PJ

Question 1

What is the basic idea of personal jurisdiction?

Answer 1

Personal jurisdiction (“PJ”) is about the court’s power over the parties. PJ is different from subject matter jurisdiction, which is about the court’s power over the case. Because the plaintiff filed the case, the court automatically has power over her; the plaintiff has consented to PJ. So, the big question is whether there is PJ over the defendant. In other words, does the defendant have sufficient contacts with the forum state so that the exercise of personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable?

Question 2

What is the two-step analysis of personal jurisdiction?

Answer 2

Whether there is PJ is a two-step analysis. The exercise of PJ must first fall within a state statute, and the exercise of PJ must satisfy the Constitution (due process). The two-step analysis is the same in federal and state court. So a federal court in California would decide whether it has PJ over a defendant in exactly the same way as a state court in California would. So, there is no difference in the analysis whether the case is in federal or state court.

Question 3

How do you apply statutory step?

Answer 3

Each state has its own statutes for PJ. Among these, each state has a “long arm” statute granting PJ over nonresidents who perform or cause certain things within the state. In many states, the long arm statute simply states that it allows courts to exercise PJ to the full extent of the Constitution, so the statutory grant of PJ is the same as the constitutional test Other states have laundry-list long-arm statutes that specify the situations in which the exercise of PJ is statutorily authorized; for example, committing a tort within the state or entering into a contract within the state.

Question 4

How do you apply the constitutional step?

Answer 4

For the constitutional analysis, we ask: Does the defendant have such minimum contacts with the forum so jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice? To answer this question, we assess a set of factors under the headings of contact, relatedness, and fairness.

Question 5

What is contact under the minimum contacts test?

Answer 5

a. Contact
There must be relevant “minimum contacts” between the defendant and the forum state. The two factors to be addressed here are purposeful availment and foreseeability.
Purposeful Availment
The contact must result from Defendant’s purposeful availment, that is, from her voluntary act. This means that the defendant must reach out to the forum, and the contact must result from this targeting of the forum. Can the defendant “purposefully avail” without setting foot in the forum? Yes, by causing an effect in the forum.
Foreseeability
After finding that the defendant arguably availed herself of the forum, we must assess foreseeability: Is it foreseeable that Defendant could be sued in the forum?

Question 6

What is relatedness for the constitutional test?

Answer 6

b. Relatedness
Once we conclude there is arguably a relevant contact, we move to relatedness. For relatedness, we ask: Does Plaintiff’s claim arise from or relate to Defendant’s contact with the forum? If the answer is “yes,” the case involves “specific PJ.” If the answer is “no,” the only way to proceed is if the court has “general PJ.” We discuss these below.
How Do We Test for Relatedness?
The question is whether Plaintiff’s claim against
Defendant “arises out of or relates to” Defendant’s contact with the forum. (Remember, we just concluded that Defendant had a contact with the forum.) It clearly arises out of the contact if Defendant’s contact caused the harm to Plaintiff.

Question 7

What is fairness under specific personal jurisdiction only?

Answer 7

c. Fairness (Specific PJ Only)
For fairness, we assess whether PJ would be fair (or reasonable) under the circumstances. The fairness factors are addressed in specific PJ cases only. They are not assessed if there is general PJ–once we find D is “at home” in the forum, that’s the end of it. In a specific PJ case, how do we determine if PJ is fair? We look to the following.
• Burden on the defendant and witnesses. Due
process does not guarantee that suit will be in the most convenient forum for the defendant. So even if it’s hard for the defendant to travel to the forum and to get her witnesses to the forum, the forum is constitutionally OK unless the defendant can show that it puts her at a severe disadvantage in the litigation. This is a very difficult burden to meet because the relative wealth of the parties is not determinative.
• State’s interest. The forum state may want to
provide a courtroom for its citizens who are
allegedly being harmed by out-of-state defendants. You should mention the state’s interest in an answer to an essay question.
• Plaintiff’s interest. The plaintiff is maybe injured in the forum state and/or wants to sue at home.

Question 8

What is the summary of the constitutional test?

Answer 8

Here’s a quick summary of the constitutional test for PJ:

a. Contact: Purposeful availment and foreseeability;
b. Relatedness (“arise out of and relate to”). Relatedness determines whether jurisdiction will be based on general PJ or specific general PJ; and
c. Fairness (specific PJ only): Burden/convenience, state’s interest, and plaintiff’s interest.