Personal Jurisdiction

Question 1

What is the 2 step analysis of personal jurisdiction (PJ)?

Answer 1

1. Satisfy a statute (e.g., a state long-arm statute), AND

2. Satisfy the Constitution (Due Process).

Question 2

For the 1st step of PJ, Statutory analysis, what do you write (For CA)?

Answer 2

“The statute reaches the constitutional limit.”

Question 3

For the second step of PJ, What is the test for constitutional analysis?

Answer 3

“does defendant have such minimum contacts with the forum so that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?”

Question 4

What are the three traditional basis of minimum contacts?

What happens if the D meets one of the traditional basis?

Answer 4

1) If D is domiciled in the forum
2) If D consents, or
3) is present in the forum when served with process (if not forced or tricked into forum)

traditional bases almost always meet the constitutional test

Question 5

If there is lesser contact then in the traditional basis what factors do you use to assess PJ?

Answer 5

1. CONTACT-
2. RELATEDNESS-
3. FAIRNESS

Question 6

First factor Contact: What two factors must be addressed under contact?

Answer 6

1. The contact must result from PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT: D’s voluntary act. D must reach out to the forum
   And
2. It must be foreseeable the defendant could get sued in this forum.

Question 7

First factor Contact: What are examples of purposeful availment?

Answer 7

Marketing a product or using the roads, or causing some effect. Anything where they are targeting the forum.

Question 8

First factor Contact: Can you purposefully avail yourself to a state without ever setting foot in it?

Answer 8

No need to step foot in the forum for purposeful availment.

Question 9

First factor Contact: What question do you ask when assessing relatedness in PJ?

Answer 9

Does P’s claim arise from the D’s contact with the forum?

Question 10

Second factor Relatedness: “Does P’s claim arise from the D’s contact with the forum?”
What if the answer is yes?
What is it called?

Answer 10

If the answer is yes, the court might uphold jurisdiction even if the defendant does not have a great deal of contact with California. Called Specific personal jurisdiction

Question 11

Second factor Relatedness: Where the claim is related to D’s contact with the forum, it is called what?

Answer 11

Specific personal jurisdiction

Question 12

Second factor Relatedness: What if the claim does not arise from D’s contact with the forum?

Answer 12

Then, jurisdiction is OK ONLY if the court has general personal jurisdiction.

Question 13

Second factor Relatedness: To have general personal jurisdiction what must be true?

Answer 13

D must have continuous and systematic ties with the forum so that Defendant is essentially at home in the forum.

Question 14

Second factor Relatedness: Where is a human always “essentially at home”?

Answer 14

Where domiciled.

Question 15

Second factor, Relatedness: Where is a business always “essentially at home”?

Answer 15

1. Where formed and 2. where it has it’s principal place of business.

(might be other places, like where it has a regional headquarters or major production facilities, but we’re not sure.)

Question 16

Second factor, Relatedness: Can “essentially at home” be based on sales or purchases within the forum?

Answer 16

No. You must have some physical presence.

Question 17

Third factor, Fairness: What do you assess in fairness?

Answer 17

assess whether jurisdiction would be fair or reasonable under the circumstances

Question 18

Third factor, Fairness: What factors are assessed under fairness?

Answer 18

1. Convenience
2. State interest
3. Plaintiff’s interest

Question 19

Third factor, Fairness: What does D usually complain about under the convenience factor?

Answer 19

D may complain that the forum makes it tough to litigate because it’s far from D’s home and maybe it’s tough to get D’s witnesses
and evidence to the forum.

Question 20

Third factor, Fairness: What is the standard that the court uses to assess convenience?

Answer 20

the forum is OK unless it puts D at a severe disadvantage in the litigation.

This is very tough to show, the relative wealth of the parties is not determinative.

Question 21

Third factor, Fairness: What is an example of the (2) state’s interest in the case?

Answer 21

provide forum for its citizens, protect it’s citizens.. etc.

Question 22

Third factor, Fairness: What do you look at for the P’s interest?

Answer 22

maybe the P is injured and wants to sue at home. P has the choice of forum.

Question 23

What is the summary of PJ constitutional test for non-traditional minimum contacts?
(all factors and sub-factors, remember to mention every one)

Answer 23

Contact: personal availment, foreseeability

Relatedness: General jurisdiction v specific jurisdiction

Fairness: Convenience, state’s interest, plaintiff’s interest.

Question 24

Doofus makes valves in PA and sells them to a company in NY. The NY company then puts the valves into its widgets and sells widgets nationwide. A Doofus valve in one of these explodes in CA. So the Doofus valve got into CA, but Doofus did not send it here. Is PJ in CA constitutional? Go through the factors argue both sides where you can.
(might need to write this out)

Answer 24

1. Contact.
   -Is there a contact between Doofus and CA?
   YES, the Doofus valve blew up here.
   Maybe no: because a third party (the NY manufacturer) sent the valves to
   CA. Doofus sent nothing to CA, so maybe there is no personal availment
   Maybe yes: because Doofus makes money from the sales by the NY company into California.
   -Is it foreseeable that Doofus could get sued in California? Maybe if Doofus knows its valves get to California and that valves can explode and hurt people.
2. Is there relatedness?
   Yes! The claim arises directly from the contact between Doofus and California. So if Doofus had very little contact with
   California, jurisdiction might be OK because there is relatedness ie SPECIFIC JURISDICTION
   (If there were no relatedness, we would need general PJ, which would only be possible if Doofus had such continuous and systematic ties with CA that it is essentially at home here.)
3. Fairness
   -Convenience. Doofus may complain that litigation in California is
   difficult and expensive, and it’s tough to get its witnesses here from PA. But
   it has to show that it is so gravely inconvenient as to put it at a severe
   disadvantage in the litigation. Due process does not gurantee the most convenient forum.
   – State’s interest. The forum state (California) might have an interest in
   providing a courtroom for its people who are harmed by allegedly careless
   out-of-state manufacturers.
   – Plaintiff’s interest. Plaintiff is hurt and would find it tough to litigate in
   the defendant’s home state.

Assess each factor and come to a reasonable conclusion.

Question 25

When would internet be considered purposeful availment? When would it not?

Answer 25

An interactive website targeted at a state can be purposeful availment. Maintaining a passive website, providing only information, in another state, is probably not a relevant contact for personal availment.

Question 26

A Nevada hotel maintains an interactive website, on which Californians can get rate information, make reservations, and get driving directions from California to the hotel. Does this support specific jurisdiction?

Answer 26

Yes

Question 27

What is In rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction?

What test do you use?

Answer 27

Here, jurisdiction is not over D herself, but over her property in the forum. The statutory basis is an attachment statute (allowing court to attach property claimed by non-resident). Constitutionally, the Supreme Court held that in all cases, even in rem and quasi in rem, D must satisfy the International Shoe test. So the constitutional analysis is the same as in personam.