Personal Jurisdiction Terms Flashcards
Subject matter jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction
SMJ: (legal claims)—which court type you can choose. federal courts have more limited SMJ than state courts
PJ: (parties)—
Who the parties are and where they’re from
- Which geographic location they’re in
- Long-arm statute state statute that PJ (permission)
- court can start only if the exercise of powers authorized by the statute and consistent with due process clause of the constitution
Traditional bases for in personam personal jurisdiction for nonresidents (Pennoyer)
- Consent
- General from being a resident
- Voluntary appearance - Presence
- Service of process in State
- Property in State
Types of jurisdiction
In personam = court exercises, its power to run a judgment for or against a person due to her presence within the states, territory or citizenship
- All assets are in question. This is usually best and can be established by (1) consent, implied or actual or by (2) presence, self or property.
In rem= Court exercises it’s power to determine the status of property
Quasi in rem = court, renders judgment for against a person only based on jurisdiction, but recovery is limited to the value of property
New theory of personal jurisdiction
With the car’s popularity, led to more interstate travel and increase businesses interactions between different states affecting the doctrine of personal jurisdiction
- not general consent but implied consent
- Shift the focus to considering forseeability in the forum
- New concept of corporal presence = presence associated with modern economic activity associated with corporations where physical presents isn’t required -> implied consent
-how the new theory affects- Consent = state could require a foreign corporation to send the service of process through appointment of an in-state agent to receive or without an agent through granted implied consent
- Presence = foreign corporation can qualify if doing business with state in such a manner
Long Arm or Single Act Statutes
Based jurisdiction over non-residents upon their activity in the state. commission of one of a series of acts are certain act outside state, causing consequences within it. based on:
- contacts
- specific (usually harmful) acts committed in state
- in-state harm caused by out-of-state actions
- state sovereign regulatory interests
- they are doing things that matter to their residents to make a difference
- and expanding regulatory privilege
- contacts v. Fair play and substantial justice which involves:
- foreseeability
- inventory of inconveniences
Stream of commerce metaphor
Products in ordinary course of commerce is sufficient contact with the state to justify requirement that he defend there. How do you place your guards into the stream of interstate commerce? if you had you ought to foresee.
- reselling, reincorporation, third-party sellers
- court says this is the price of admission to get a national customer base
- This is the ceiling for personal jurisdiction for non-residents
- If the good is dangerous or injurious, then you can be held to come into court
Judicial doctrines
Rules (v. standards)
Tests
JD: rules test standards, which are binding forms of law that can either add to or extend upon regulations rules, executive orders, other binding docs
- They produce rules the central piece of doctrines
R: clearer, but in the form of paragraphs
- vs. standards: “consider this collection of factors by finding other cases were similar factors are present and drawn analogies”
- Depends on what criteria you use to weigh the different factors against each other (ex: state sovereign and D’s interest in not being inconvenienced)
- weighing is difficult part not the choosing the factors.
T: characterization of a rule or standard as a test for figuring out whether the rule has been violated
Due Process Standard
Sovereignty branch—Does state have interest (yes or no)
Convenience branch—Is it convenient/inconvenient for parties?
- strength of forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
- Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
- interstate judicial system’s, interest, and efficient dispute resolution
- States interest in substantive social policies (compare states)
- D’s interest in convenience
Stream of Commerce plus [purposeful availment]
- foreseeability
- causation of presence by party contesting jurisdiction
Stream of Commerce Changes
- court now requires purposeful availment (cannot be imputed or hypothetical foreseeability)
- D has to be part of D’s cause of their presence in the forum state
- need contact with the form state (consistent with McGee, Hanson) because want D to have notice and structure their operations around where they will be sued
Specific vs. General Jurisdiction
Specific= State exercises personal jurisdiction over D in a suit arising out of or related to these contacts within the form of state. Out-of-state D is doing harm and some kind of way
- No causation required (Ford)
- Affinity between contacts or strong relationship between claim, D, and forum (Ford)
General= Power to adjudicate any kind of controversy when jurisdiction is based on relationships, direct or indirect between the form and the persons affected, not arising out of contacts within the form
- More parental—does company make its “home” within the state?
- Continuous and systematic + substantial
Old Basis for Property
- property in-state can be basis for jurisdiction of D: quasi in-rem
- court has to attach property before it enters notice
Consent in Subject Matter Jurisdiction vs. Personal Jurisdiction
SMJ = No consent because dominated by federal law, cannot be waived
PJ = Can consent, can be waived
Consent by Registration in State
Most states require a foreign incorporation to register as a condition of doing business in the state; this is usually not considered consent.
Consider consent if the state conditions consent as a service of process—does not include individuals (Pennsylvania, fire insurance company, Philadelphia versus gold mining, and milling Company)
Forum Selection Clause
Ms. Bremen v Zapata Off Shore
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc
Any dispute under the agreement will be heard in X state.
Ms. Bremen v. Zapata Off Shore: P a Houston-based American corporation contracted with a German corporation to tow P’s drilling rig from Louisiana to Italy with a provision that all disputes were to be litigated in London. Rig was damaged in storm and towed to Tampa. P commenced suit in FL court. Supreme Court upheld the for selection clause (London).
- Up until now forum selection clauses for as bad since conditions under consent aren’t really fully informed (premature).
Carnival Cruise Lines Inc., Shute: P purchased passage for seven day cruise on D’s ship through Washington state agent. Provision that said all disputes will be before state of Florida. Wife was injured in filed suit in Washington. Supreme court addressed enforceability of form selection clause.
- Contracts are good and we want to enforce them (Efficient, reduce contentious litigation, savings passed onto customers)
Jurisdictional Reach of the Federal Courts
Federal Rule 4= Designates when service of process “establishes personal jurisdiction over D” a federal court action three distinct provisions:
4k1A: personal jurisdiction over D “who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located”
- Long arm statutes (every federal District Court sits inside of state); do it exactly as you would the state court
- Bound by state Supreme Court interpretation statutes, not by Supreme Court to process
- Congress has not enacted a general, long arm statute
4k1B= Personal jurisdiction over a party, joined under rules, 14 and 19, who is served with the process “within a judicial district of the US and not more than 100 miles from where summons was issued”
4k1C= Personal jurisdiction when authorized by federal statute then follow the statute and not the federal law
(2)= Personal jurisdiction “for a claim that arises under federal law” if D is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction and “exercising jurisdiction is consistent with US constitution and laws”
- Show that no state has long arm statute
- Ensures that federal claims will have a US forum if sufficient national contacts exist
