Personal Jurisdiction

Question 1

constructive service

Answer 1

fake notice, newspaper article

Question 2

Pennoyer framework for due process

Answer 2

In personam:

• in-state service
• domicile
• consent (implied, express)
• voluntary appearance

In rem:

• in-state property (tangible, intangible)
• seized pre-judgment

Question 3

objections to personal jurisdiction must be raised

Answer 3

early. if a pre-answer motion is filed w/out raising the complaint, it’s waived

Question 4

holdings in Milliken v Meyers

Answer 4

Notice:
personal service outside state and service at usual place of abode (sub service) is “reasonably calculated to give D actual notice of the proceedings and an oppurtunity to be heard.”

Personal Jurisdiction:

• Domicile is sufficient basis for this substituted service
• “the authority of a state over one if its citizens is not terminated by the mere fact of his absence from the state”
• “enjoyment of privileges of residence within the state and the attendant right to invoke the protection of its laws”

Question 5

Holding in International Shoe

Answer 5

• Int Shoe, by its activities in state has rendered itself amenable to suit in courts in Washington - these courts have personal jurisdiction over them
• depends on the extent of the defendant’s contacts in relation to the claim asserted

Question 6

grid view of personal jurisdiction

Answer 6

look at notes

reasonableness is dependant on D’s convenience

Question 7

rule 4(k)(1)(a)

Answer 7

the personal jurisdiction of the federal court shall be the same as the court of the state in which the federal court is sitting

Question 8

International Shoe sliding scale

Answer 8

“a high level of activities will support jurisdiction even over claims unrelated to those activities. By contrast, a low level of activity (‘contact’ in the jargon) will support jurisdiction, but only over claims related to that contact”

Question 9

General and specific jurisdiction for individuals and corporations

Answer 9

General: very substantial contacts:
individuals - domicile
corporations - state of incorporation, principle place

Specific: isolated contacts:
the more closely related the contacts and the suit, the better

Question 10

McGee v. International Life Ins. implication and deets

Answer 10

nationalization of economy and improvements in tech make it less inconvenient for corporate defendants to face suit in foreign states

the contract had a substantial connection with the state

CONTACTS AND CONNECTION TO CLAIM

Question 11

Hanson v Denckla

Answer 11

Supreme Court held that FL could not exercise jurisdiction over defendant trustee

why? inconvenience, burdens and territorial limits

here are the big takeaways: there was insufficient connections with the state (the bank did not conduct any business in FL other than the deceased woman managing the trust from there)
also, and this is big league: the defendant did not, in any of its actions, purposefully avail itself of the privileges and legal protections of the state

Question 12

What relics of Pennoyer survive Int Shoe?

Answer 12

for personal jurisdiction:

• appearance
• domicile
• consent

Question 13

true in-rem vs quasi in-rem

Answer 13

true:
- plaintiff’s claim is related to the property

quasi:

• plaintiff’s claim is unrelated to the property
• property is used as a “jurisdictional hook”

Question 14

Shaffer v Heitner

Answer 14

• plaintiff attached property of defendants - their Greyhound stock - in Delaware
• International Shoe applies to natural persons as well as corporations
• instead of sovereignty, the legacy of International Shoe made the relationship between the forum, the defendant, and the litigation the central concern
• judicial jurisdiction over a thing (in rem) = “jurisdiction over the interests of persons in a thing”
• the minimum contacts test applies to property within the state
• the stocks were not related to the claim, so the fact that they were “located” in Delaware is insufficient
• no purposeful availment (officers of corporation which is incorporated in Delaware, but principle place of business and their activities elsewhere)
• no consent just because they became officers of a corporation in Delaware and purchased stocks located there

Question 15

legacy (implications) of Shaffer v Heitner

Answer 15

-attaching property does not, by itself, establish jurisdiciton

-

Question 16

two purposes of minimum contacts test

Answer 16

1. ) to protect defendants against too burdensome litigation in inconvenient forum
2. ) to ensure states do not over-reach and breach other state sovereignty

Question 17

Reasonableness/Fairness

Answer 17

• burden on D
• other relevant factors
  
  • forum state interest
  • plaintiff’s interest
  • interstate judicial system
  • shared interest of states in furthering social policies

Question 18

Two-step approach established by Worldwide Volkswagen

Answer 18

1. ) minimum contacts:
   
   • defendant must purposefully establish minimum contacts
   • the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being hailed into court there
2. ) Reasonableness:
   
   • after minimum contacts have been established, we have to look at factors which decide if exercising jurisdiction would be consistent with “fair play and substantial justice”
   • factors: the burden on the defendant, the forum state’s interest, the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolutions, and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies

Question 19

Asahi

Answer 19

Issue: Whether the mere awareness on the part of a foreign defendant that the components it manufactured, sold, and delivered outside the United States would reach the forum state in the stream of commerce constitutes sufficient minimum contacts rendering jurisdiction appropriate

Held: no jurisdiction

split decision on minimum contacts and personal jurisdiction (keep in mind: stream of commerce)

Reasonableness - fails whether minimum contacts are established or not

Question 20

Marks Rule

Answer 20

“when a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, ‘the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.’”

Question 21

J. McIntyre v. Nicastro summary

Answer 21

Kennedy: new test: purposeful availment is determined by the Defendant’s intention [expectations] to submit to a sovereignty - the forum state jurisdiction

Question 22

stream of commerce

Answer 22

when a corporation selling goods enters its goods into the stream of commerce in a state. generally only held to establish jurisdiction if they targeted the state, not if the goods just got there

Question 23

Calder Effects Test

Answer 23

determines purposeful availment. defendant must have 1.) known the probable impact of conduct on defendant and 2.) knew that the injury would be felt primarily in the forum state

Question 24

sliding scale test in Abdouch v Lopez

Answer 24

the website was “interactive”

other than two subscribers and small amounts of sales in forum state, defendant’s contacts with state “nonexistant”

when p’s claim is for an intentional tort, activities must be purposely focused on the forum state

also, the defendant’s contacts with the forum state were unrelated to the cause of action

as for Calder in this case, the defendant’s actions were aimed at the entire world, not NE

Question 25

Goodyear

Answer 25

• tires manufactured by subsidiaries in Luxembourg and Turkey killed US citizens in France
• substantial sales of tires in forum state (NC), though not by defendant subsidiaries of Goodyear
• rule: continuous activity of some sorts within a state is not enough to support the demand that the corporation be amenable to suits unrelated to that activity

Holding:

• defendants are not “at home” in forum state
• have only attenuated connections with forum state
• fall short of “continuous and systematic” activity

Question 26

Daimler A.G. v. Bauman

Answer 26

• this is the war crimes one - brought in California by foreign defendants against foreign plaintiff corporation because a connected firm (MB Argentina) collaborated with Argentinian government to commit war crimes against plaintiffs. suing German company Daimler, saying MB Argentina is an agent of Daimler
• MBUSA, which is in California, is a distinct corporation, however
  
  • state of incorporation: Delaware, PPB: NJ. However, multiple facilities in California

Holding: D is not “at home” in California. MBUSA is not an agent of Daimler

agency test and reasonableness

Question 27

“at home” test from Goodyear

Answer 27

a court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations “to hear any and all claims agaisnt them when their affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially AT HOME in the forum state”

Question 28

Bristol-Meyers v. Superior Court

Answer 28

plaintiffs are 600 plaintiffs, mostly nonresidents

defendant is incorporated in Delaware, headquartered in NY, substantial business in New Jersey

defendant did not develop drug in question in CA (forum), no marketing in CA, no manufacturing, nothing really

reasonableness: primary concern is burden on defendant. consent to power matters
held: wrong. lower court conflated specific and general jurisdiction in a weird way

Question 29

Bristol Meyers analysis (better card)

Answer 29

there was no adequate link identified between the state and the nonresident’s claim

not prescribed drug in CA

did not buy drug in CA

did not ingest drug in CA

were not injured in CA

the fact that the same injury was shared by some plaintiffs in CA is irrelevant

relationship between specific claims of nonresidents and forum missing

Question 30

Carnival Cruise

Answer 30

“choice of law” clause
plaintiff’s claim that the clause was not the product of negotiation
forum selection clause upheld
why? limits forum, dispels confusion, benefits customers by reducing costs to company. clause not drafted to discourage claims

Question 31

long arm statutes limitations

Answer 31

a state may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant only when a state or federal government (state legislatures or Congress) authorizes it to do so. AND the authorization must be constitutional (due process)

subject to minimum contacts test