Pg 5 Flashcards
What is a long arm statute?
A statute that says a person can reach out of the state to call a non-resident defendant back in order to defend a suit. This is a mechanism that is used in order to serve the defendant with process and that allows the courts in the state to exercise jurisdiction over non-residents.
Jx is based on the non-resident’s:
- general activity in the state
- enumerated act in the jurisdiction, or
- act outside the jx that caused consequences within the state.
What is the first thing that should be discussed in a minimum contacts analysis for personal jurisdiction?
Always discuss the long arm statute first before talking about International Shoe, because if there is no long arm statute, there is no way to exercise extra-territorial personal jurisdiction through International Shoe
What are the two different types of long arm statutes for personal jurisdiction?
– Enumerated acts: give the courts jurisdiction for certain things
– limits of due process: extends the state’s long arm jurisdiction to the limits of the due process clause
What are some examples of enumerated acts that would give a state jurisdiction over a defendant under a long arm statute?
– a tortious act in the state either in person or through an agent
– transacting or doing continuous or substantial business in the state
– traveling in the states
– owning or using property in the state
– contracting to insure anything in the state
If a long arm statute gives jurisdiction for enumerated acts for personal jurisdiction, what is important for the claim?
The claim must arise out of the enumerated act itself
How does a long arm statute work that goes to the limits of due process?
This can be for any act if it is constitutional for the state court or the federal court in that state to assert jurisdiction over the defendant there
If a long arm statute exceeds constitutional grasp, do courts invalidate the statute?
Not usually, they just refuse to apply it to cases that fall out of the bounds of due process
What does it mean when a long arm statute “is intended to go to the limits of due process“?
This means that specific categories of jurisdiction based on the long arm statute should be interpreted as liberally as the due process clause allows
Even if the constitution allows a court jurisdiction, do they always still have the power to hear a case?
Not necessarily because the due process clause might not give jurisdiction to the state courts. The constitution defines the outer bounds of power and then the legislation of each state actually grants person jurisdiction to its courts through statutes. State legislatures can give courts personal jurisdiction to the limits of the due process clause or can only come for a part of that power.
What does California say with regard to the limits of due process in its long arm statutes?
It grants the full scope of jurisdiction for any basis that is not inconsistent with the constitution
What is involved in Fairplay and reasonableness that is required for minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction?
This is constitutional due process. It asks if exercising the jurisdiction is reasonable and considers:
– if the plaintiff’s interest was proper
– the burden on the defendant
– the expectation of being held into court there
– the state interest in settling the dispute
– desire for efficient resolution
– fairness
- interest of the state in furthering social policies
– if the parties are residents of the state
– what the contacts with the state were
– if an accident happened there
– if evidence or witnesses were there
– applicable law
– the convenience to the plaintiff
If you buy jam in California and you eat it in New York and then you get botulism, can you sue in New York?
No, because there would be no fairplay or reasonableness since the sellers would not expect to be held into court in New York
Since hustler sells 15,000 magazines into a state each year, would it be fair and reasonable to hold that they have personal jurisdiction there?
Yes
What is more important for PJ, minimum contacts or fairplay and reasonableness?
Fairplay and reasonableness
What are the different types of personal jurisdiction that can be gotten in state courts?
- in personam jurisdiction
– in rem jurisdiction
– quasi in rem jurisdiction
What is in personam jurisdiction for personal jurisdiction?
This is gotten through the consent, presence, or citizenship of the party
What is in rem jurisdiction for personal jurisdiction?
Property that is gotten within the state gives jurisdiction over property that is binding on all interest holders. This gives jurisdiction over the land, but not the person. So the action is against the property that requires deciding rights to it.
This involves: actions to quiet title, condemnation, civil forfeiture, probate, divorce, etc. The court exercises its jurisdictional power based on the status of the property located in the state.
Ie: if you have a summer home in Montana, the state can assert jurisdiction over the property to decide who owns it.
If property is unrelated to a plaintiff’s cause of action, does in rem jurisdiction apply?
No because its presence without any other ties does not support jurisdiction
What is quasi in rem jurisdiction?
This is jurisdiction over the value of property that was gotten within the court’s authority. It pretends that the property is the person and includes things like land, machines, stocks, bonds, etc. The plaintiff must attach the property belonging to someone not in the state as a way to get personal jurisdiction over them. There must be a relationship between the property and the suit that is sufficient to justify minimum contacts. The court then renders judgement for or against a person, but recovery is limited to the value of the property in the jurisdiction. It is fine if the subject matter is totally unrelated to the property
What is the limit with regard to quasi in rem jurisdiction?
The jurisdiction of power is limited to the value of the property and not one penny more
If you have a summer home in California, that is a continuous and systematic relationship with California, but if you just have a bank account in California, is that enough for jurisdiction?
No
Does it matter where you get sued for a debt?
No, because your debt or obligation clings to you and accompanies you wherever you go. So courts of foreign states can enforce the payment of a debt after personal service of process in that state with the same authority as the courts of a debtor’s domicile
What is the two-step analysis that is necessary to do in order to find out if a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in federal court?
- find out if he’s subject to personal jx in any of the 50 states
– then find out if his contacts with the nation satisfied due process
Do Federal courts have nationwide jurisdiction?
No. You get personal jurisdiction through a long arm statute of the foreign state or by a federal statute
If you cannot reach a D through a long arm statute, what can you do?
He can often be reached in federal court especially if he’s a foreign defendant
What is a federal long arm statute?
This determines when federal courts can assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. It requires:
– that the relevant legislation authorize jurisdiction, and
– that it would be constitutional for the court to exercise jurisdiction in the circumstances
If it is constitutional under the 14th for a state court to assert jurisdiction over someone, can the federal court do it to?
Yes. The reach in federal courts is the same as in the state where they sit.
Ie: Arizona federal court has jurisdiction to the same extent the Arizona State court does
If you want to challenge personal jurisdiction in state court, what are the ways you can do that?
Through the due process clause of the 14th amendment which applies only to states and demands that parties have a significant relationship with the state to have personal jurisdiction. The 14th says that you cannot deprive others of liberty, so when an unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction happens, it is contrary to the 14th
What is the special or limited appearance rule for personal jurisdiction?
If a defendant is sued in another state, he can appear or challenge personal jurisdiction for the sole purpose of defending his interest without submitting to the full jx of the court.
He cannot go beyond objecting to the jurisdiction, or he will be considered to have generally appeared by acknowledging the court’s authority to adjudicate the case and submitting to its jurisdiction by asserting defences other than personal jurisdiction.
Ie: if he specially appears and then one week later moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, he has waived his objection to personal jurisdiction and has appeared generally
