Territiorial Jurisdication Flashcards
Dan Yankee, a life-long resident of New York, comes to New Orleans for a Shriner’s convention. One night while imbibing in the Devil’s Brew, he tasted a local whiskey, Raging Cajun. Liking what he tasted, he bought a case of Raging Cajun to take back to New York. Upon his return to New York, Dan gave a bottle of Raging Cajun to his boss, Ben Bunkley, a citizen of New York. After work that evening, Bunkley decided to try the Raging Cajun and prepared himself a cocktail consisting of Raging Cajun and water. After three or four sips of his cocktail, Bunkley’s throat and stomach began having a severe burning sensation. He called his doctor who advised him to come to the hospital and bring the bottle of Raging Cajun with him. At the hospital it was determined that the bottle of Raging Cajun contained a high percent of acid. Bunkley was treated accordingly. He survived, but had to have part of his stomach removed and will talk in a low raspy voice the rest of his life. Bunkley’s doctor and hospital bills were in excess of $25,000. Bunkley comes to you, an attorney in New York, and wants you to represent him in his personal injury action. He wants to sue for $1,000,000 to pay for his medical expenses and be compensated for his pain and suffering and permanent physical impairments. You agree to represent him and immediately begin making certain investigations. You learn that Raging Cajun is a product distilled by the Acadia Whiskey Company, a Louisiana corporation with its principal place of business in Louisiana. It distributes its products in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. You learn that about 45% of all sales of Raging Cajun are made to New York tourists who take the product back to their home state and 50% of its sales are made to New Yorkers who purchase the liquor through Acadia’s highly interactive web site. Sales to New Yorkers account for in excess of $3,000,000.00 annually. In addition, you learn that Acadia Whiskey Company has $500,000 on deposit in a New York bank. Assume that the legislature in every state in the country has passed the following statute: The courts of this state shall have personal jurisdiction over an individual, corporation or other entity who, in person or through an agent:
(1) transacts business within the state; or
(2) commits a tortious act without the state causing injury within the state; or
(3) is personally served within the state; or
(4) owns property within the state.
Can a state court in New York exercise specific jurisdiction over Acadia Whiskey Company?
(a) Yes because Acadia transacts business in New York and the cause of action arose out of those contacts.
(b) Yes because of the presence of Acadia’s bank account in New York.
(c) No because it did not commit a tortious act in New York.
(d) No because Acadia has no contacts with New York.
Issue: Constitutionality of personal jx. The correct answer is (a). The proper approach to determining whether or not a state court can exercise personal jx is a 2 step analysis. First, one must determine whether the applicable state LAS applies. Here, the fact that Arcadia is ding more than 3 million in annual business with NY customers, both those that come to New Orleans and bring it to NY and those who buy online. So the statute applies. One must then determine the constitutionality of exercising jx. That is a multi-step process. First, is the court attempting to exercise specific or general jx? The question asks only for specific jx, which means that the COA arises out of the D’s relationships with the forum state. Here, the COA is for damages caused by the defective product. While it could be argued that the defendant’s connection with the FS are only the transport and not the manufacture of the product, if one views the connection as the entire business of producing and distributing liquor, then the COA does not arise out of the D’s relationships with the FS. In that case, one must then evaluate the extent of the defendant’s relationship. Since this appears to a continuous and systematic relationship, the International Shoe standard is met. One must then also evaluate the “fairness” factors set forth in Volkswagen. Here, the P is a forum citizen and so both he and the FS have an interest in having the case heard in the chosen forum. And the interstate judicial system has an interest in having the case heard in New York since lots of the witnesses including the P and his doctors are in the forum. Consequently, (a) is the correct answer. Option (b) is incorrect because the COA would not arise out of those contacts (bank account) and so this could not be the exercise of specific jx. Option (c) is incorrect because the LAS does not require the tortious act to have been committed in NY. It permits jx where the D commits a tortious act outside the forum but it causes injury inside the forum, which happened here. Option (d) is incorrect because Acadia clearly has extensive contacts with NY.
Dan Yankee, a life-long resident of New York, comes to New Orleans for a Shriner’s convention. One night while imbibing in the Devil’s Brew, he tasted a local whiskey, Raging Cajun. Liking what he tasted, he bought a case of Raging Cajun to take back to New York. Upon his return to New York, Dan gave a bottle of Raging Cajun to his boss, Ben Bunkley, a citizen of New York. After work that evening, Bunkley decided to try the Raging Cajun and prepared himself a cocktail consisting of Raging Cajun and water. After three or four sips of his cocktail, Bunkley’s throat and stomach began having a severe burning sensation. He called his doctor who advised him to come to the hospital and bring the bottle of Raging Cajun with him. At the hospital it was determined that the bottle of Raging Cajun contained a high percent of acid. Bunkley was treated accordingly. He survived, but had to have part of his stomach removed and will talk in a low raspy voice the rest of his life. Bunkley’s doctor and hospital bills were in excess of $25,000. Bunkley comes to you, an attorney in New York, and wants you to represent him in his personal injury action. He wants to sue for $1,000,000 to pay for his medical expenses and be compensated for his pain and suffering and permanent physical impairments. You agree to represent him and immediately begin making certain investigations. You learn that Raging Cajun is a product distilled by the Acadia Whiskey Company, a Louisiana corporation with its principal place of business in Louisiana. It distributes its products in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. You learn that about 45% of all sales of Raging Cajun are made to New York tourists who take the product back to their home state and 50% of its sales are made to New Yorkers who purchase the liquor through Acadia’s highly interactive web site. Sales to New Yorkers account for in excess of $3,000,000.00 annually. In addition, you learn that Acadia Whiskey Company has $500,000 on deposit in a New York bank. Assume that the legislature in every state in the country has passed the following statute: The courts of this state shall have personal jurisdiction over an individual, corporation or other entity who, in person or through an agent:
(1) transacts business within the state; or
(2) commits a tortious act without the state causing injury within the state; or
(3) is personally served within the state; or
(4) owns property within the state.
Can a state court in Louisiana have General Jurisdiction over Acadia Whisky Company?
(a) No because it does not have a bank account in Louisiana.
(b) Yes because it transacts business in Louisiana.
(c) No because it did not commit a tortuous act in Louisiana.
(d) Yes, because it is a citizen of Louisiana.
Issue: Constitutionality of personal jx. The correct answer is (d). State courts have personal jx over their citizens, even if they are not residing in the forum state at the time the suit is brought. There is no need to examine the application of the LAS since these statutes deal with obtaining personal jx over noncitizens and nonresidents. There is also no constitutional objection to exercising personal jx over a forum citizen - here a LA corp. Consequently, all the other answers are incorrect.
3) Can a state court in New York exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction over Acadia?
(a) Yes because Acadia is transacting business in New York.
(b) Yes because Acadia committed a tortious act in New York.
(c) Yes because Acadia has a bank account in New York.
(d) Yes because Acadia has a bank account in New York and because it has other contacts with the forum state.
Issue: Constitutionality of personal jx. The correct answer is (d). In a quasi in rem proceeding, the defendant must have property within the FS, the property must not be the subject of the plantiff’s claim, and the exercise of jx must meet constitutional requirememts. Here, the first two portions are met. With respect to the constitutional inquiry, one must evaluate the extent of the defendant’ s relationship with the forum state to see if it supports this attempt to exercise general jx. Because the defendant conducts extensive other business in the FS, besides dealing with its bank account
Can the state courts in Alabama and Mississippi exercise general jurisdiction over Acadia?
(a) No because Acadia does not have a bank account there.
(b) Yes because Acadia does some business there.
(c) No because Acadia did not commit a tortious act there.
(d) No because Acadia does not have sufficient contacts there.
Issue: General jurisdiction. The correct answer is (d).
Acadia does have some contacts with these states because it is doing some business there. But the plaintiff’s cause of action does not arise out of these relationships and so the court would have to have general jurisdiction over Acadia. This would require a more significant degree of relationship than is suggested by the facts of this case. That is why (d) is the best answer. It is true that Acadia does not have a bank account in these states, but that is not why those states cannot exercise specific jurisdiction over it, which is why (a) is not correct. The mere fact that Acadia does business in these states is not enough, in itself, to justify this attempt at exercising jurisdiction. One would have to evaluate the extent of that business and the extent is insufficient to justify general jurisdiction since only 5% of its sales are made to citizens of those two states. Therefore, (b) is not a correct answer. It is also true that Acadia did not commit a tortuous act in these states but that is not why they cannot exercise general jurisdiction over it. Therefore, (d) is also incorrect.
If the plaintiff chose to file this action in a federal district court in New York, which long arm statute would apply?
(a) Louisiana because the defendant is a citizen of that state.
(b) New York because the plaintiff is a citizen of that state.
(c) Louisiana because that is where the tortious act occurred.
(d) New York because it is the forum state.
Issue: Federal court personal jurisdiction. The correct answer is (d).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1) provides that in the absence of a governing federal statute, the federal court applies the state long arm statute of the forum state. Since this is a tort claim governed by state law, there is no applicable federal long arm provision and so the forum’s long arm statute applies. No other factor is relevant, which is why the other options are incorrect.
John Henry, a lifetime resident of Boston, made his first ever foray out of Massachusetts when he flew to Los Angeles. He was unable to get a nonstop flight and so had to change planes in Kennedy airport in New York City. While sitting at a coffee shop at Kennedy airport, he was served with process in connection with a lawsuit filed against him by his former next-door-neighbor. His neighbor, now a citizen of New York, brought suit in New York claiming that John had sold him a lemon when he sold the neighbor his 1995 automobile.
Can the New York court exercise personal jurisdiction over John?
(a) No because the car sale was consummated in Massachusetts.
(b) Yes because the plaintiff is a citizen of New York.
(c) No because John is a citizen of Massachusetts.
(d) Yes because John was served in New York.
Issue: Tag Jurisdiction. The correct answer is (d).
The Supreme Court ruled in Burnham that personal service in the forum state, so called “tag jurisdiction” is constitutionally sufficient. In such cases, there is no need to investigate the fairness of exercising jurisdiction because in-state service, the plurality ruled in Burnham meets the due process test of fairness. Thus, options (a) and (c) are incorrect. Option (b) is incorrect because the citizenship of the plaintiff is irrelevant to the constitutional assessment required by Shoe with respect to the existence of personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Plaintiff files a claim against the defendant, a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in New York, in federal district court in Los Angeles alleging a violation of the federal antitrust statute, which contains a provision for nationwide service of process. The defendant is a major retailer with retail shops in all fifty states and a highly interactive web page which generates hundreds of thousands of dollars of business annually from citizens of all fifth states. Which jurisdictional statute governs whether or not the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction?
(a) California law because California is the forum state.
(b) Delaware law because Delaware citizen. the defendant is a
(c) New York law because headquarters are there. the defendant’s
(d) The federal antitrust statute.
Issue: Federal court personal jurisdiction. The correct answer is (d).
Under Fed.Rule.Civ.P. 4(e), a federal court looks to the forum state’s jurisdictional provision unless otherwise provided by federal law. Here, the substantive federal law contains its own jurisdictional provision. Consequently, it, rather than state law, applies.
Plaintiff files a claim against the defendant, a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in New York, in federal district court in Los Angeles alleging a violation of the federal antitrust statute, which contains a provision for nationwide service of process. The defendant is a major retailer with retail shops in all fifty states and a highly interactive web page which generates hundreds of thousands of dollars of business annually from citizens of all fifth states. The determination of whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant meets constitutional standards will depend upon an analysis of:
(a) Whether the defendant’s contacts with the forum meet the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(b) Whether the defendant’s contacts with the forum state meet the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment.
(c) Whether the defendant’s contacts within the United States as a whole meet the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment.
(d) There is no need to evaluate the constitutionality of the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this context.
Federal court personal jurisdiction The correct answer is (c).
Since, under F.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1 ), the jurisdictional provision contained in the federal antitrust law applies, the constitutionality of the exercise of such jurisdiction must be determined under the Fifth Amendment. Under that analysis, as opposed to Fourteenth Amendment analysis that applies when the case is governed by a state jurisdictional provision, we look to the defendant’s contacts with the United States as a whole rather than with the forum state. Thus, option (a) is wrong because the Fourteenth Amendment is inapposite. Option (b) is wrong because it focuses on the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. Option (d) is wrong because there is a constitutional limitation upon the exercise of personal jurisdiction by federal district courts.
The plaintiff, a Vermont citizen, bought a television from the defendant retailer, an Illinois corporation. The written sales agreement provides that the purchaser designated the company president’s secretary, to receive service of process for the customer in any action brought by the retailer under the terms of this agreement. When the customer fails to make a payment, the retailer sued him for breach of contract in federal district court and served the company president’s secretary. The secretary, who was unknown to the defendant, mails a copy of the service to the defendant’s home and the defendant receives it. Is this service proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
(a) Yes because the defendant agreed to it by signing the contract and received the process.
(b) No because this is a form contract and the service provision was in small type.
(c) No because the secretary was unknown to the defendant and was the plaintiffs employee.
(d) Yes because the secretary was paid for being a recipient of service.
Issue: “Agent authorized by appointment”. The correct answer is (a).
Under F.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(2), service can be made upon an agent authorized by appointment to receive service of process. The Supreme Court in National Equipment Rental v. Szukhent held that a service provision in a form contract can constitute an effective appointment of an agent for service of process even if the recipient is unknown to the plaintiff. The only requirement of the job is to transfer service to the defendant and if that job is fulfilled, the Court ruled , the service is effective. That occurred here and so the service is proper under Rule 4(e)(2). The defects alluded to in options (b) and (c) are irrelevant under these circumstances. As is the fact offered in option (d).
The plaintiff and defendant assert ownership to the same home located in California. The plaintiff is a California citizen and the defendant, the plaintiff’s former best friend, is a citizen of West Virginia. The plaintiff files suit in federal court in California and the defendant refuses to waive service. The plaintiff obtains a court order seizing the property and serves the defendant by publication in a Los Angeles publication. The defendant, who stopped corresponding with the defendant one week before suit was brought, files a motion to dismiss for insufficient service. Should the court grant the defense motion?
(a) No because the property was seized.
(b) No because service was effected by publication.
(c) Yes because the plaintiff knew the defendant’s location and could have mailed service to the defendant’s home address.
(d) Yes because this is an in personam proceeding
Issue: Constitutional sufficiency of service. The correct answer is (c).
In Mullane, the Supreme Court held that the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment must be applied to determine the constitutional sufficiency of notice regardless of whether the proceeding is deemed to be in personam, in rem or quasi in rem. Thus, although this is an in rem case, mere seizure plus publication no longer is always constitutionally sufficient. Thus, options (a), (b) and (d) are incorrect. The constitutional requirement for notice is that notice which is reasonably calcu lated under all the circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action. Since the defendant’s whereabouts were known to the plaintiff, the ruling in Mullane would require more than publication -the plaintiff would have to mail service to the defendant’s known home address.
