Specific Jurisdiction Flashcards
What is a Specific Jurisdiction & its’ categories?
A. The subject matter of the action must relate/ have a specific connection to the forum state.
- Contracts
- Stream of Commerce
- Intentional Torts
- Internet
- Contracts
(A). Entering and performing a bilateral contract with a domiciliary of a state via mail establishes minimum contacts.
Case: Mcgee- CA had personal jurisdiction over life insurance because it had “sufficient connection” with the forum because of delivering contracts in CA and beneficiaries paying premiums from the forum. Interest of the forum is relevant.
(B). To determine whether D has minimum contact with the forum, consideration must be given to prior negotiations, anticipated future implications, the terms of the contract, and the parties’ actual course of business.
Case : (BurgerKing) where D engaged in the negotiation of a 20 yr. Franchise Agreement with a corporation headquartered in FL, D; 's relationship with the corporation could not be considered “random” or “fortuitous” and thus D had substantial connection with FL & could maintain PJ over D.
(C). Unilateral act of a party (who claims to have some relationship with a non-resident defendant) doesn’t satisfy D’s requisite contacts with the forum.
i. BECAUSE D must purposefully avail itself of the privileges of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits & protection of its laws.
ii. It is D’s conduct that must form the necessary connection with the state NOT P’s.
Case 1: (Hanson v. Denckla) FL didn’t have personal jurisdiction over the trustee (bank) of a trust established in DE when the trustee had no office in FL, no business in FL, and only contact was the grantor who was a resident of PA, moved to FL until she died.
Case 2: (Fiore) No PJ over D in NV when the only connection with NV was P’s unilateral travel there. P can’t be the only link. It is D’s conduct that must form the necessary connection with the forum state.
- Stream of Commerce
(A). Minimum contacts with the forum “continuous and systematic that gives rise to the claim suit on” = direct foreseeability which is enough to equal fair play and substantial justice.
I. Minimum Contacts is not foreseeability that the product will end up in the forum; it is foreseeability that D’s conduct and connection to the forum such that he “should reasonably anticipate being haled into court” Case: (WWV) WWV: Oklahoma didn’t have PJ over non-resident car retailer (Seaway) and Wholesale distributor (WW) b/c no minimum contacts with OK, as they carry on no activity in OK, No sales, prove no service, and solicit no business there.
(B). Unreasonable to maintain personal jurisdiction over D who is merely aware that the product will end up in the forum state because mere awareness may be insufficient to establish minimum contacts.
II. 4 justices say that it must be accompanied by conduct specifically directed toward the forum and whether it is fair.
Case: (Asahi) Asahi: Under fairness analysis, it would be unreasonable to maintain personal jurisdiction over Japanese corporation for sale in and shipment to Taiwan of product that accounted for only small percentage of D’s overall income
(C). NO minimum contacts where D’s acts do not “manifest an intent to submit to the power of the sovereign.“
Case: (McIntyre v. Nicastro) McIntyre v. Nicastro: NJ didn’t have PJ over UK Corporation that wanted to sell in the U.S. b/c they did not specifically target NJ. Foreseeability and notions of fairness are irrelevant here. and When determining whether Nj state court has personal jurisdiction, only contacts with NJ are relevant, contacts with U.S. are irrelevant.
- Intentional Tort
- Minimum contacts satisfy PJ where the “harmful effects” of a D’s intentional conduct are suffered in the forum.
A. Where P suffers harm in the forum state because of D’s harmful statements in its publication circulated in the forum, D has minimum contacts with the forum state
Case #1: Keeton v. Hustler: NH has PJ over Hustler magazine in a suit for defamation (Intentional tort) because Hustler circulates thousands of magazine copies a month.
Case #2: Calder v. Jones: CA has PJ over National Enquirer in a suit for libel (Intentional Tort) because the magazine’s conduct - although occurring in FL, had harmful effects on P in CA.
B. Effects test inapplicable in the contact of domestic disputes
Case #1: Kulko v. Superior Court: CA did not have PJ over the father whose children line in CA with his approval who sends child support checks to the forum.
C. The Effects test is not satisfied simply because D unilaterally travels to the forum and then suffers harm there.
Case #1: Walden v. Fiore: A suit alleging violation of 4th amendment (Constitutional Tort), no PJ over D in NV when only connection with NV was P’s unilateral travel there.
