PJX DRILL DOWNS

Question 1

Products liability drill down

Answer 1

specific purposeful availment requirement for MCs.
factors to determine P.A.: look at out-of-state D’s-
- particular role (retailer, manufacturer, national distributor, regional wholesaler, component supplier) in delivering the allegedly defective product to the FS market and
- specific economic connections (ads, marketing, product support) to the FS and whether these connections render it foreseeable that such acts would cause it to be haled into the FS to answer to litigation arising therefrom. WWVW v. Woodson
stream of commerce analysis: traditionally evaluated PA when products manufactured elsewhere found way into FS through SoC (WWVA). w/ this approach, state doesn’t exceed DP powers if it finds pjx over a corporation that delivers it’s products into SoC with the EXPECTATION that it’ll be purchased by consumers in the FS. WWVW
BUT NOTE- RECENTLY courts doubt SoC’s helpfulness in analyzing Pjx (McIntyre- Kennedy wants to focus on whether D seeks to serve FS’s market). most states still use the SoC, though
foreseeability: whether d’s contacts w/ FS as they relate to the products liability c/a go beyond the mere foreseeability that an injury might be caused in the forum –> still has to reasonably anticipate being haled there (WWVW)
EX: no PJx in WWVW over NY-based company because wasn’t foreseeable that they’ll be haled into OK for a sale that happened in NY, even though cars are mobile

manufacturer: likely subject to pjx when the product foreseeably causes injury; focus on if manuf was trying to serve a particular market –> no pjx if not attempting to serve market & product arrived fortuitously. McIntyre
national distributor: o-o-s/international D- no PJx when only a few products make their way into forum and no separate economic contacts. McIntyre
regional distributor that doesn’t sell product in FS- usually no PJx even if foreseeable because foreseeability ALONE is always insufficient. WWVW. BUT if engaged in sales activities (ads, product support), could be subject to pjx
local retailer/regional distributor: usually no pjx over o-o-s local retailer unless it had specific contacts such that being haled is foreseeable. WWVW. direct economic rship can = pjx (sales, ads); seek to in/directly serve market for its products? delivers products into SoC? expectation that product purchased by FS consumers?THESE QS APPLY TO ALL
*component parts manuf: depends on level of in/direct connection, including placing product into SoC. Asahi (jx upheld over o-o-s manuf, PLURALITY); mere awareness of product in SoF vs. something more (plus factors)- bc Asahi is plurality, not sure extent to which the SoC rational applies here- pjx merely bc aware component will be marketed in FS through SoC (Brennan) or something more required by way of economic/other context to FS (O’C pLUS factors). Asahi, Celgard. McIntyre DIDN’T resolve so most modern cases for for BREYER’S approach- didn’t reject/embrace SoC, just noted that McIntyre didn’t implicate modern concerns (internet contacts, etc.) that might produce different analysis. plus factors = designing product for market in FS; establishing channels for regular customer advice in FS; advertising to the FS; marketing product through distrib in forum

Question 2

Intentional misconduct (torts)

Answer 2

1. Intentional act: defamation, copyright infringement
2. Expressly aimed at the forum
   - a la Clemens v. McNamee (baseball/defamation):
3. D knows likely to cause harm in forum
   - Knowing effect a la Walden v. Fiore (DEA agent in GA): keep in mind D + C/A + F = Jx; not simply because P resides in forum; consider D’s meaningful connections to forum- where’s the focal point of the action directed?

Question 3

Internet Contacts

Answer 3

Zippo sliding scale:
insufficient contacts: passive, basic info, available on WWW
maybe: interavtive, exchange info, have to examine level of activity here
SUFFICIENT: doing business, online commerce, knowing and repeated contacts

Question 4

Contracts

Answer 4

Consider a la BK:

• terms of the K (FSC not binding but helpful to show agreement to avail themselves of the privileges and benefits of FL)
• contemplated future course of dealing (20 year lease)
• prior negotiations (in FL)
• Parties’ actual course of dealing (dealt with FL rep)

Question 5

Contracts

Answer 5

Consider a la BK:

• terms of the K (FSC not binding but helpful to show agreement to avail themselves of the privileges and benefits of FL)
• contemplated future course of dealing (20 year lease)
• prior negotiations (in FL)
• Parties’ actual course of dealing (dealt with FL rep)

Question 6

Professional services (b/w professions and clients in different states)

Answer 6

CONSIDER in the Jx where the services were PROVIDED:

• professional representation
• client
• forum connection: services to F residents IN F; services to R residents OUTSIDE F; services to F in MDL cases