Personal JX Flashcards
A plaintiff filed suit against a defendant in federal district court in State A under diversity jurisdiction for damages resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff is a citizen of State A and the defendant is a citizen of State B. The defendant owned a valuable antique car which he kept garaged in State C. In a State C court, the plaintiff obtained a prejudgment attachment against the defendant’s car to prevent its sale before the State A lawsuit was resolved. Upon receiving notice of the attachment, the defendant moved to quash it.
Which of the following statements is accurate?
The attachment should be quashed if the State C court cannot constitutionally assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Quasi-in-rem jurisdiction requires minimum contacts to exist between the defendant and the forum state before jurisdiction will apply. If the State C court cannot constitutionally assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant, as the answer choice posits, then there is no jurisdiction (either in personam or quasi-in-rem) and the attachment should be quashed.
An individual who had unsuccessfully sought employment with a branch office of a company located in State A filed an action against the company in a state trial court in State B for discriminatory hiring practices. The complaint alleges that the conduct of the branch manager violated federal law. The individual is a citizen of State B. The company, which is incorporated in State C, has its principal place of business in State B. The company filed a motion to dismiss the action based on a lack of personal jurisdiction.
Should the court grant this motion?
No, because the State B court has general jurisdiction over the company.
To determine whether a corporation is subject to a state court’s general jurisdiction, the proper inquiry is whether the corporation’s affiliations with the forum state are so “continuous and systematic” as to render the corporation essentially “at home” in the forum state.
A corporate defendant is always at home in the state of the corporation’s place of incorporation and the state of its principal place of business. Here, since the company’s principal place of business is in State B, a court located in State B has general jurisdiction over the company.
An individual filed a products liability complaint based on state law in the federal court for State A against the corporate manufacturer of an alleged defective hip prosthesis and a holding company that owns a controlling interest in the manufacturer. The individual is a citizen of State A, where the operation to implant the hip prosthesis occurred. The manufacturer is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State B. The holding company is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State C. Each corporation functions as a separate legal entity. The holding company itself has no contacts with State A.
The holding company has filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
State A has a long-arm statute that permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the fullest extent constitutionally permissible.
Should the court grant the holding company’s motion to dismiss?
Yes, because the holding company itself has no contacts with State A.
In order for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum state. Here, since the holding company itself has no contacts with State A, the federal district court for State A does not have personal jurisdiction over the holding company.
A plaintiff filed a complaint against a defendant in federal district court in State A, the state where the plaintiff was domiciled. The claims, which were based solely on state law, related to a car accident that occurred between the parties in State B, a neighboring state. The complaint alleged $100,000 in damages. The defendant was domiciled in State B but frequently did business in State A. Three months after the complaint was filed, a process server served the defendant with a copy of the summons and complaint while the defendant was passing through State A to attend a hearing on an unrelated legal matter in State C, which borders State A. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action, and the court granted the motion.
What is the most likely basis for the court’s dismissal of the action?
The court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
The court lacked personal jurisdiction because the defendant was only passing through State A to attend a hearing. If a defendant is voluntarily present in the forum state and is served with process while there, then the state will generally have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
However, an exception occurs when the defendant is merely “passing through” to attend other judiciary proceedings. Here, such an exception existed, and the service would be invalid.
A rock star from a foreign country entered into a management agreement with a concert promoter who was a citizen of State A. According to the terms of the management agreement, the promoter was to receive a designated percentage of the rock star’s total earnings from any concerts performed around the world. The agreement was negotiated and signed in the foreign country. The rock star subsequently fired the promoter and hired a new manager. He then appeared in the United States and performed a concert in State B for which he earned more than $5 million. Following the concert, the promoter filed suit in federal district court in State B against the rock star, asserting diversity jurisdiction and alleging that he was entitled to a percentage of the rock star’s earnings from the concert due under the original management agreement. The rock star filed a motion to dismiss the case and appeared in court for his attorney’s argument at the motion hearing. The rock star asserted that the court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over him because his contacts with State B did not satisfy the “minimum contacts” requirement for personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant.
How should the federal district court rule on the rock star’s motion to dismiss?
Deny the motion, because the court has jurisdiction over the rock star as a result of his performance in State B.
When a cause of action arises out of or closely relates to a defendant’s contact with the forum state, jurisdiction may be warranted over that action even if that contact is the defendant’s only contact with the forum state. This type of jurisdiction is referred to as “specific personal jurisdiction.”
Due process concerns are met if the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonably foreseeable by the foreign defendant. Here, the fact that the rock star performed in State B and earned money there gave rise to the breach of the contract claim by the promoter. Therefore, the federal district court in State B would have specific personal jurisdiction over the rock star.
A plaintiff brought an action for negligence in federal district court in State A under diversity jurisdiction to recover for injuries allegedly sustained in an accident that occurred while he was a passenger on board a cruise ship in a port in State B. The defendant in the action was a State C corporation that owned the cruise ship. At the time of the alleged negligence, the ship was docked in the State B port after finishing a voyage from a port in State A. For several years prior to the voyage on which the plaintiff was injured, the cruise ship had brought passengers to visit three ports in State A and had most recently spent several weeks in repair at a shipyard in State A. The State A long-arm statute authorizes personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant “does business” in State A. The phrase “does business” has been interpreted by the highest court of State A to reach as far as is constitutionally permissible.
If the defendant timely moves to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, how is the district court likely to rule?
Deny the motion, because the defendant could reasonably anticipate being taken to court in State A.
The defendant could reasonably anticipate being taken to court in State A with respect to an accident occurring on a sea voyage that originated in State A. The court here has specific jurisdiction over the defendant because the cause of action is closely related to the defendant’s contacts with State A. The defendant’s ship had been visiting three ports in the state for several years, spent several weeks in repair in the state, and the voyage itself originated at a port in the state. Although the accident took place in State B, it was reasonable for the defendant to anticipate being brought into court in State A.
A woman, who was a citizen of State A, was injured in an automobile accident on a highway in State A when a truck collided with her car. The truck driver was a citizen of State Z, located across the country from State A. Although the woman had no contacts with State Z, she filed suit in federal district court in State Z under diversity jurisdiction, asserting damages resulting from the truck driver’s negligence. The truck driver timely filed a counterclaim against the woman, asserting that the woman’s negligence had caused the accident and claiming damages as a result. Deciding not to litigate the matter, the woman withdrew her complaint. The truck driver, however, refused to withdraw his counterclaim and is seeking to go to trial in the matter. The woman has filed a motion to dismiss the case, asserting that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over her.
How should the court rule on the woman’s motion to dismiss?
Deny the motion, because the woman consented to being sued in State Z.
A plaintiff who has filed a lawsuit in a court is deemed to have consented to the court’s personal jurisdiction with regard to any counterclaim asserted against her. Here, by filing suit in federal district court in State Z, the woman consented to the personal jurisdiction of the federal district court on the matter and for any counterclaims asserted against her.
A plaintiff, a citizen of State X, sued a defendant, a citizen of State Y, for negligence in federal district court in State X based on diversity jurisdiction. The case involved a car accident that occurred in State Y. The defendant timely filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), asserting that the court had lacked personal jurisdiction over her because she had no contacts with State X. The court set a hearing on the motion and the defendant traveled to State X and appeared before the court to argue the motion.
Which of the following statements is accurate regarding the defendant’s actions?
Neither the defendant’s Rule 12(b) motion nor her voluntary appearance in court subject her to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
Traditionally, voluntary appearance of the defendant in court automatically subjected the defendant to personal jurisdiction, unless he was present with the express purpose of objecting to personal jurisdiction (called a “special appearance”). The federal courts and many state courts have abolished this rule. Instead, under the federal rule, the objection is waived if the personal jurisdiction objection is not raised in the first of (i) a Rule 12 motion, if raised before the answer; or (ii) the answer itself. Voluntary appearance of the defendant in court to defend the claim on the merits automatically subjects the defendant to the personal jurisdiction of the court, unless she is present in court to object to personal jurisdiction.
Appearance for the express purpose of making a jurisdictional objection is not consent to the court’s jurisdiction over her. Instead, the objection is waived if the personal jurisdiction objection is not raised in the first of a pre-answer Rule 12 motion or the answer itself. In this case, the defendant’s voluntary appearance is solely to contest the court’s personal jurisdiction, as is the defendant’s timely Rule 12(b) motion.
The defendant lives in State A. He commutes to work in nearby State B, where he does most of his shopping (State B has no sales tax). The defendant spends a month each summer vacationing in State C. While driving from home to State C, Defendant traveled through State D for the first time, where he negligently hit and totaled the $100,000 sports car of the plaintiff, a State D citizen. The defendant continued on to State C, where he vacationed for several weeks. The day after the accident, the plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court and sought to serve process on the defendant the next day, either personally or by mail. States A, B, C, and D all have statutes authorizing personal jurisdiction over anyone who engages in activity within the state, to the extent permissible under the U.S. Constitution.
Assuming subject-matter jurisdiction is proper, in which state is the plaintiff least likely to find personal jurisdiction over the defendant?
State B.
Defendant is neither domiciled nor present in State B, so on the day after the accident, State B would have no personal jurisdiction over him.
During the defendant’s cross-country road trip, he was involved in a car accident with the plaintiff in the state where the plaintiff lived. Following the accident, the plaintiff sued the defendant in federal court located in the state where the accident occurred. Prior to the accident, the defendant had never been to the forum state. The defendant flew home from the forum state directly following the accident, and has not been back to the forum state since that time. Before filing a responsive pleading, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. The court denied the defendant’s motion.
What is the most likely basis for the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant in this case?
Specific jurisdiction.
When a cause of action arises out of or closely relates to a defendant’s contact with the forum state, jurisdiction may be warranted even if that contact is the defendant’s only contact with the forum state. This type of jurisdiction is often referred to as “specific jurisdiction.” In this case, the defendant’s only contact with the state was his drive through the state, at which time the accident occurred. Accordingly, the court could likely exercise jurisdiction over the defendant under the doctrine of specific jurisdiction.
A child from State A suffered severe burns when a motorized toy unexpectedly overheated after only a couple of minutes of use. The toy was designed and manufactured by a manufacturer incorporated and with its principal place of business in State B. The child’s parents bought the toy from a retailer in State C. The child’s parents filed an action for strict products liability against the retailer in federal district court in State C under diversity jurisdiction. In their complaint, the child’s parent alleged $150,000 in damages. The retailer subsequently filed a third-party complaint against the manufacturer, alleging the manufacturer produced a defective product and that the manufacturer would be required to fully indemnify the retailer if the retailer was found liable to the child’s parents. The third-party complaint was served on the manufacturer at its principal place of business in State B, 75 miles from the district court in State C. State C’s long-arm statute did not permit service of process on the manufacturer. The manufacturer moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Should the court grant the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss?
No, because the manufacturer was served within 100 miles of the district court in State C.
Under Rule 4(k)(1)(B), the so-called “bulge provision,” a federal court has personal jurisdiction over a party who is served within a U.S. judicial district and not more than 100 miles from where the summons is issued, even if state law would otherwise not permit such service. This rule applies to third-party defendants joined by impleader, even if the service is outside of the state and beyond its long-arm statute jurisdiction.
In this case, the retailer sought to join the manufacturer as a third-party defendant under impleader. Under the “bulge provision,” service was proper here because the manufacturer was served within 100 miles of the district court in State C. Therefore, the district court has personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer.
A plaintiff corporation, incorporated and headquartered in State X, sued a defendant corporation, headquartered in a foreign country, in federal district court in State X for a common-law breach-of-contract claim, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The parties negotiated and executed the contract in the foreign country, and performance was also to occur there. The defendant corporation has insufficient contacts with State X and with any other U.S. state to justify the exercise of jurisdiction by a state court over the defendant.
If the defendant moves to dismiss the action based on lack of personal jurisdiction, how should the court rule?
Grant the motion, because the defendant corporation does not have sufficient contacts with the forum state.
The defendant has insufficient contacts with State X, the forum state, to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant by the state court. Consequently, the federal district court in State X also lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Rule 4(k)(2) is generally used for non-U.S. residents who have contacts with the United States generally, but not with any one state in particular. While Rule 4(k)(2) provides for personal jurisdiction by a federal court when no state court can exercise jurisdiction over the defendant, it requires both that the claim against the defendant be based on federal law and that there be minimum contacts such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction in federal court is consistent with the laws of the United States and the United States Constitution.
Here, the claim is based on state common law, not federal law, and the minimum contacts with the United States required to justify an assertion of personal jurisdiction over the foreign corporation in federal court do not exist.
A plaintiff, who was a citizen of State X, sued a defendant, who was a citizen of State Y, in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction for damages resulting from the defendant’s negligent driving. The car accident between the plaintiff and the defendant took place in State Y. State X and State Y each have long-arm statutes, which differ in their requirements.
The plaintiff filed the action in a federal district court in State X. Which long-arm statute should the court apply in determining personal jurisdiction over the defendant?
State X’s, because State X is the forum state.
In an action that arises under state law and is based on diversity jurisdiction, as is the case here with a negligence action, the federal district court should usually apply the long-arm statute of the state in which the court is located in determining personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Thus, State X’s long-arm statute, the long-arm statute of the forum state, governs.
A friend, who lived in State A, purchased a custom-designed handsaw from a company that was well-known locally in State A. The company only sold its products to residents of State A, as it wanted to maintain its image of being a “locals only” vendor. The friend gave the handsaw to a man from State B as a birthday gift. After using the handsaw a couple of times, the man sustained a significant and permanent injury to his hand after the blade came loose. The man filed a diversity action for strict products liability against the company in State B, alleging $85,000 in damages. After properly being served, the company immediately moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
State B has a long-arm statute that states: “A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose conduct or activity outside of this state causes personal injury within this state.”
Which is the strongest argument the corporation can make in support of its motion to dismiss?
The company’s contact with State B was not purposeful.
To warrant the assertion of in personam jurisdiction, a defendant’s contacts with the forum state must be purposeful and substantial, such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate (foresee) being taken to court there. Foreseeability depends on whether a defendant recognizes or anticipates that by running his business, he runs the risk of being party to a suit in a particular state. This is the “purposeful availment” requirement. In this case, the company’s strongest argument would be that there was no purposeful availment because the company only sold its products to residents of State A. By selling products only to State A residents, the company would argue that it could not reasonably anticipate being taken to court in State B.
