Personal Jurisdiction Cases Flashcards
Suit (1): P did not get served with process copy of complaints since he doesn’t live in OR Mitchell gets default judgment money and has sheriff seize P’s property. Mitchell buys P’s property at auction and gives it to D.
Suit (2): P comes back to find his property sold says D ownership is invalid because seizure was invalid
A non-resident of Oregon assert ownership of property from an act of Oregon if he does not live there ?
No, a state may not exercise in persona jurisdiction over a non-resident on the basis of property ownership alone if the property is not attached or brought under jurisdiction of the court.
Under the Due process clause, a person is subject to the jurisdiction of court, unless voluntarily appears is found within the state resides in the state or as property in the state that the court has attached
- court must first determine if it has jurisdiction through verification (attachment process)
- Jurisdiction rules must be implemented in a way that provides adequate notice to the parties that a lawsuit has been commenced (Due process require service of process for D is not a resident of the state)
Pennoyer v. Neff (1877)
PA resident negligently and wantonly drove a motor vehicle on a public highway in Massachusetts instructing injured an MA resident
Is P, a non-resident motorist, held to Massachusetts court jurisdiction and service of process for getting in an accident in MA ?
Yes, state law may declare that a nonresident motorist impliedly consents to the state court jurisdiction and substituted service of process for claims arising from the non-residence use of state highways
Hess v. Pawloski (1927)
Company is a DE Corp. with its principal business in Missouri manufacturing and selling shoes. They’re work in Washington is limited to their salesman exhibiting samples, taking orders and transmitting orders to Missouri.
Is the corporation subject to Washington states unemployment tax given its limited activity in the state ?
Yes, a state may subject corporation to in person jurisdiction if the corporation has such minimum contact with the state has to make it reasonable to require the corporation to defend a suit there
- (1) Process depends on the quality nature of the activity in relation to the fair orderly administration of the laws (purpose of the due process clause): how much revenue is made there whether it’s incorporated = being a citizen, own property, where the workforce sits
- (2) Balance the quality of nature of contacts with the estimate of inconveniences subjecting the company to the forum state
-Activities were systematic and continuous in state not irrregular nor casual
International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945)
D refused to pay P the beneficiary of international life insurance policy issued to Franklin, a resident of California, upon Franklin’s death. No business in California, but P sued California State Court.
Does P have personal jurisdiction in a state that he never steps foot in and has an insurance contract with?
Yes, personal jurisdiction appropriate. Court is cozying up to stream of commerce
- Increase the “nationalization of commerce” and technologies that make the commerce easier and cheaper —> trend toward expanding the permissible scope of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations and other non-residents
- difference between international shoe is at this was done all by mail. No one entered California.
McGee v. International Life Insurance Co
Water heater exploded and injured P radiator manufactured by D. D filed motion to quash on ground that it had not committed tortious act in Illinois saying it does not do business there no agent physically there sells completed valves to company outside Illinois.
Does a tortious act within Illinois submitted jurisdiction even if D has no other contacts in the state other than selling the product ?
Whether statute, if so, construed violates due process of law ?
Yes, manufacturer by selling its product to a third-party manufacturer, so it can eventually be sold nationally has sufficient contact with each state where the final product is sold to be brought into court there
Does not violate. Due process is for convenience, Illinois convenient jurisdiction here.
Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp (1961)
Family bought a car in New York and then moving to Arizona. They passed through Oklahoma and got hit by another car—>A fire burned the mother and two kids. Family brought suit to Oklahoma Court saying that deffective design and placement of the cars gas tank and fuel system led to injuries.
Can Oklahoma exercise in personam jurisdiction over nonresident car maker under due process when D’s only connection to Oklahoma is at the car sold in New York to New York residents who got in an accident in Oklahoma?
No, there is no personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma—unilateral activity cannot satisfy the requirement of contact within the form state (a.k.a. just taking the car to Oklahoma and leaving the tri-state where it was sold)
- foreseeability alone has never been sufficient for personal jurisdiction under due process
- a corporation is to purposefully avail itself of privilege of conducting activities in the state
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980)
P resident of New York brought suit in New Hampshire against the magazine, Ohio corporation, who sold 10-15,000 copies of the magazine in New Hampshire— a magazine she helped to produce
Supreme Court said that regular sales were not fortuitous and there were minimum contacts in New Hampshire even though only a small portion of copies distributed there.
- We don’t care so much that she chose a forum not most convenient for her because we want her to be the captain of the suit
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine (1984)
Michigan resident and his friend got into a 20 year franchise contract with P (FL Corp) to operate a restaurant in Michigan. Patronage declined —> fell behind monthly payments —> P brought suit saying D breached their obligations.
Can P assert personal jurisdiction in Florida against franchisees who open shop in Michigan and defaulted payments?
Yes, combine with 20 year interdependent relationship reinforces D’s deliberate affiliation with the form state and reasonable foreseeability of possible litigation there
- intent was accompanied by action; paid their fees to D
- all justifications for personal jurisdiction, satisfied here: purposeful availment, foreseeability, knowledge, intent
- a contract with an out of state party alone CANNOT automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts—business negotiations with future consequences must be evaluated
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985)
Manufacturer of motorcycle tire sued by California resident who is injured saying the tire was defective. Tire manufacturer Cheng Shin files cross complaint against D, the Japanese manufacturer of tubes of valve assembly.
Does a tire tube valve component made by a Japanese company sold to a Taiwanese tire manufacturer have personal jurisdiction in California, where an accident happened involving the rear tire of a motorcycle claim to be defective and the burden of the alien is much higher than the form states ?
No. Exercising personal jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
- Considering international context, heavy burden on alien D, and slight interest of P and forum state, exercising personal jurisdiction by California court would be unreasonable and unfair
- doesn’t have the evidence to make a binding decision so they instead focus on different players in a supply chain (what did the contract say? What did they know at time of signing?)
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1987)
He injured his hand while using a metal sharing machine manufactured by D occurred in New Jersey, but machine manufactured in England, where D is incorporated and operates
Do New Jersey courts have jurisdiction over D even though the company did not market or ship goods to New Jersey ?
No. D did not engage in any conduct purposefully directed at New Jersey cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of New Jersey Court
- (Dissent, Ginsberg): Makuch arrived in New Jersey, not randomly or fortuitously, but as a result of US connections and distribution system that D UK deliberately arranged
There needs to be an activity that manifest an intention to access the forum state submitted to the state sovereign (similar to Pennoyer; language of implied consent
- One sale cannot establish minimum contacts, there must be “something more” such as: specially, targeted action, state related design, advertising advice, marketing went to tradeshow company called reports New Jersey-specific marketing)
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro (2011)
Pair of professional gamblers file suit in Nevada alleging airport security officer violated the fourth amendment rights by seizing their cash winnings in Atlanta, Georgia while they were in route to Nevada
Injury does not create a connection between petitioner and Nevada. injury happened outside state of Nevada —> harm from D’s action has to be felt in some direct way in the form state
- P can’t be the only injury/contact
- Can’t be the only contact (Burger King)
- Can’t be only a third party (WW v. VW)
- Can’t be only one sale (McIntyre, Bryer)
North Carolina Young soccer players died in a bus outside of Paris. parents sued the tire company for the design defects. Tire involved in accident was manufactured by D Turkey and was never distributed in North Carolina, D Turkey not registered to do business in North Carolina, no place of business, employees/bank accounts, did not design or advertise products there or solicit sellers ship tires to North Carolina customers.
Are foreign subsidiaries of a US parent corporation amenable to suit in-state court on claims unrelated to any activity of the subsidiaries in the forum state ?
No. The subsidiary sale of some tires in North Carolina through intermediaries is not a continuous, systematic business contact with the state sufficient to warrant the exercise of general jurisdiction over them.
Need continuous and systematic affiliation to be at home and established general jurisdiction
- Perkins v. Benguit Consol Mining Co.: Philippines mining corp stopped doing activities in the Philippines during World War II and moved minimal activities to Ohio. Continuous and systematic general business contacts here.
- Helicopteros: US Survivor of a helicopter crash in Peru sued helicopter Corp, a Colombian Corp, in Texas court. Colombian Corps had no place of business in Texas and not licensed there only made helicopter and equipment purchases and sent personnel to TX
THESE CASES HELP TO DETERMINE THAT FOR GENERAL JURISDICTION YOU NEED AT LEAST CONTACTS THAT ARE CONTINUOUS, SYSTEMATIC AND SUBSTANTIAL, ASSERTING STATE SOVEREIGN INTEREST, AND COMPANY IS “AT HOME”
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011)
Argentinian victims of human rights abuses sued German corporation in California federal court, alleging D’s Argentinian subsidiary did the harm.
Is there general jurisdiction over the parent company if there’s general jurisdiction over at subsidiary ?
No. A state to exert general jurisdiction over anyone with affiliations needs at home piece.
- Concurrence, Sotomayor: should be ruled on convenience grounds, not on minimum contacts analysis
Continuous and systematic is not good enough needs to be so continuous and systematic that is at home in the formum state. Mr. Pass unspecified level when view in comparison to the companies, nationwide and worldwide activities.
- narrows Goodyear standard even more
Daimler v. Bauman
Railroad companies sued D in Montana State Court under Federal Employers Liability Act for injuries that occurred outside of Montana.
Is there general jurisdiction?
No. Contact with Montana were not sufficient to support general jurisdiction. Use Daimler to say we didn’t only focus on magnitude of D’s instate contacts, but also looked at appraisal of corporate activities in their entirety.
- Dissent, Sotomayor: criticized “at home” test—better to rely on the continuous and systematic contacts because “at home” test limits general jurisdiction to where company is incorporated or place of business. It’s unfair for people who now has to sue in a distant jurisdiction.
BSNF Railway Co. v. Tyrell
Actions against pharmaceutical companies saying that Plavix drug that the manufactured and distributed damage their health—is there specific jurisdiction?
No connection with Ps who purchased, ingested or were injured by Plavix, all not in California. Claims are only valid for those California residents who took them in California and got sick sickness to arise from Plavix, but here: D’s contact with other states is what causes injuries.
There must be an affiliation between forum and underlying controversy principally an activity and occurrence that takes place in the form state.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of CA, SF County
