Personal Jurisdiction

Goal of Modern Procedure

• Found in Federal Rule 1

• to secure the just, speedy, and expensive determination of every action and proceeding

Civil Cases

Dispute between private parties

Must show defendant is liable “by a preponderance of the evidence”

Civil action

Federal rule 2, the one form of action

Personal Jurisdiction

• Circumstances under which a court has power over an individual party

• It is a court's power over the defendant that is crucial for the case to proceed. The plaintiff implicitly consents to the court's jurisdiction by filing the lawsuit. 

Types of Personal Jurisdiction

(i) in personam jurisdiction

(ii) in rem jurisdiction, and

(iii) quasi in rem jurisdiction

Full Faith and Credit Clause Article IV of the Constitution

• every state must enforce the judgments of every other state (federal and state)

  • Exception where court that rendered judgment lacked PJX over defendant

Pennoyer v. Neff

Facts: Original P sued D in Oregon, D lived in Cali at time, notice only in newspaper, D did not appear in court. After default judgment, Original P obtained writ of execution and purchased property. Transferred property to P. D sued P arguing Oregon judgment invalid because not been properly served. (Pennoyer screwed)

Rule of Law: Under the Due Process Clause, no person is subject to the jurisdiction unless she voluntarily appears in the court, is found within the state, lives in the state, or has property in the state that the court has attached

In Rem Jurisdiction

• authority of court to determine issues concerning rights in property, concerns ownership of the attached property

  • Determines interest of all person in particular property

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

Type 1: Determines only the interests of the parties to the action regarding property in the forum state

Type 2: Lawsuit has nothing to do with the ownership, presence of the property is simply the basis upon which the court relies to assert jurisdiction in the case

Shaffer v. Heitner

Rule of Law: Quasi in rem jurisdiction may be asserted only if the interests of the persons in the property seized have sufficient contacts, ties, or relations to the state.
Facts. Shareholder Suit against D in DA, quasi-in-rem by attaching D’s stock (not physically in DA but state situs of all stock), when acts occurred in Oregon

Resident Corporation and PJX

• Corporation will be a resident corporation only if it is incorporated in the forum state

  • Any action may be brought

Foreign (to state) corporations

• corporation’s affiliations with the forum state are so “continuous and systematic” as to render the corporation essentially “at home” in the forum state

• State of its principal place of business

International Shoe Co v. Washington

Facts: P made shoes in MO. Salemen solicited offers in WA, transmit to MO to be accepted, shipped to WA. D sued P for not may taxes, P argued no PJX because it isn’t incorporated in WA nor have principal place in WA

Rule of Law: For a defendant not present within forum to be subjected in personam jurisdiction, due process requires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.Systematic and continuous solicitation and sales activity in Washington created sufficient contacts

Due Process Requirements

satisfied if the non-resident defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the action does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

Minimum Contacts

1. Purposeful availment

1. Specific and general Jurisdiction

2. Suit based on Contract

3. Intentional torts

4. Internet websites

5. Imputed contacts

Purposeful availment

Defendant’s contacts with the forum state must be purposeful and substantial, such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate (foresee) being taken to court there.

• Foreseeability depends on whether a defendant recognizes or anticipates that by running his business, he risks being party to a suit in a particular state.

Specific Jurisdiction

When a cause of action arises out of or closely relates to a defendant’s contact with the forum state, jurisdiction may be warranted over that action even if that contact is the defendant’s only contact with the forum state.
- Specific jurisdiction does not require strict causation; "relates to" is broader than "arises out of."

• defendant’s actions

General Jurisdiction

defendant be domiciled in the state or have continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state.

Suits based on contract

Existence of the contract can be a significant factor in determining that minimum contacts exist, such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the non-resident is appropriate.

• the fact that one party to a contract is a resident of the forum state will not, by itself, confer personal jurisdiction over the non-resident party to the contract

Express and Implied consent

Intentional Torts

defendant commits an intentional tort in his own state, but the conduct was aimed at the plaintiff in the forum state
- “Calder Effects Test,” which allows personal jurisdiction over a party whose conduct was expressly aimed at the forum state, knowing that the brunt of the harmful effects would be felt there

Internet Websites

Merely having a website will not subject a defendant to process everywhere that the site can be viewed.

TELEMEDICINE SOLUTIONS LLC, v. WOUNDRIGHT TECHNOLOGIES

Facts: P developed WoundRound, D had competing WoundRight. D purchased Ad that appeared when searching for WoundRound, also had WoundRound on ad. D had no physical presence or interaction in IL. Sued in IL
Rule of Law: Personal jurisdiction over nonresident internet entities requires more than a website accessible to forum residents, such as purposefully targeting, marketing, or distributing there.

Imputed contacts

contacts of one defendant with the forum state may be imputed to another defendant for purposes of determining jurisdiction

Fair Play and substantial Justice

Once minimum contacts are established, a court must still examine the facts to determine if maintenance of the action would “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

• use asahi factors to make determination

Asahi Factors

i) The burden on the defendant of appearing in the case;

ii) The interest of the forum state in adjudicating the matter;

iii) The plaintiff’s interest in litigating the matter in the forum state;

iv) The interest of the judicial system in the efficient resolution of controversies; and

v) The shared interests of the states in promoting substantive social policies.

World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson

Rule of Law: Foreseeability alone not sufficient for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant that has no connections. Mere foreseeability that a product could travel into a state is not enough
Facts: D purchased car in NY from P. D got in accident in OK while on the way to AZ. D sued P for fault design (distributed in NY, CT, NJ)
Dissent: Automobiles are inherently mobile, and sellers know and intend that they will travel across states. Modern commerce makes jurisdiction in OK fair and reasonable

Keeton v. Hustler

Rule of Law: Personal jurisdiction is proper over a nonresident magazine in any state where that corporation has sold and distributed a substantial number of copies. "Regular circulation" of its magazines within the state of New Hampshire constitutes sufficient contacts to justify the assertion of personal jurisdiction
Facts: Suit in NH that P had little connection, defamation in magazine distributed nationwide.

Calder v. Jones

Rule of Law: Personal jurisdiction is proper over a defendant if the defendant has certain minimum contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendant need not set foot in the forum to be subject to personal jurisdiction, sufficient that defendant causes "effects" in the forum
Facts. P published story about D, D brought suit in CA, D lived and worked in CA. P a FL corporation,

Calder Three pronged test

1.        Intentional conduct

2.        Aiming at forum

3.        Defendant knowledge effect would be felt

Walden v. Fiore

Rule of Law: Personal jurisdiction may not be exercised over a nonresident civil defendant if the defendant's sole contact with the forum state is knowledge that the defendant's tortious conduct committed outside the forum state has an effect on the plaintiff in that state. The necessary relationship to the forum state must arise from contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum state
Facts: P lived in NV, on stopover in Atlanta was falsely accused by D. P sued in NV, arguing accusation caused effect in NV

Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz

Rule of Law: In determining whether a defendant satisfies the minimum-contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction, the court must look to the purposefully directed activities of the defendant toward the forum state and whether the harms arising out of or relating to those activities are the cause of the litigation.
Facts: D owned P’s franchise in Detroit. P’s HQ in MIA set policies and resolved problems. Franchise agreement said governed by FL law. D sued in FL, P challenged PJX. 
Dissent:o   Element of unfairness in required franchisee to defend a case of this kind in forum chosen by franchisor

Asahi v. California

Rule of Law: Exercising personal jurisdiction over an alien defendant is unreasonable and unfair if the burden on the alien defendant from being required to defend itself in a foreign court outweighs the plaintiff's and forum's interests in the forum state's assertion of jurisdiction.
Facts. P manufactured in JP, sold to Cheng Shin which used valves in tires manufactured in TW. Cheng Shin marketed in CA, valve malfunctioned. P sued Cheng Shin, Cheng Shin impleaded Asahi. Asahi moved to dismiss because lack of PJX

J McIntyre v. Nicastro

Rule of Law: For a defendant to be subject to a state's personal jurisdiction, it must purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of that state's laws.
Facts: D injured by P’s machine, P sold through distributor but did not market to NJ or control distribution.
Dissent: McIntyre deliberately sought to sell its products throughout the US by using a national distributor and attending US Trade shows.

Daimler AG v. Bauman

Rule of Law: A court cannot assert general jurisdiction over a corporation if the corporation's affiliations with the forum state are not so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation at home in the state.
Facts: Argentinians alleged P part of human right abuse. Tried to claim PJX in Cali, P German company, but had subsidiary called MBUSA that sold cars and had offices in CA

FED. R. CIV. P. 4(k)

4(k)(1)	In General	Serving a summons (or waiver) establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant who meets one of these categories:	Applies in most federal cases.
4(k)(1)(A)	State Long-Arm	Defendant is subject to jurisdiction of a state court of general jurisdiction where the federal court sits.	Federal court "borrows" the state's long-arm statute. Most common basis.
4(k)(1)(B)	100-Mile Bulge Rule	Defendant is a party joined under Rule 14 (impleader) or Rule 19 (required parties) AND is served within U.S. judicial districts AND within 100 miles of where summons issued.	Special rule for certain joinder situations; expands reach beyond state lines.
4(k)(1)(C)	Federal Statute Authorization	A federal statute authorizes nationwide or broader service.	Examples: antitrust (Clayton Act), federal interpleader, securities laws, bankruptcy.

Subsection	Title	Rule / Requirement	Explanation (Plain English)
4(k)(2)	Federal Claim Outside State-Court Jurisdiction	Applies only to federal question (arising under federal law) cases.	Used when no single state court has PJ.
4(k)(2)(A)	Defendant Not Subject to Any State’s Courts	The defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in any single state.	Usually foreign defendants with nationwide—but not state-specific—contacts.
4(k)(2)(B)	Constitutional Consistency	Exercising jurisdiction must comply with the Constitution and federal law.	Uses a “national contacts” test for due process.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California

Rule of Law: For a state court to assert specific jurisdiction, there must be an affiliation between the forum state and the specific claim at issue.
Facts: P, a mix of CA and other states, brought suit against BMS in CA. BMS DA corporation with HQ in NY. Drug developed not in CA. BMS limited operations in CA.

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court

Rule of Law: Specific personal jurisdiction can exist even if there is not a direct causal connection between the plaintiff's claim and the nonresident defendant's contacts with the forum state. Specific jurisdiction does not require strict causation; "relates to" is broader than "arises out of."
Facts. Accidents in MA and MS involved Fords. P residents in states and injured in states. Ford did extensive business. Ford argued no jurisdiction because specific cars designed in MI, manufactured KT, first sold outside MA and MS.

Transient/Tag Jurisdiction

form of general personal jurisdiction over a defendant if they are personally served with process while physically present in the forum state, even if they are there only temporarily and even if the lawsuit has nothing to do with their activities in that state

• Does not work for businesses

Burnham v. California

Rule of Law: A nonresident is properly served if he is physically present in the forum state, and the forum state may exercise personal jurisdiction over him without violating due process.
Facts: P separated from D, P in CA when served with summons for divorce

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co

Rule of Law: Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit a state from requiring out-of-state corporations to consent to personal jurisdiction to do business in the state
Facts: P worked for D that was incorporated and HQ in OH and VA. Sued in PA because statute required company agent for service of process. D registered and had operations in PA. P lived in Virginia, exposure to carcinogen in OH and VA.
Dissent: State must have a registration statute and that statute must state or be interpreted to mean that the registration of the corporation operates as consent to general jurisdiction

Long Arm statutes

specify the scope of state’s personal jurisdiction authority, each state is free to interpret however it chooses
- First step is to see if case falls within the terms of state or federal rule or statute, if it doesn’t no constitutional analysis is needed

When Federal Court has Personal jurisdction

personal jurisdiction only if a state court in the state in which the federal court sits would have had personal jurisdiction