Personal Jurisdiction Review

What is Personal Jurisdiction?

The ability of a court to exercise power over a particular defendant or item of the property.

In personam definition

Jurisdiction over the person herself. A judgment against this person creates a personal obligation for the full amount of the judgment

In rem definition

Jurisdiction over the property in an action to determine the ownership of the property itself

Quasi in rem I definition

Jurisdiction over the property in an action to determine the ownership of the property itself as between and among the parties to the case

Quasi in rem II definition

Jurisdiction over the property owned by a party to a dispute that is unrelated to the ownership of the property. A judgement in this case is valid only to the amount of the value of the property.

Define the role of statutes

There must be a forum-law basis for exercising personal jurisdiction

• Common law

• Statutes

• Each sovereign has its own laws

Review: Pennoyer v. Neff

• “Power Theory” of Jurisdiction

  • State sovereignty supports jurisdiction over persons and property within a state’s boarders (territorial power)

  • State sovereignty also limits ability of states to assert power over persons and things outside of its borders (comity)

• Quasi-in-rem II cases: Property must be attached at the outset of a suit

• Key Takeaway: There are 2 ways a forum can have PJ

  • Presence in the forum

  • Consent to jurisdiction

What are examples of implied consent to personal jurisdiction?

• Corporate registration statutes

  • If a corp. is required to register in a state to do business, they may be implicitly consenting to PJ in the state they wish to do business in

• Non-resident motorist statutes

  • By driving in a state, you consent to PJ. You will also be appointed the forum state’s registrar as your agent

Review: International Shoe

• Establishes minimum contacts as constitutional limit on exercise of PJ

• Characterizations of minimum contacts

  • “Neither irregular nor casual”

  • “Systematic and continuous”

  • Resulted in a high volume of interstate commerce

• Formed the basis of:

  • General Jurisdiction

  • Specific Jurisdiction

What is General Jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction over any claim in any lawsuit

Defendant can be sued in the forum from a claim that arose anywhere in the world

What is Specific Jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction for claims and lawsuits arising out of specific contacts with the forum state

There must be relatedness

Review: McGee and Hanson

• A single contact with the forum state is enough for PJ if

  • Contact is purposeful and

  • Bears a strong relationship to the basis of the lawsuit (specific jurisdiction)

  • However, contacts with the forum state that are the result of the unilateral acts of the plaintiff are insufficient (Hanson)

Review: World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

Foreseeability of product in the forum state is not enough. Defendant must purposefully avail itself of doing business in the forum

World-Wide Volkswagen Fairness Factors

1. Litigation in the forum burdensome to defendant?

2. Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute?

3. Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief?

4. The interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies

5. The shared interest of the states in furthering “fundamental substantive social policies.”

Is a contract enough to establish PJ?

In the Burger King case, the Supreme Court determine the franchise agreement was enough

• Outside of trainings Defendant attended in Miami, Ds did not have physical presence in FL (did not physically enter forum)

Review: Asahi v. Superior Court Theories of Minimum Contact

Brennan: There is purposeful availment. If you put your product into the stream of commerce, you can reasonably anticipate it will reach another state

O’Connor: You need more than a product entering a forum state to constitute purposeful availment. You need an intent to serve another state’s market when the product enters the state

Stevens: We should be looking at the volume, value, and the nature of goods in the stream of commerce

Review: J.McIntyre v. Nicastro Stream of Commerce Approach

Stream of Commerce Approach—jurisdiction over foreign manufacturer appropriate “so long as 'manufacturer knows or reasonably should know that its product is distributed through a nationwide distribution system that might be sold in any of the 50 states”

US Supreme Court did not settle test for “stream of commerce” approach-still unclear due to plurality opinions

Review: J.McIntyre Due Process Consideration

1. Defendant must have sufficient contacts with sovereign (forum state) to not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”

2. Defendant must purposefully avail itself of “privilege of conducting activities within forum state, invoking benefits and protections of forum’s laws”

3. It is Defendant’s purposeful availment that makes jurisdiction satisfy Due Process

Examples that support general jurisdiction

1. Explicit consent

2. Presence within state at the time of service of process (tag)

3. Citizenship or domicile in state

4. Incorporation or principal place of business for a corporation

5. Implied consent based on some states’ corporate registration statute

General Jurisdiction over Humans

A human being is subject to general personal jurisdiction where she is at home (domicile)

General Jurisdiction over Corporations

General jurisdiction is proper over a corporation where it is at home

Where is a corporation “at home”?

1. State of incorporation

2. State where it maintains principal place of business (PPB)

   1. Where managers of business make management decisions

These can be the same or different states

For specific jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s claim must (BLANK) or (BLANK) the defendant’s contact with the forum state

Arise out of; relate to

What does “arise out of” require?

This type of specific jurisdiction requires Plaintiff’s harm be caused by Defendant’s contact with the forum

What does “relate to” require?

This type of specific jurisdiction does not require causation, just some relationship between harm and Plaintiff and the Defendant’s contacts with the forum

Review: GoodYear

Court changed focus for general jurisdiction—not enough to have substantial or continuous and substantial contact—must be SO continuous and systematic to be “at home” in the forum

• General jurisdiction cannot be based on stream of commerce theory

Review: Daimler

Clarifies the difference between “continuous and systematic” contacts and claim based on those contacts (specific jurisdiction) v.

“Affiliations with the State [that] are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum state” to be sued on any claim (general jurisdiction)

Why was Specific Jurisdiction recognized in Ford and not in the Bristol-Myers Squibb case?

BMS: Non-CA residents had no contact with forum, claims did not arise out of or relate to defendant’s contacts with the forum

Ford: Claims arose out of or related to defendant’s contacts in forum

Rules of Specific Jurisdiction - 2 sets of values

Fairness and Due Process

Jurisdiction over a Person (specific types)

• Specific

• General - domicile

• Consent/voluntary appearance

• Tag/transient presence

T or F: Property in forum is predicate for jurisdiction

True

True in rem involves a dispute over what?

ownership of the property which is the jurisdictional predicate (determines ownership as to every person in the world)

What is Quasi-in-rem I

Adjudicates ownership of the property that is used as the jurisdictional predicate between the parties to the case (who, among parties in the case, wins the property)

What is Quasi-in-rem II

Not an issue as to who owns the property-the property is relevant only as a jurisdictional predicate because the plaintiff cannot get in personam jurisdiction over the defendant; the dispute might be about anything else unrelated to ownership of the property

Review: Shaffer v. Heitner

Concluded that all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny

Prior to this case, no need to assess minimum contacts and due process fairness if jurisdiction predicate based on property in forum - quickly narrowed in subsequent cases

Review: Burnham case

In this case, the Supreme Court upheld personal jurisdiction based solely on the fact that the defendant was physically in the state when served with process

Tag jurisdiction basis for general jurisdiction based on presence in and service in Forum 

Burnham Opinion Roadmap

Because the vote was split, it would be good to argue both sides of the issue on a quiz/test

Consent is a _______ ____ of jurisdiction

traditional basis

Choice of Forum Clauses

1. A valid and exclusive* forum selection clause confers personal jurisdiction on the parties in the chosen forum

2. A valid and exclusive* forum selection clauses precludes the exercise of personal jurisdiction in every other forum

* some states will not enforce non-exclusive forum selection clauses

Parties invoke the ____ __ ___ ____ by appearing in the lawsuit; (BLANK)

Power of the court; (general appearance)

In what case do we learn that almost all plaintiffs consent to jurisdiction, including to the defense of counterclaims?

Adam v. Saenger

T or F: Consent to litigate jurisdiction in a special appearance does not constitute consent to PJ for the issue of PJ

False

Courts Interpreting Corporate Registration Statutes: Confers General Jurisdiction

• Based on consent

• Consent is a traditional basis for general jurisdiction - no need for analysis of minimum contacts

• Consent satisfies Due Process

Courts Interpreting Corporate Registration Statutes: Confers Specific-Jurisdiction over in-state business activities

• Consent for actions arising from business conducted in forum

• Would essentially satisfy minimum contacts

Courts Interpreting Corporate Registration Statutes: Is only a procedural mechanism for ensuring service of process - but no jurisdictional effect

• Must do independent analysis of constitutional basis of jurisdiction

Review: Mallory case

Court said defendant can waive its right explicitly or implicitly by consenting to litigate future disputes in a particular state forum

What are the 3-prongs of the “express aiming test” and what case was it based on?

1. Intentional tort

2. Defamation

3. Targeted at plaintiff and forum state

Based on Calder v. Jones case (Nevada/ATL airport case)

How PJ Works: States have (roughly) three types of “power” that they exercise over people and things. What are they?

• Prescriptive jurisdiction: Power to make laws, rules, norms within that forum

• Adjudicative jurisdiction: Power to hear disputes and issue binding judgments

• Enforcement jurisdiction: Power to ensure compliance with the laws and enforce judgments

Personal jurisdiction requires (BLANK) by which the state exercises jurisdiction over persons or things

affirmative rules

• common law rules

• enacted law

T or F: Personal jurisdiction may be permissible under the Constitution but not authorized by state law

True

T or F: Personal jurisdiction may be authorized by state law but its exercise would violate the due process clause(s) of the constitution

True