Personal Jurisdiction Case Law Overview

Personal Jurisdiction

Court's authority over a defendant's rights.

General Jurisdiction

Subject to any jurisdiction for any claim arising anywhere in the world

Pennoyer v. Neff

Established that courts can only issue personal judgments against defendants over whom they have personal jurisdiction

State Power

Jurisdiction based on defendant's location or property.

International Shoe Co. v. Washington

Introduced minimum contacts for jurisdiction.

Minimum Contacts

Are the dft's contacts with the state continuous and systematic or isolated and sporadic? Is the cause of action related or unrelated to the dft's contacts with the state?

World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson

Purposeful availment required for jurisdiction.

Purposeful Availment

Defendant must engage in forum state activities. Contact is the threshold and absolute requirement

Asahi Metal Ind. Co. v. Superior Court

Introduced two-prong test for jurisdiction.

Justice Brennan (4 Justices) - Asahi

Any manufacturer’s introduction of a component or product into the stream of commerce amounts to purposeful contact. Making money = profit.

Justice O’Connor (4 Justices) - Asahi

Dft must have taken an action purposefully directed toward the forum state, rather than the mere act of placing a product into the stream of commerce. Mere awareness does not constitute purposeful availment and there must be additional conduct with the dft’s intent or purpose to serve the particular market in the forum state.

Two Prong Test for Personal Jurisdiction

Contact and Fairness

Prong One - Contact

Defendant's awareness of product distribution.

Prong Two - Fairness

Consideration of burden on foreign entities.

Ford v. Montana

Jurisdiction if activities relate to claims.

Scope of Contact

Jurisdiction based on defendant's purposeful activities within a state

J. McIntyre Machine v. Nicastro

Purposeful availment required for jurisdiction.

Justice Kennedy (4 Justices) - Nicastro

For personal jurisdiction - dft must have purposefully availed itself by conducting activities in the state
Stream-of-commerce doctrine cannot displace purposeful availment

Stream-of-Commerce Doctrine

Cannot replace purposeful availment requirement.

Justice Breyer's Concurrence (2 Justices) - Nicastro

Single sale insufficient for jurisdiction and mere awareness that distributed products might go to a state is not enough

Justice Ginsburg's Dissent (3 justices) - Nicastro

Seller subject to jurisdiction in distribution states. They have control as final part manufacturer.

Rule 4(k)

Federal court jurisdiction parallels state court.

Waiver of Personal Jurisdiction

Defendant can forfeit right to challenge jurisdiction.

Default Appearance

Defendant may not challenge if not appearing.

Pre-answer Motion

Objection to jurisdiction must be raised early.