PJ Essay Flashcards
I. DOES THE COURT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE DISPUTE?
A. Does the Court Have Authority Over the Parties?
A. Does the Court Have Authority Over the Parties?
- Personal jurisdiction
- In rem and quasi in rem cases—the same constitutional analysis applies as in personal jurisdiction.
a. Traditional ways of asserting jurisdiction
a. Traditional ways of asserting jurisdiction
1) Domicile
2) Presence in state when served
3) Consent
b. Assertion of jurisdiction over nonresidents
1) State long arm statutes
a) Unlimited
b) Limited or specific
2) Constitutional limitations—contacts and notice
a) Minimum contacts
(1) Purposeful availment
(a) Stream of commerce cases
(b) Internet cases
(2) Foreseeability
b) Relatedness of claim to contact
(1) Specific jurisdiction—claim arising from activity in the state
(2) General jurisdiction—defendant is “at home”
(a) Individual is “at home” in state of domicile
(b) Corporate defendant is “at home” in states in which it has its principal place of business and is incorpo-rated
c) Fairness: “Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
(1) Convenience
(a) Need not be the best alternative.
(b) Forum acceptable unless it is “so gravely difficult and inconvenient that a party is unfairly put at a severe disadvantage”
(2) Forum state’s interest—providing redress for its citizens
(3) Other factors
(a) Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief;
(b) Interstate judicial system’s interest in efficiency; and
(c) Shared interests of states
d) Notice—service of process
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
(Insert Issue Statement)
In personam personal jurisdiction (IPJ) refers to the court’s ability to exercise power over a particular defendant.
Traditionally, IPJ is based upon where the individual party is domiciled, presence in the state when served, and consent.
(Here, for example, defendant lives in State X and thus is not domiciled in State Y, the forum state.
Additionally, he was not served in the state nor did he consent to IPJ).
Thus, no traditional basis for IPJ exists.
LONG ARM STATUTE
Since no traditional basis exists, the plaintiff must look to see if the state has a long arm statute that would allow IPJ over the defendant.
Since a federal court must analyze IPJ as if it were a state court in the forum state, it will use the state long arm statute to determine whether it has IPJ.
A long arm statute gives the court personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
Some state statutes, like California’s long arm statute, give courts the power over any person over whom the state can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction.
Other states have statutes that list specific instances when the court may exercise IPJ over the defendant.
Here, . . . (fill in analysis).
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS
Even if a state statute arguably grants the state court IPJ over the defendant, such exercise must still be constitutional.
To be constitutional, there must be sufficient contacts with the forum state so as to not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
The Supreme Court has listed a series of factors with which to assess the constitutionality of IPJ.
In general, the factors fall under three headings: contacts, relatedness, and fairness.
Minimum Contacts
Minimum contacts requires a showing of purposeful availment and foreseeability.
Purposeful Availment
The court must find that defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
Here, . . . (fill in analysis)
Foreseeability
The defendant also must have known or reasonably anticipated that its activities in the forum rendered it foreseeable that it may be haled into court there.
Here, . . . (fill in analysis)
Relatedness of the Claim to the Contact
Relatedness of the Claim to the Contact
If the claim arises from the defendant’s contacts with the forum, the court may have “specific jurisdiction” (personal jurisdiction over the defendant only for the plaintiff’s instant cause of action).
The close connection between the cause of action and the contact will likely make the exercise of IPJ fair and reasonable.
Regardless of whether the plaintiff’s claim is related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum, the court also may have “general jurisdiction” (personal jurisdiction over the defendant for all causes of action) if the defendant is “at home” in the jurisdiction.
If there is no relationship between the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s contacts with the forum, the court must have general personal jurisdiction over the defendant to hear the case.
Specific Jurisdiction; Claim Related to Defendant’s Contacts
For specific jurisdiction, the claim must be related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.
Here, . . . (insert analysis here of the specific facts that support this element).
General Jurisdiction (“At Home” Jurisdiction)
The court also may look to see if the defendant is “at home” in the forum and thus able to exercise general personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
If there is no specific personal jurisdiction, the court must have general personal jurisdiction to hear the case. T
he Supreme Court has stated that a corporate defendant is “at home” in the state in which it has its principal place of business or in which it is incorporated.
An individual is “at home” where he is domiciled.
Here, . . . (insert analysis here of the specific facts that support this element).
Fairness
Fairness
The court, in determining whether exercising IPJ over defendant is fair, will look at the convenience to the defendant, the state’s interest, and other factors. However, fairness is not a consideration if the court is exercising general personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Convenience
A forum is constitutionally acceptable unless it is so gravely difficult and inconvenient that the defendant is put at a severe disadvantage. Here, . . . (insert analysis here of the specific facts that support this element).
State’s Interest
The forum state may have a legitimate interest in providing redress for its residents. Here, . . . (insert analysis here of the specific facts that support this element).
Other Factors
Other facts include the plaintiff’s interest, the judicial system’s interest, and the shared interests of the states. Here, . . . (insert analysis here of the specific facts that support this element).
In conclusion, the factors more strongly support a finding that IPJ exists over the defendant, and thus the court’s ruling to deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was proper.
… If IPJ is NOT a major issue…
Minimum Contacts
Minimum contacts requires a showing of purposeful availment and foreseeability. The courts must find that defendant purposefully availed herself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
Additionally, the defendant must have foreseen that she would be haled into court in the forum state.
Here, . . . (now use specific facts to quickly analyze these two factors).
Relatedness of Claim to Contact
Specific jurisdiction exists where the claim is related to the defendant’s contact with the forum. General jurisdiction exists when the defendant is “at home” in the forum. The Supreme Court has held that, as paradigms, a corporate defendant is “at home” in the states in which it has its principal place of business and in which it was incorporated.
Here, . . . (now use specific facts to quickly analyze these two factors).
Fairness
The court, in determining whether exercising IPJ over defendant is fair, will look at the convenience to the defendant, the state’s interest, and other factors.
Fairness is not a consideration if there is only general personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Here, . . . (now use specific facts to quickly analyze these two factors).
Personal Jurisdiction
In addition to the state having a statute authorizing the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the exercise
of personal jurisdiction must be constitutional, meaning that the defendant must have purposeful contacts with the forum state such that it would be fair and reasonable to exercise personal jurisdiction over him. Personal jurisdiction may be “specific,” meaning that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant for the complained-of cause of action, or it may be “general,” meaning that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant for all causes of action. The close connection between the plaintiff’s cause of action and the contact from which the case sprung is usually sufficient for the court
to exercise “specific” jurisdiction over the defendant. As to “general” jurisdiction, recent Supreme Court decisions require the defendant to be “at home” in the jurisdiction, a very difficult standard to meet. The phrase “at home” requires the defendant to be essentially domiciled in the state.
The close connection between the plaintiff’s cause of action and the contact from which the case springs is usually sufficient for the court to exercise “specific” jurisdiction over the defendant
In a diversity case, the federal court is required to analyze the personal jurisdiction question as if it were a state court sitting in the particular state.
For specific jurisdiction (i.e., jurisdiction for the instant cause of action only), it must be determined whether the state has a long arm statute authorizing jurisdiction and whether the statute is constitutional (i.e., whether the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the jurisdiction such that the exercise of jurisdiction over him would be fair and reasonable).
Statutory
States generally require that the defendant:
1. Is present in the forum state at the time of service;
2. Is domiciled in the forum state;
3. Has given express or implied consent to jurisdiction; or
4. Meets the requirements of the forum state’s long arm or other statute.
Constitutional
There must be sufficient minimum contacts so that the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over the defendant is fair.
- Contacts
The contacts must show that the defendant:
a. Purposefully availed herself of the forum state’s laws; and
b. Knew or reasonably should have anticipated that her activities in the forum made it foreseeable that she may be “haled into court” there.
benefit-type language is used when discussing whether the defendant’s contacts were purposeful—i.e., the defendant must have purposeful contacts with the forum such that it can be said that the defendant invoked the benefits and protections of state law with respect to the transaction or inciden
- Relatedness
a. If the claim is related to the defendant’s contact with the forum, a court is more likely to find that jurisdiction as to that claim (“specific jurisdiction”) is fair and reasonable; or
b. If the claim is unrelated to the defendant’s contact with the forum, the court must have “general jurisdiction” over the defendant, which requires the defendant to be “at home” in the jurisdiction. - Fairness
The court will also consider:
a. Whether the forum is “so gravely difficult and inconvenient” that the defendant is put at a severe disadvantage;
Burden on Doofus and witnesses. Suppose Doofus complains that having to litigate in Nevada is expensive and will make it difficult for it to get its witnesses there from Pennsylvania. That’s not enough. Doofus must show that litigation in Nevada is so gravely inconvenient as to put it at a severe disadvantage in the case. This is very difficult to show.
Is the relative wealth of the plaintiffs and defendants determinative? No. So the fact that the plaintiff has more money and could easily afford to litigate in Doofus’s home state is not determinative.
b. The forum state’s legitimate interest in providing redress for its resident;
The forum state (here, Nevada) might have an interest in providing a courtroom for its people who are harmed by allegedly careless out-of-state manufacturers. Always try to mention this.
c. The plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief;
Plaintiff is hurt and would find it tough to litigate in the defendant’s home state. Always try to mention this.
d. The interstate judicial system’s interest in efficiency; and
e. The shared interest of the states in furthering social policies.
