Personal Jurisdiction

Question 1

PJ over foreign corporations

Answer 1

Rule 4(k)(2) is generally used for non-U.S. residents who have contacts with the Unites States generally, but not with any one state in particular. Under this Rule, a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, even though the court would not otherwise have personal jurisdiction over the defendant due to the application of the “minimum contacts” test to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. In order for this rule to apply, the plaintiff’s claims must be based on federal law. In addition, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant must be consistent with the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States. In other words, the defendant must have sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant and establish that no state court could exercise jurisdiction over the defendant.

Question 2

The long arm statute

Answer 2

The primary means by which a federal court can exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant is by the long-arm statute of the state in which the court is located.

Question 3

When does property satisfy the minimum contacts?

Answer 3

Satisfaction of the minimum contacts test is generally required for a court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. However, once a court with personal jurisdiction over a defendant renders a judgment, that judgment is enforceable by a court in another state by seizure of the defendant’s property located in that state, even if the defendant does not have minimum contacts with the state.