Personal jurisdiction

Question 1

Generally

Answer 1

1. Three types—in personam, in rem, and quasi-in-rem JX
2. A federal court will look to state long-arm statutes to determine if it has PJ over the parties
3. Due process—federal court may not exercise PJ over a D unless the D has “minimum contacts” with the forum state and the exercise of JX would be fair and reasonable
4. Consent—a party may expressly, impliedly, or voluntarily consent to PJ
5. Defenses—lack of JX, insufficiency of process or service of process must be asserted in responsive pleading (or motion before it is submitted), and failure to object waives the objection

Question 2

In personam

Answer 2

1. Generally required whenever judgment is sought that would impose a personal obligation on a D
2. Bases for in personam JX
   • Voluntary—state has PJ if D is voluntarily present in the forum state and served with process while there
   • Domicile—if authorized by statute, 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 or once an action is brought, 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
3. Due-process requirements—satisfied if nonresident D has certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the action does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
   • Minimum contacts (MC)
   o 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
   o Specific and 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
    General—when c/a doesn’t arise out of or relate to D’s contacts with forum state, JX warranted only when D is “at home” in the forum state (it is incorporated there or has its principal place of business there)
   o Imputed contacts
    Partnerships—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/agents—contacts by nonresident employer’s agents/employees imputed to employer if acting within the scope of agency/employment (not usually applicable to independent contractors)
   • Fair play and substantial justice—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.” Factors include:
   o Interest of forum state in adjudicating matter
   o Burden on D of appearing in case
   o Interest of judicial system in efficient resolution of controversies, and
   o Shared interests of the states in promoting common social policies
4. In personam JX over corporations—corporation is a resident for PJ purposes only if it is incorporated in the forum state (otherwise must apply MC analysis)
5. Internet website—JX over a nonresident’s website is based on the degree of interactivity between the website and the forum, ranging from passive sites to those that are integral to D’s business
6. Suits based on K—K can be a significant factor in determining whether MC exist, and choice-of-law provisions are a significant factor as they establish that the nonresident purposefully availed herself to benefits of forum state’s laws

Question 3

Jurisdiction over things

Answer 3

1. In rem
   • Definition—gives court authority to determine issues concerning rights to real/personal property
   • Due process—proceedings against property must still satisfy due-process requirements for PJ and property must generally be present within the forum state
2. Quasi in rem
   • Definition—determines only the interests of the parties to the action regarding property located in forum state (e.g., lien foreclosure or quiet title action), and not personally binding against D
   • Due process—if disputes are unrelated to ownership of property and no close relationship is formed, in addition to having property located in forum state, MC must be shown between D and forum state

Question 4

Notice and opportunity to be heard

Answer 4

1. Notice
   • Rule—must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of pending action and afford them the opportunity to object
   • Form—via in-person delivery, registered mail, etc. if identity/address known or obtainable through reasonable efforts
2. Opportunity to be heard—for D whenever there is state-sponsored interference with a D’s property interest

Question 5

Defenses to jurisdictional claims

Answer 5

Special appearance to challenge PJ (abolished under FRCP) and collateral attacks