1/17
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
International Shoe Co. v Washington
Basic Rule: Jurisdiction may be exercised if the defendant has “certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair lay and substantial justice.’”
Shaffer v Heitner
End of Quasi In Rem
Relevant Facts: Heitner sequesterd stock and stock options of Greyhound directors in order to bring a shareholder’s derivative action against them in Delaware court.
Issue: Does Delaware have jurisdiction over this issue simply because the defendants’ property happens to be within the state? (i.e. Quasi in rem?)
Rule: Quasi in rem is (mostly) gone under International Shoe. If sufficient contacts do not exist to assume jurisdiction absent the presence of property within the state, it cannot be invoked on the basis of property within the court’s jurisdiction.
World Wide Volkswagen
Streams of Availment
Relevant Facts: Lovely family buys car from Seaway (NY Dealer) who purchased the car from World Wide Volkswagen (Tri-state Distributor) who imported the car through Volkswagen of America which was produced by Audi. Family sues Seaway and WWV in OK.
Issue: Does Oklahoma have jurisdictional authority over WWV (and Seaway) simply because their product ended up in the state?
Holding: No. Simply placing something in the stream of commerce (even something like a car) did not constitute a purposeful availment of Oklahoma.
Rule: Minimum contacts are still required, and those contacts must be foreseeable, even with a stream of commerce consideration.
Burger King Corp.
Relevant Facts: Rudzewicz enters into a franchise agreement with Burger King, which is based in Florida and requires all franchisees to go to “Burger King University.”
Issue: Does Florida have jurisdictional authority over Rudzewicz?
Holding: Yes. Even though there isn’t the normally required level of minimum contacts, the contract with FL is enough to avoid violating “fair play and justice.”
Rule (Contracts-Plus Analysis): Sometimes minimum contacts aren’t actually required if the defendant has a contractual relationship with the plaintiff.
• Look specifically at where the contract was made and whether there is a choice of law provision.
J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. V Nicastro
• Facts: Nicastro, while operating a metal-chopping machine made by Mcintyre, turned it into a finger-chopping machine by mistake. Wants to sue in NJ.
• Contacts: McIntyre is a British company who contracted with an OH company for US distribution. No specific focus on NJ. Only four machines ever ended up in NJ.
• Holding: Not enough contact (although through a shaky majority)
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v Superior Courts
• Facts: There was a motorcycle accident. P sues the manufacturer of the tire tube, who then filed a cross complaint against Asahi, which makes valves in Japan.
• Contacts: Asahi sells to companies, who then use them to make tires. They know some product ends up in US.
• Holding: Not enough contact. Plus, this just isn’t fair.
• Five factors: (1) burden on D, (2) state’s interest, (3) P’s interest, (4) efficiency, (5) other states’ interest
Goodyear Dunlop v. Brown
Facts: some kids from North Carolina were on a soccer tour in europe when their bus blewout and they died. Their parents sued the tire company (based in ohio) and their subsidiaries (in foreign countries) in a NC court. The subsidiaries moved for lack of personal jurisdiction
Rule: Don’t confuse specific and general jurisdiction! “General personal jurisdiction arises from a defendant’s “continuous and systematic” affiliation with a state.
• “The paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile . . . “
(From Quimbee: A state court may not exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign subsidiary of a United States-based corporation unless it engages in such continuous and systematic activities as to render it essentially at home in the forum state.”
Daimler AG v. Bauman:
Facts: Argentine plaintiffs sued Daimler AG (German company) in California court, Through Daimler's U.S. subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz USA, operated in California. alleging its Argentine subsidiary collaborated with state forces in human rights abuses during Argentina's "Dirty War" (1970s).
Rule: A corporation is not subject to general jurisdiction in a state where the corporation is not “at home” (i.e., principal place of business or state of incorporation). This is true even if they have extensive contacts in the state, as long as they have more outside.
Brisol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court
Facts: A drug company was based in DE and headquartered in NY. They sold drugs in CA. They were sued in CA for one of their bad drugs. Less than 100 of the 700 people included in the lawsuit actually lived in CA.
Rule: Mere similarity in substantive content between a claim and other claims that are subject to general jurisdiction does not mean the first claim is also subject to general jurisdiction.
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court
Relevant Facts: Two plaintiffs had accidents involving Ford automobiles in Montana and Minnesota, which were not “design, manufacture, or [sell]” the vehicles. But they acknowledged lots of contact (dealers and ads).
Issue: Do Montana and Minnesota have jurisdictional authority over Ford?
Holding: Yes.
Rule: Ostensibly the same old SJ analysis, BUT
• The court provides a more expansive understanding of purposeful availment to explicitly include connections between the claim and the contact that are not necessarily causal (but still robust).
• The court leans into interstate federalism. “Those states have significant interests at stake – ‘providing [their] residents with a convenient forum for redressing injuries inflicted by out-of-state actors,” as well as enforcing their own safety regulations.”
Abdouch v. Lopez:
What is Internet?
Relevant Facts: Abdouch sues Bookseller for displaying personal message inscribed in a book.
Issue: Does Nebraska have PJ over Bookseller due to the fact that his internet activity “reached out” to the state?
Cases/Rules Used:
• Zippo Sliding Scale Rule: The extent of a websites “contacts” with a state are determined by how interactive the website is.
• Calder Effects Test: Do the actions of the defendant affect and intend to affect the forum state?
Holding: No. Abdouch had minimal contact with Nebraska and probably didn’t even know Lopez was alive at the time.
Burnham v. Superior Court
Facts: A family from new Jersey decided to separate and the wife moved to CA. While visiting his kids and on a business trip in CA, the husband served his wife papers to a CA court then flew back to New Jersey
Rule: The International Shoe decision made it so there are other ways that personal jurisdiction can be established, but it did not get rid of this idea that if you are in the state they have jurisdiction. (Tag jurisdiction)
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute
Facts: Carnival Cruise Lines had Form Contracts on their tickets that included a forum selection clause that required all cases to be litigated in Florida, to the exclusion of bringing forward the claim anywhere else. Some lady fell on the boat and sued in a Washington Court.
Rule: forum selection clauses against a party who had no opportunity to negotiate are not fundamentally unfair.
(Consent Case)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co.
Facts: Central Hanover was a trust company in New York. They wanted to petition the court for settlement of a common trust, and put a thing out in the newspaper to “notify” everybody in the common trust
Rule: Notice must take the form of something that is actually likely to provide notice under the circumstances. If you have the mailing address, mail it. If you don’t, put it in the paper or something.
the following factors should be considered:
• Was the method used successful in achieving actual notice?
• OR was is a reasonable way to achieve such notice?
Baidoo v. Blood-Dzraku
Facts: A wife wanted to divorce her husband. But he was a little freak who didn’t have a work or home address. She had no idea where he was, and could only contact him by text or through facebook.
Rule: When traditional methods are impracticable, other methods of service can be approved by the courts. (this only worked because it was a state court. This would not work in the federal system)
the internet/technology is necessarily changing constitutional due process analysis.
• But don’t take things too far...
Gibbons v. Brown
Facts: Mr. Brown was driving a car in Montreal getting directions from Ms. Gibbons (a texas resident). Ms. Gibbons sued Mr. Brown in Florida for her injuries in 1995. In 1998 Ms. Brown (who was in the car) sued Ms. Gibbons blaming her bad directions for the accident. She also sued in Florida court, claiming she was able to as Ms. Gibbons had already subjected herself to its jurisdiction by filing her lawsuit there.
Rule: Filing a claim in a court does not make you subject to its jurisdiction permanently, even if the suit is based on the same claim.
Thompson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Facts: Thompson took a bus from Pensacola trying to get to Mississippi, during the course of which he had to transfer buses in Alabama. He then fell asleep on that bus and missed his stop, and because of that missed his court date, hence the lawsuit.
Rule: Under the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), if the defendants in a federal diversity action do not reside in the same state, venue is proper in any district where a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the action occurred. Changing buses is not a substantial portion of the events.
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
Facts: A plane made in Ohio, with propellers made in Pennsylvania crashed in Scotland, while being flown by a Scotsman, and killed all the Scotsmen on board. Their estates sued the manufacturers in CA probate court.
Rule: A plaintiff may not defeat a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law that would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiff than that of the present forum.