Personal Jurisdiction Flashcards
What part is quasi in rem jurisdiction and must the property be related to the case?
Quasi in rem jurisdiction may furnish a court with personal jurisdiction over a defendant if the court would not have personal jurisdiction otherwise, but the defendant owns property within the state. Unlike in rem jurisdiction, it does not permit the courts to determine the rights of all persons in the world with respect to the property. This type of quasi in rem jurisdiction, involving property unrelated to the lawsuit at hand, has been severely limited by the courts. It can usually only be granted under the following circumstances:
1. The defendant is a fugitive who cannot be located. 2. The assets themselves are in imminent danger of disappearing. 3. The local state long-arm statute is too narrow to reach the defendant even though the defendant has minimum contacts with the state.
What does a court need for personal jurisdiction?
To have personal jurisdiction over parties in a lawsuit, two distinct requirements must be met: (i) the court must have the power to act on a given person so as to subject him to personal liability (substantive due process), and (ii) the court must have given the defendant adequate notice of the action against him and an opportunity to be heard (procedural due process). A court may not exercise jurisdiction over a defendant unless minimum contacts with the state in which the court sits have been established. The defendant must have taken actions that were purposefully directed towards the forum state to create these contacts.
A court may not exercise jurisdiction over a defendant unless minimum contacts with the state in which the court sits have been established. The defendant must have taken actions that were purposefully directed towards the forum state to create these contacts.
Minimum contacts to the forum state can be established in a variety of ways. Jurisdiction may be exercised over an individual by virtue of his presence within the forum state at the time she is served with process. Jurisdiction may constitutionally be exercised over an individual who is domiciled in the forum state (even if service takes place outside the state). A defendant could also consent to jurisdiction in a state where he has no minimum contacts. A defendant who commits a tortious act in a state he otherwise has no contacts with will also be under that state’s federal court’s jurisdiction.
However, even when the requirements of due process have been satisfied, the defendant may not be served outside of the forum state unless the forum state has enacted a statute authorizing out-of-state service, called a long-arm statute.
Service of process within the forum state is not a prerequisite for a court to have personal jurisdiction. Although most states do grant their courts personal jurisdiction over any defendant who can be served with process within the borders of the state, it is not required, nor is it the only way for a state court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
B is correct. The personal jurisdiction of a federal district court sitting in diversity is the same as that of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located. Since State B’s long-arm statute would not extend personal jurisdiction on these facts to a state court, a federal court similarly would not have personal jurisdiction, even though the United States Supreme Court’s case law provides that the assertion of personal jurisdiction in such circumstances would be constitutional.
A is incorrect. The federal court would not have personal jurisdiction because State B’s long-arm statute would not extend personal jurisdiction to a state court in this case. Additionally, if the federal court had power, venue would likely be proper. The federal venue statute provides that venue is proper in a judicial district in which any defendant resides if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located, or a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. In this case, the harm giving rise to the claim likely occurred in State B.
C is incorrect. A federal court must generally determine personal jurisdiction as if it were a court of the state in which it is situated. Meaning, a federal court will look to state jurisdictional statutes to determine if it has authority over the parties before it and will be subject to the restrictions imposed on states by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the federal district court cannot acquire personal jurisdiction over the novelist because of State B’s long-arm statute. However, if the court did have jurisdiction, then venue would have been proper because the harm that gave rise to the claim occurred in State B.
I
What are long-arm statutes?
Many states have statutes granting the courts jurisdiction over persons committing tortious acts within the state. These statutes can also give rise to jurisdiction, even when the acts are done by an out-of-state defendant, if the defendant caused tortious injuries in-state.
A state’s long-arm statute cannot give its courts more powers than are allowed under the U.S. Constitution, but can give them less. Therefore, it is necessary to consult State A’s long-arm statute to determine what constitutes personal jurisdiction in State A.
Analysis
In this case, personal service is not the only way for the court to obtain jurisdiction. Additionally, if the state’s long-arm statute grants personal jurisdiction, the defendant may be served inside or outside of the state.
Physical presence is not a prerequisite for a court to have personal jurisdiction.
When should A long arm statue be used?
A long arm statue should be used for PJ when a non citizen Commits a tort in that state.
May a state have pj over a DF that is nit a resident but received service of process?
Yes, because the librarian’s physical presence in State A when she was served is sufficient to give the court personal jurisdiction over her.
Does a DF have minimum contacts if they advertise in the newspaper?
Yes. Because the DF purposely availed himself of the benefits of conducting business in a state. The activity makes it reasonable foreseeable that suit could ensue in the state.
