first question an attorney should probably ask-then what?
Whether a federal claim existed. If no federal claim, ask whether the states involved recognize the specific claim (like privacy torts of Girls Gone Wild in Bullard v MRA)
If you are able to “open the court house doors” in State A for a claim involving State A, B and C, what state law applies?
Typically, State A’s choice of law principles apply-not necessarily State A’s substantive law!
What are the 5 factors of Personal Jurisdiction?
- Domicile
- Consent
- Service in State
- Status <a></a>
- Contacts</a>
What is territorial PJx?
All things the state can do within its borders while still abiding by Pennoyer v. Neff (e.g. SiS, Stuff, Domicile, Consent, Status).
Under Pennoyer v. Neff, what power do the states have?
The power to act within their borders. Thus, states must show an act of judicial power within the state like find and serve someone within the state, or find a person’s stuff in the state and take it–though the “stuff” idea doesn’t really apply after 1977.
What is the doctrine lex loci de licti?
It is the choice of law idea that where the injury occurred is where an action may be brought (Bullard v. MRA).
Hess v. Pawloski is an example of why Pennoyer v. Neff was doomed from the beginning. How?
The Court upheld a long-arm statute saying anyone who used the state’s roads was deemed to consent to PJx for car accidents. Basically allowing the state to reach beyond its borders for judicial actions.
What “new box” did International Shoe create for PJx?
The case created the idea of minimum contacts, which allowed states to act outside of their territorial bounds–functionally abandoning Pennoyer v. Neff.
After International Shoe, what happens to Pennoyer v. Neff?
The part constricting territorial acts of power is dead, but International Shoe simply opened the constriction allowing territorial acts plus more–PJx expounded after International Shoe.
Pre-International Shoe set a floor of PJx (borders), and post-International Shoe set a ceiling (mc/fp/sj), which must be met how?
A long-arm statute
What are the political or policy reasons for a long-arm statute?
States want to authorize their courts to do everything allowed by the DPC. Thus, most states’ (46) long-arm statutes simply say the court’s authority goes to the limits of DP. NY and OH are states that don’t adopt this.
McGee v. International Life and Hanson v. Denkla discuss what important rule w/r/t communication between parties in different states?
The number of lines of communication between states doesn’t matter, so long as there is at least one. The important part of those lines is the arrow direction. If multiple lines and one direction of arrow heads, then only one party has reached out. If one line with two directional arrow heads, then minimum contacts on both ends is established.
When it comes to SMJx, it’s either on or off for all parties. Does PJx operate in the same way?
No, it’s very specific to each party, and claim.
For contact PJx, reaching out provides two distinct ways to gain jx, what are they?
General: systematic and continuous
Specific: Minimum contacts and Fair Play/Substantial Justice
In World-Wide VW, after the district court denied a motion that they had no minimum contacts, a writ of prohibition was filed. What is that?
An order from a higher court, to a lower court, for the lower court to stop doing something.
According to World-Wide VW, what is the purpose of minimum contacts?
Protect D from inconvenient forums, and ensure states-as coequal sovereigns-relate within the federal system fairly.
If contacts shrink to zero, do borders still matter?
Yes, because of interstate federalism–how states interact/relate to each other within a federal government. Borders always matter because you can live your life avoiding every sovereign except your state or the federal government. You have the right to control your jx’l destiny.
What is the first thing to ask in a contacts analysis?
Did X, themselves, ever reach out to the forum? It can’t be someone else reaching out for X because that’s not X.
What is the difference between horizontal and vertical conflicts?
Vertical = federal vs. state (really no "choice of law" because federal law trumps state law) Horizontal = state vs. state
What is the difference between naked stream of commerce and stream of commerce plus?
Naked stream of commerce: you make stuff and your responsibility follows your stuff through the stream of commerce-no r/o necessary (Brennan +4 Asahi). Plus: A manufacturer must r/o in someway via the stream of commerce (O’Connor +4 Asahi).
What are the FP/SJ factors?
- P’s interest in relief
- D’s burden
- Forum’s interest in being forum
- Interstate system’s interest in efficiency*
- Shared interest in social policy*
* Gensler doesn’t think these matter as much
After Asahi, which plan-Brennan’s or O’Connor’s-was used by federal and state courts?
Federal district courts split between the two. State courts overwhelmingly opted for Brennan’s plan because it gave them more power.
What were the three camps after Nicastro?
Kennedy +3: Need to r/o to that state
Ginsburg +3: If r/o to US, you r/o to all 50 states
Breyer +1: Agreed with Kennedy, but don’t need to decide non-traditional r/o (like internet issues)
If a foreign manufacturer (A) ships his products to a Canadian distributor (B), who, then, ships the products to the USA (C), who has reached out to whom?
A –> B –> C; A never r/o to C.
First rule of r/o: it has to be you!
