PJ/SMJ/VENUE

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

The power given to a court to issue a judgment that is binding on a person or affects his property.

In Personam Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over the person, judgments against the person

In Rem Personam Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over the property, settle ownership and control of property as against the whole world, subject matter is the property itself, and not the person. Example: Foreclosure

Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction

Power to settle personal dispute between parties but only up to the value of property located in state.

Personal Jurisdiction can be established via

CONSENT, WAIVER, PERSONAL SERVICE IN FORUM STATE (in personam); attachment of property in forum state (in rem, quasi in rem).

Consent

​When looking to establish if there is PJ the court will look to see if a D has consented or waived their rights. Consent can be established in a few ways; the D can expressly consent, saying they consent; they can have implied consent, through a statute or law or implied consent through the actions of the parties; or the court will look to the terms of the agreement, i.e. a forum selection clause. If the defendant does not think the court has PJ over them, they have to state so in their first response to the complaint. If they do not object to the lack of PJ, they will waive this defense.

Long-Arm Statutes

When establishing PJ, the court will also look to see the state’s individual long-arm statues. State long-arm statutes allow the state to reach beyond its borders to bring in a non-resident D into that state court. L-AS can be limiting or non-limiting. Limiting long arm statutes confer less PJ authority than allowed by the Due Process Clause. Non-Limiting LAS confer the same PJ authority as the constitution. LAS cannot provide more PJ power to the courts than the constitution allows, if they do, they are unconstitutional. 

​Enumerated LAS specify what particular events may happen in a forum state by a defendant, to allow the forum state to bring a non-resident defendant in.

General Personal Jurisdiction

Lots of activity in the forum state = Personal Jurisdiction for ANYTHING, whether it arises from that activity or not.

Specific Personal Jurisdiction

Less activity = Personal Jurisdiction for claims that ARISE FROM OR RELATE TO that activity.

Minimum Contacts

​To establish personal jurisdiction the court will look to the constitutional analysis. To establish SPJ the court will look to the minimum contacts test. The minimum contacts test applies when the defendant purposefully (which means he did so voluntarily) avail themselves to the benefits of another state and engage in activity there. The D must have a purposeful contact with the forum state. Minimum contacts can be satisfied in different ways.

Minimum Contacts - Arises Out of Test

If applying the arises out of test, just one contact with the forum state is needed

Minimum Contacts - Relates to Test

If applying the relates to test there must be a lot of contacts with the forum state. These contacts could be physical contacts, such as going to the state or shipping product into the state.

Minimum Contacts - Stream of Commerce Theory

There is also indirect contact that can be established through the Stream of Commerce theory. SoCT states that there is a contact with the state while there is a product in the stream of commerce of the business. For stream of commerce theory there are two standards that can be applied, awareness and awareness +. Awareness states that just being aware your product is in that state in enough to establish minimum contacts. For awareness + there must be more than awareness of the product in the state, there must be advertising, customer service centers, or the product was specifically designed for the forum state

Minimum Contacts - Effects Test

​To establish minimum contacts for an internet site, the court would apply the effects test. If there is a site on the internet to have minimum contacts the site must be interactive, not passive, meaning it is not just a site where information is static, rather the admin can control what goes on the site and is said. Also, the internet site must direct activity to the forum state.

Arises out of or relates to

​Next the court will look to whether the cause of action arises out of or relates to the D’s contacts with the forum state. When analyzing the two, there are different standards that need to be met. Arises out of, there is one contact. For the relates to test one must establish that there is lots of activity, activity is related to the claim, and the injury happened in the forum state.

Reasonableness Factors

​The court will next look to see if the exercise of PJ is reasonable and constitutional. The court will apply reasonableness factors: the burden on the defendant, state’s interest in hearing the case, plaintiff interest in convenient relief, interstate effective resolution, and social policies set up by several states.

Service

​FRCP 4 states that notice must be proper in order to establish valid PJ. The constitutional standard defined in Mullane is whether the notice was done by reliable means reasonably calculated to reach the affected parties. Service is proper for an individual when it is delivered by anyone who is 18 years or older and not a party to the lawsuit. Service is also proper if someone leaves the summons and complaint at the home of the D, with someone that is of reasonable age and mindset. Service for a corporation has to be left with someone who is an authorized agent who has the authority to make decisions about the company.  Also, an authorized person of a company cannot have Tag Jurisdiction apply to them if the plaintiff is exclusively suing the corporation.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

​Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) is the power given to the court to hear a type of case. A federal court can have SMJ over a case if: 1. Diversity jurisdiction, 2. There is a federal question that’s part of the claim, or 3. Supplemental jurisdiction.

Diversity Jurisdiction

​To establish diversity jurisdiction there must be complete diversity – parties across the “v.” have to be domiciled in different states. Also, the amount in controversy (the amount of money that is in controversy at trial) has to EXCEED $75,000. It should be noted that if a plaintiff has multiple claims against a defendant, those claims can be aggregated together to meet the minimum amount in controversy.

Federal Question

​A federal court can have SMJ over a claim if part of the claim presents a federal question. A federal question is a federal law that is violated, i.e., federal copyright law. For the federal question to apply the claim must spell out the federal issue in a well pleaded complaint and there are/is some part(s) of the claim(s) that arise out of federal law.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

​A court can have SMJ over a case through supplemental jurisdiction. Supplemental Jurisdiction exists in a situation where a lawsuit consists of more than one claim, and the federal court has valid jurisdiction over at least one of the claims. Any court may hear a claim, so long as both claims come from the same factual background. This is known as stemming from a common nucleus of operative fact. In supplemental jurisdiction there is an anchor claim and an orphan claim. The anchor claim is the initial complaint from the plaintiff that has standing for federal court. The orphan claim is the claim that does not have standing for federal court but is related to the anchor claim.

Analysis

• First, the court must determine which claim is the anchor claim. Once the anchor claim has been established the court must determine whether the orphan claim arises out of the same common nucleus of operative fact.

• Next the court will have to determine if SMJ over the anchor claim is based on diversity. The court will see if the orphan claim was brought by the plaintiff. Then the court will look to see, was the orphan claim brought against a non-original party?

• Finally, the court will use its discretion to determine if SMJ is appropriate under the judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Venue

​Venue is the place the court is located in which you file a claim. Venue is proper if the court is located in a judicial district where the defendant resides (residence alternative) or where events giving rise to the claim occurred (events alternative). The residence alternative states that venue is proper in a judicial district where any one of the defendants reside, if all defendants reside in that forum state. The Events alternative states that venue is proper in a judicial district where a substantial part of the events occurred that gave rise to the claim. Also, there is the Fallback alternative. This states that if there is not … in which an action can be brought i.e., the residence or events alternatives did not work, venue is proper where the defendants have personal jurisdiction originally.

Transfer

​The FRCP states that a case can be transferred if the moving party can show that venue is improper (28 USC 1406) or if venue is convenient (28 USC 1404 (a)). To show that venue is improper the court would have to analyze whether venue was proper in the original jurisdiction. To show that the venue is inconvenient that court must look to see if (1) the transferee district is more convenient for than the original district by weighing private and public interest factors and (2) if the lawsuit could have originally been brought there (based on PJ, SMJ, and Venue) OR if all the parties consented to the transfer. The private interest factors are generally weighed more heavily than the public interest factors.

​Private Interest Factors

1. Plaintiff’s choice of forum (weigh heavily especially if they live in that state or have significant ties to that state) 

2. Defendant’s forum choice 

3. Whether the claim arose out of the forum state 

4. Convenience of parties and witnesses 

5. Ease of access to the source of proof, i.e., evidence 

6. Other factors such as expedient trial, trial expenses, etc.

Public Interest Factors

1. Familiarity with governing law 

2. Congestion 

3. Local interest in having local controversy heard at home

Outcome Determinative Test

​If the federal law and the state law are judge made law and they conflict, the court will apply the Outcome Determinative Test. First the court will ask (i) does the federal law really conflict with the state law. If so, (ii) would application of federal law affect the outcome of the case in such a way as to encourage forum shopping and discourage the defendant, thus thwarting the goal of Erie? If so, the court would then decide whether there are countervailing federal interests in the application of the federal law? If not, apply federal law. If yes, balance the federal interests against the state interest. Apply state law unless federal interest is stronger.

How to determine specific jurisdiction?

TWO PRONGED TEST

1. Are there minimum contacts?

2. If yes, consider “reasonableness factors”