PJ Flashcards
Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)
Personal jurisdiction means the court must have proper jurisdiction over the parties to an action. Personal jurisdiction will be proper where there is a sufficiently close relationship between the forum state and the defendant. There are three traditional bases that may provide personal jurisdiction. In addition, modernly, personal jurisdiction can also be found where there is a state long-arm statute authorizing the extension of jurisdiction over nonresidents and the exercise of jurisdiction is in keeping with the constitutional requirements of the minimum contacts standard.
Traditional basis for personal jurisdiction
Where the defendant
a. Consents to jurisdiction in the forum state.
b. Is domiciled in the forum state. A person’s domicile is the state in which he intends to reside.
c. Is present in the forum state when served with process.
Minimum Contacts Standard
Modernly, the minimum contacts standard allows personal jurisdiction over nonresidents of the forum state provided there is a long-arm statute, and the exercise of jurisdiction is in keeping with the constitutional requirements of the minimum contacts standard.
Long-arm statute
A long-arm statute is the mechanism that gives a state the power to reach beyond its own borders and assert jurisdiction over a nonresident. There are two types of long-arm statutes:
- California’s long-arm statute gives its state courts power over any person or property up to the limits of the Constitution, thus the minimum contacts standard is applied. California’s long-arm statute permits the exercise of jurisdiction as broadly as is allowed by the U.S. Constitution, and many other states have adopted similar statutes.
- Specific long-arm statutes: Some states have specific long-arm statutes that give its courts power over nonresidents only under certain specified situations— for example, the commission of a tort while in the state. Where a specific long-arm statute applies, the exercise of jurisdiction must satisfy that statute and also meet the constitutional requirements of the minimum contacts standard.
Nature of the defendant’s contacts
A defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that asserting jurisdiction over him does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The minimum contacts standard determines the constitutional limit to a state’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresidents.
Minimum contacts
First, assess the defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum state to determine if the defendant has purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of the state such that it is reasonably foreseeable that he could be haled into court there. Additional factors to consider are:
- Specific Jurisdiction
- General Jurisdiction
Specific Jurisdiction
The relatedness between the defendant’s contact and plaintiff’s claim. When the claim is directly related to the defendant’s contact with the forum the forum state will have specific jurisdiction over the defendant for that claim only.
General Jurisdiction
Where the contacts with the forum state are sufficiently systematic and continuous general jurisdiction will be found and the forum state may exercise jurisdiction over the defendant for any cause of action.
Fairness factors
Next, the exercise of jurisdiction must be fair. To analyze fairness, assess:
- Convenience
- State’s Interests
- Other Interests