Personal Jurisdiction

International Shoe Co. v. Washington

Independent contractors issue occurring in Washington for selling shoes of company based in Delaware with Principal office in Missouri. Suit filed in Washington.

Defendant's salesmen resided in Washington, had their principal activities there, were compensated by commissions for sales there and rented expenses rooms for samples of the shoes. D also made 30k of them. These contacts are sufficient for Specific jurisdiction.

For a state to subject a nonresident defendant to in personam jurisdiction, due process requires "such minimum contacts with the forum so upholding jurisdiction does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

Walden v. Fiore

Ps from caribbean coming home to their home in Nevada but had a stop in Atlanta. Police officer took a wrongful seizure of cash in Atlanta but suit filed in Ps home state of Nevada.

Rule: REJECTS effects jurisdiction – The defendant must have a contact with the state and may not be exercised over a nonresident civil defendant based on “their effects” alone.

Holding: The D did not aim any behavior at Nevada. Everything the officer did occurred in the Atlanta Airport and the Nevada connection comes from the happenstance that the Ps just levied there WHICH IS NOT SOLEY ENOUGH FOR A CONTACT.

Smyth v. Twin State Improvement Corp

P, ​​a Vermont resident brought a tort action against the defendant for improperly installing a new roof on his house. The defendant, Twin State, was a Massachusetts corporation. As far as the record showed, Twin State had not done other business in Vermont.

Holding: Defendant purposefully availed himself to the jurisdiction as he received benefits and protections from the laws of Vermont (He was on business). Moreover, the entire tort occurred in Vermont (Duty, Breach, Causation, and Damages), so the cause of action arose there. Lastly, the TNFSJ would be satisfied because Vermont is not that far from Mass, and the burden is not unduly burdensome on D.

McIntyre Machinery, Ltd (UK). Nicastro (NJ)

An English company makes machines in England. Sells them to an independently owned in Ohio (distributor). That subsidiary then markets and ships the product around other various states including Planitff's workplace in NJ. The plaintiff is badly injured when using the machine and wants to sue the English company as he files suit in NJ.

Kennedy Approach: Adopts the O’Connor theory and says there is no jurisdiction in NJ because the English company did not target NJ specifically because:

(1) The distributor was not under the control of the D, (2) There were only 4 of these machines in NJ, which was insufficient to justify contacts.

- If it provided customer service or advertising there, it may have been enough. However, without that there is no purposeful availment by the English company with NJ.

Ginsburg Approach: Would have upheld jurisdiction and essentially adopted the Brennan approach; they say if you put in the stream and can reasonably anticipate it getting to NJ, that is purposeful contact.

Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of CA

Two types of Plaintiffs (California and Non-Cali) California plaintiff claims clearly arose from or were related to what Bristol-Myers did in Cali. They were prescribed the drugs there, ingested them there, and were harmed there. So Cali easily had specific jurisdiction for the Cali plaintiffs.

The problem for non-Cali plaintiffs (who were part of the class action there) is that nothing Bristol Myers did in Cali affected them – their claim has no tie to Cali at all. Bristol-Myers questions their jurisdiction there.

RULE: The c/a must arise out of or be related to the defendant's contacts in the forum. For the Non-Ca claimants, BECAUSE THEIR CLAIM DID NOT ARISE OUT OF OR RELATE TO ANYTHING BRISTOL MYERS DID IN CALI

(interesting contrast to Ford because Bristol Myers did have some related contact, but they did not relate it to what occurred to No Plaintiffs, so good counterargument)

Ex. Say Ohio. The pills they took in Ohio were prescribed there, ingested there. They were harmed there. So, there is no relatedness. No specific jurisdiction.

Usually, specific jurisdiction is denied because of lack of contact. Here, there is a ton of contact, but the problem is relatedness or cause of action arising from those contacts.

Rule (4)(k)(1)(a)

Allows the federal courts to exercise jurisdiction to the extent authorized by the long arm statute. Federal courts have no greater jurisdiction than the states in which they sit or a geographically located

State Long Arm (Cali & NY)

Cali: Jurisdiction to the extent of the constitution
NY: §301 & §302

Specific Jursidiction Test

1. Relevant Contacts (Purposeful Availment + Anticipate being hauled into court) → 2. C/A Arises or relates defendants contacts in the forum → Violate TNFSJ (5 Factor Test)

General Jursidiction Test

"At Home"

NY CPLR §301

Traditional basis of jurisdiction:
1. Consent
2. Residence/Domicile - Can always sue someone in their home state
3. Service of Process in the state over an individual - Only For an individual
4. Continuous & Systematic Doing Business Test

Continuous & Systematic Doing Business Test

Requires a 'substantial solicitation' that is carried on with a 'considerable measure of continuity and from a permanent locale within the state (Met in Perkins)

It is not enough to support the obligation of doing business that airlines bring your goods to NY, or advertisements, or home shopping networks. (Duncan)

NY CPLR §302 Requirments (Nexus)

Must be an articulable nexus or one of the elements of the action must occur in the forum

NY CPLR §302(a)(1) - contact

Includes shipping products in the state does not require literal contact

NY CPLR § 302(a)(1&2) Tortious Act

Tortious act is a breach of duty. NOT INJURY OR A TORT!!

Ex. Tanker made in California but blew up in NY. The tortious act was in CA.

NY CPLR § 302(a)(1)

Tortious act in state

NY CPLR § 302(a)(2) Also needs substanacial revenue or annticipate hauled

Tortious act out of state but injury occured instate.

THE MERE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES IN NY AND THEREFORE EXPERIENCES A FINANCIAL LOSS IS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR JURISDICTION UNDER §302 IN GENERAL!!!

Beacon Enterprises v. Menzies

Sauna suit case concerning trademark dispute over it." Court said there was no nexus between the business transacted and the cause of action sued upon'

RULE: There must exist an articulable nexus between the cause of action and NY.

Holding: C/A is concerned about trademark dispute. Hence, although Menzies had contacts in the forum, there was no nexus between those contacts (shipping suits to NY) and the trademark dispute. Beacon may have gotten jurisdiction if they sued for contract infringement

Duncan v. Nu-Life

Duncan and Brinkley settled previously on who has control over the ear muff patent (Brinkley) but Duncan can use it as well. Brinkley gave his patent to Nu-Life and Duncan gave hers to Direct Success. Nu-Life filed suit against Direct success for breach of patent which was settled but terminated agreement with Duncan and Direct success., Duncan files suit in NY w/Nu-Life also advertising its stuff on flights coming in & out of NY


RULE/HOLDING: No Nexus in filing suit in signing agreement in IL (remember this cause of action is about contract breach) or with selling/advertising stuff on planes.

Pennoyer v. Neff

Guy runs out on legal bill and then atty takes the house and sues for it without jurisdiction

Provides traditional basis of jurisdiction:
1. Domicile In State (citizen of state)
2. TAG Jurisdiction/Presence in the state: (WORKS INSTATE ONLY!!)
3. Consent/Waiver

"At Home" for a corporation

in two states at most (state where it is incorporated and state where it maintains its principal place of business)

Worldwide Volkswagen v Woodson

NY family buys a car in NY and goes to AZ. On the way to AZ they are involved in a horrible wreck in Oklahoma. Family sued on product liability that car was poorly designed and that is what led to the fire that injured the family member

RULE: For Specific Jurisdiction: SUFFICENT CONTACT = Purposeful Availment + Anticipate being Hauled into court.

It cannot be the unilateral act of a third party.

The foreseeability of the product getting to the forum of the product is insufficient for jurisdiction

RATHER it's WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT MAY LEAD TO THERE BEING FORSEEABILITY OR ANTICIPATION OF THE DEFENDANT BEING HAULED IN.

OK did not have PJ over the defendants from NY (the retailer and distributor). They lacked personal jurisdiction because they had not purposefully availed of OK. They had no relevant contact with OK. The car got home to OK from the unilateral act from the Plaintiff; the Defendants did not reach out to OK in any way.

Purposeful Availment Test

Defendant Intentionally reaching out to the forum state to receive benefits and protections from the state and its residents. Due to their intentional act(s), they can reasonably anticipate being hauled into court

Calder v. Jones

Two defendants write and edit a newspaper story in Florida which defames a movie star in California. It was published in a national newspaper. Suit filed in CA.

Rule/Holding: Introduces Effects test, where causing an effect in the jurisdiction may be sufficient to grant PJ. Overturned in Walden, but here since everything they did in FL intentionally targeted the P in CA, court said PJ was good.

Hanson v. Denckla

The decedent (initially from PA) established a trust with a Delaware ban as a trustee. 10 years later, she moved to Florida, where she died, but the majority of the estate was given to her kids and some to her grandkids. A dispute arose concerning who the Delaware bank was to give the majority of the trust to (kids or grandkids). The kids filed suit from Florida, asking the state to give them the trust for D.

Rule: The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship w/nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact. What is required is the defendant's VOLUNTARY & INTENTIONAL ACT.

Holding: Florida could not exercise jurisdiction over Hanson (Dw bank) because there were insufficient contacts there as it had no business there, it held no trust assets there, it solicited no business there, and had no office in Florida. While there may have been some trust administration by the decedent here, the acts were not by D in contrast to the solicitation in McGee for reinsurance and accepting descendant by the Descendant.

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz Contacts

Contract case in Florida by BK against two individuals who run a Burger King franchise in Michigan.

1. Michigan folks reached out to BK in Florida to enter a 20-year franchise relationship,
2. It was governed under Florida Law (it was availed by Flordia the laws governed)
3. Applied/negotiated at the local district office which then forwarded it to the main office in FL.
4. The local office monitored the operations of the franchises while the Miami headquarters set policies of major problems for franchises.
5. The agreement required Ps to pay for 20-years for use of the trademarks and that the relationship was established in Miami
6. Defendant attended management courses in Miami as required and paid 165k for equipment from a Bk in Miami.
7. BK Canceled and sued in FL

Burger King Holding

Rule/Holding: D (1) deliberately negotiated and finalized a deal with a corporation he knew was located in Florida instead of the one in the district, (2) The course D attended to get a franchise was held in Florida. (3) Any franchise fees Rudzewicz did pay were sent to Florida. (4) The contract Rudzewicz signed acknowledged that the Burger King Headquarters in Miami regulated the franchise. Rudzewicz reasonably should have known that he was affiliating himself with an organization based in Florida and he might be haled to court in that state for harm arising out of or relating to his conduct.

Stream of Commerce Cases

Asahi and McIntyre

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California

P sued Honda Japan & US, which implead the wheel manufacturer and valve manufacturer in (From Japan) for an accident stemming from a wheel issue. The suit was filed in CA.

Split in Court: Two Viable Theories:

Brenan approach - is a sufficient contact if I put the component into the stream of commerce and could reasonably anticipate that it would get to state C.

O’Connor approach: You need more than that; you need Brenan's approach and show that I had an intent to serve state C or that market. Without that targeting, there is no purposeful availment to state C.

Ex. (1) I advertised or (2) had customer service there or (3) designed it for the needs of that market

C/A arises out of Or Relates to Cases:

Ford, Bristol-Myers Squibb

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.: Life insurance contract dispute (the guy committed suicide) between the estate of the deceased (CA) vs the Insurance Company (TX), which took over the policy from another insurer.

Contacts:

- Insurance company mailed reinsurance to decedent In Cali

- Mailing of Premiums from Def to Ins company

- Both Plaintiff and Def were CA residents

- Alleged suicide occurred in CA (witnesses)

- Insurance Co. never solicited or did any other business there.

Holding: Represents the least amount of contract that had been approved by the supreme court for specific jursidiciton. Given that the contract (reinsurance) was given there by Def, likely negotiated by the decedent and insurance there, that is where the decedent lived and paid his premiums, where the witnesses to the alleged suicide resided (for the suit) defendant likely purposefully availed itself and could have anticipated that contract within the jurisdiction was sufficient to haul it into court.

The next issue is if it would violate TNFSJ. No, because California would have an interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents when their insurers refuse to pay claims. Also, when the claims are small, it is unduly burdensome on the plaintiff because it may be hard to get to a foreign forum or at least their witnesses. Also there may be an interest for the defense in Cali, the witnesses that the guy did commit suicide. While it may somewhat inconvenience the defendant, its not unduly burdensome.

Five-Factor Fairness Test (w/out Examples)

Burden of Defendant

Forum State interest

Plaintiff's Interest

The legal systems interest in efficiency:

Shared substantive policies of the state:

Five-Factor Fairness Test (w/Examples)

Burden of Defendant - Def may say it's hard for me to get there. I don't want to go there. My witnesses can’t make it there. TEST FROM BK: Defendant must show that it is so inconvenient that it would be unduly burdensome

Forum State interest - Ex. (Ford) Minnesota has an interest on protecting it residents and enforcing road safety

Why would the Forum state be interested in protecting resident’s road safety

Plaintiff's Interest: (Ford) Plaintiff is injured and it would be very difficult to leave that jurisdiction for Michaigan or someplace where Ford is “home”

The legal systems interest in efficiency: Whether forum is a convenient place for the ligation. (Ford is an example because all the evidence was there)

Shared substantive policies of the state: (Kulko) Where a guy showed up to visit his kids court refused to grant jurisdiction because parents would not work together on custody issues.

General Jurisdiction Test

"At Home" Daimiler.

"At Home" for a person

is your domicile, everyone has a home and you are subject to general jurisdiction there.

Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co

Plaintiff sues D (corp from the Philippines) in Oh for failure to pay stock in the company. Corp just relocated to Ohio to conduct the company’s business, paid salaries, had an office, and had meetings.

Rule/Holding: The Supreme Court upheld jurisdiction over the corporation in Ohio on a cause of action that had nothing to do with its Ohio because Ohio was the company's headquarters

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown

"Boys from NC were killed in a bus accident in France. The Parent filed suit against Goodyear (an Ohio Corporation) and its subsidiaries Turkey, France, and Luxembourg) in TX for defective tires they allege caused the accident. Subsidiary contacts in TX consisted of putting its tires into the stream of commerce.

Rule/Holding: A sale of some tires in North Carolina through intermediaries is not a continuous, systematic business contact with the state sufficient to render it essentially at home."

Daimler AG v. Bauman

P sued in CA for human rights abuses that occurred in Argentina w/subsidary Mercedes-Benz, which was unrelated to the contacts they had with CA.

RULE: "At home Rule" - Corps are at home at their state of incorporation and Principal Place of business (Perkins is an example of this)

Although MBUSA distributes cars to and maintains offices in California, MBUSA distributes cars to every state. To be at home requires more than just sales in the forum.

"At home" General Jurisdiction

systematic and continuous contacts with the forum, so extensive that can overlook that the cause of action happened elsewhere; outside an exceptional case, the corporation will only be at home where incorporated or where the principal place of business (Perkins was example )

Look at perhaps the the place's command and control or

For Websites consider if there was targeting in the forum

For instance: A kanas jazzcafe has a website adveritising its self wit good music and uses a logo that potentially violates a trademark from someone in NY. The NY files suit in SDNY. Is there jurisdiction? Likely not – their was no intential act or targeting of NY. He was likely targeting the Kansas area.

This may be contrasted with a website like amazon targeting all the states.

Consider Targeting with websites. What are they trying to get.

Consider did they get benefit out of the area. Did they intentionally sell there (think CA example in Outline)

Unduly Burdensome in Asahi

Brenan said it was unduly burdensome to uphold jurisdiction over the defendant in Asahi because:

(1) The relatively large burden to Asahi of defending in a foreign legal system, (2) Better jurisdiction available for the party, (3) Foreign relation problems by deciding against foreign defendants.