2L - Civil Procedure I

Vita Co., a Delaware-based company, sends vitamins to a store in Arizona pursuant to a single contract and receives monthly payments from the store owner by mail. Based on International Shoe and McGee, would Arizona likely have personal jurisdiction over the company in a lawsuit related to the contract?

 

A. No, because the company is not incorporated or physically present in Arizona.

B. Yes, because the company purposefully availed itself of the Arizona market by entering into the contract and accepting ongoing payments.

C. No, because a single contract can never support personal jurisdiction.

D. Yes, because Arizona is the plaintiff's home state.

B. Yes, because the company purposefully availed itself of the Arizona market by entering into the contract and accepting ongoing payments.

Correct!

Explanation: Following the reasoning in McGee, entering into a contract with an Arizona resident and receiving regular payments creates sufficient minimum contacts to support personal jurisdiction.

An Idaho-based pet food manufacturer enters into a contract with a California pet store to supply monthly shipments of dog treats. The manufacturer ships goods to California for 18 months and communicates regularly by email and phone. The pet store in California files suit against the Idaho manufacturer for breach of contract. Does California likely have personal jurisdiction?

 

A. No, because the contract was formed in Idaho.

B. Yes, because the manufacturer has continuous and systematic contact with California through a long-term business relationship.

C. No, because the manufacturer never physically entered California.

D. Yes, but only if the contract was signed in California.

B. Yes, because the manufacturer has continuous and systematic contact with California through a long-term business relationship.

Correct!

Explanation: The facts mirror International Shoe and McGee—continuous shipments and ongoing communications constitute purposeful availment and minimum contacts.

A Texas resident creates a trust with a Delaware trust company. Years later, the resident moves to Texas and dies. The beneficiaries sue the Delaware trust company in Texas probate court, arguing that the trust is invalid. The trust company has never done business in Texas. Does Texas have personal jurisdiction over the trust company?

 

A. Yes, because the decedent was a Texas resident at the time of death.

B. Yes, because the trust documents were mailed to Texas.

C. No, because the trust company did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas.

D. No, because trust companies are immune from out-of-state lawsuits.

C. No, because the trust company did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas.

Correct!

Explanation: This is nearly identical to Hanson v. Denckla. The defendant’s contacts must be the result of its own purposeful actions, not the unilateral decision of the plaintiff to move.

A New Mexico resident purchases a custom motorcycle helmet from a website operated by a Vermont seller. The helmet is shipped to New Mexico, and the buyer is injured in New Mexico due to a defect in the helmet. The buyer sues the Vermont company in New Mexico. The Vermont seller has made only one sale to New Mexico and has no other contacts there. What is the likely outcome?

 

A. New Mexico has personal jurisdiction because the seller directed the sale to New Mexico, and the injury occurred there.

B. New Mexico lacks personal jurisdiction because a single transaction is never enough.

C. New Mexico has jurisdiction only if the company advertises in the state.

D. New Mexico lacks jurisdiction because the buyer initiated contact with the seller.

A. New Mexico has personal jurisdiction because the seller directed the sale to New Mexico, and the injury occurred there

Correct!

Explanation: Under McGee, even a single contract or sale may create sufficient minimum contacts if the seller purposefully directed the product to the forum and injury resulted there. It would not be reasonable to expect the purchaser to travel to a distant State to hold it legally accountable.

A Wyoming resident runs a website that displays her handmade jewelry but does not allow purchases online. An Oregon resident views the site, calls the seller, and buys a necklace. The necklace allegedly causes a rash, and the buyer sues in Oregon. The seller has no other contacts with Oregon. Does Oregon have personal jurisdiction?

 

A. No, because the website is passive and does not target Oregon residents.

B. Yes, because the website is accessible nationwide.

C. Yes, because the buyer was injured in Oregon.

D. No, because the seller did not know the buyer lived in Oregon.

A. No, because the website is passive and does not target Oregon residents.

Correct!

Explanation: Under Hanson, purposeful availment requires more than a passive website and one unsolicited sale. There must be intentional direction of business activity toward the forum.

An Oregon-based shoe company employs a traveling salesperson who operates in Nevada, where he solicits orders and maintains a company-provided car and expense account. The employee is sued in Nevada after a car accident. The plaintiff also sues the shoe company. Does Nevada have personal jurisdiction over the company?

 

A. No, because the company is incorporated in Oregon.

B. Yes, because the company’s employee conducts regular business on its behalf in Nevada.

C. No, unless the company owns property in Nevada.

D. Yes, but only for claims directly related to the employment contract.

B. Yes, because the company’s employee conducts regular business on its behalf in Nevada.

Correct!

Explanation: Similar to International Shoe, the company’s regular business through an agent in the forum state creates sufficient minimum contacts to support jurisdiction.

Mountain Shoe Co. is incorporated in Delaware and has its headquarters in Missouri. It does not advertise, sell products, or employ workers in Wyoming. One of its delivery trucks is driving through Wyoming on its way to Washington when the driver negligently collides with another vehicle. The injured Wyoming driver sues Mountain Shoe in Wyoming.

Which is the best analysis?

 

A. Wyoming lacks jurisdiction because Mountain Shoe does no regular business there.

 

B. Wyoming likely has specific jurisdiction because the lawsuit arises directly from Mountain Shoe's contact with Wyoming.

 

C. Wyoming has general jurisdiction because the truck entered the state.

 

D. Wyoming lacks jurisdiction because Mountain Shoe is neither incorporated nor headquartered there.

✅ Correct Answer: B - Wyoming likely has specific jurisdiction because the lawsuit arises directly from Mountain Shoe's contact with Wyoming.

Explanation: Under International Shoe, even a single contact may support jurisdiction when the claim arises directly from that contact.

Mountain Shoe Co. is incorporated in Delaware and has its headquarters in Missouri. It does not advertise, sell products, or employ workers in Wyoming. One of its delivery trucks is driving through Wyoming on its way to Washington when the driver negligently collides with another vehicle. Instead of suing for injuries from the accident, a former Mountain Shoe employee who now lives in Wyoming sues the company for wrongful termination that occurred years earlier in Missouri.

What is the strongest argument against jurisdiction?

 

A. Wyoming courts cannot hear employment disputes.

 

B. The plaintiff currently lives in Wyoming.

 

C. Mountain Shoe's only contact with Wyoming is unrelated to the plaintiff's employment claim.

 

D. The accident involved negligence rather than employment law.

✅ Correct Answer: C - Mountain Shoe's only contact with Wyoming is unrelated to the plaintiff's employment claim.

Explanation: Limited contacts support jurisdiction only when the claim arises out of those contacts.

Assume Mountain Shoe now sends sales representatives into Wyoming every week to solicit retailers. The truck accident from Question 1 still occurs in Wyoming.

Which statement is most accurate?

 

A. Wyoming now has general jurisdiction because sales representatives enter the state regularly.

 

B. Jurisdiction still depends solely on where Mountain Shoe is headquartered.

 

C. Wyoming lacks jurisdiction because the accident occurred during transportation rather than a sales visit.

 

D. Wyoming has an even stronger basis for specific jurisdiction because the defendant has additional contacts with Wyoming and the claim arose there.

✅ Correct Answer: D - Wyoming has an even stronger basis for specific jurisdiction because the defendant has additional contacts with Wyoming and the claim arose there.

Explanation: The additional contacts strengthen the fairness of exercising jurisdiction, although the claim itself already arose from Wyoming contacts.

Mountain Shoe regularly sends sales representatives into Wyoming. A Wyoming retailer purchases shoes during one of those visits. Months later, the retailer sues Mountain Shoe in Wyoming for breach of that sales contract.

Which is the best answer?

 

A. Wyoming likely has specific jurisdiction because the claim arises directly from Mountain Shoe's business activities in Wyoming.

 

B. Wyoming lacks jurisdiction because Mountain Shoe is incorporated elsewhere.

 

C. Wyoming has jurisdiction only if the contract specifically mentions Wyoming.

 

D. Wyoming has general jurisdiction because Mountain Shoe makes regular sales there.

✅ Correct Answer: A - Wyoming likely has specific jurisdiction because the claim arises directly from Mountain Shoe's business activities in Wyoming.

Explanation: The defendant purposefully conducted business in Wyoming, and the dispute arises directly from those activities.

Mountain Motors is incorporated and headquartered in Colorado. It sells vehicles only through dealerships located in Colorado. A Colorado customer purchases a vehicle and later moves to Arizona. While driving in Arizona, the brakes allegedly fail, causing an accident. The customer sues Mountain Motors in Arizona.

Mountain Motors regularly advertises in Arizona, ships vehicles to Arizona dealerships, and earns 20% of its revenue from Arizona sales.

Which statement is most accurate?

 

A. Arizona lacks jurisdiction because the sale occurred in Colorado.

 

B. Arizona has jurisdiction only if the plaintiff is an Arizona resident

 

C. Arizona has general jurisdiction because Mountain Motors does business there.

 

D. Arizona likely has specific jurisdiction because Mountain Motors purposefully directed activities toward Arizona and the claim relates to those contacts.

✅ Correct Answer: D - Arizona likely has specific jurisdiction because Mountain Motors purposefully directed activities toward Arizona and the claim relates to those contacts.

Explanation: The defendant deliberately cultivated the Arizona market, making jurisdiction much more likely.

Mountain Motors is incorporated and headquartered in Colorado. It sells vehicles only through dealerships located in Colorado. A Colorado customer purchases a vehicle and later moves to Arizona. While driving in Arizona, the brakes allegedly fail, causing an accident. The customer sues Mountain Motors in Arizona.

Which argument most strongly supports Mountain Motors' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction?

 

A. Arizona has no interest in protecting people injured on its highways.

 

B. Mountain Motors did not purposefully avail itself of conducting business in Arizona.

 

C. The customer no longer resides in Colorado.

 

D. Cars are designed to travel between states.

✅ Correct Answer: B - Mountain Motors did not purposefully avail itself of conducting business in Arizona.

Explanation: The customer's unilateral decision to drive the vehicle to Arizona does not create minimum contacts. Purposeful availment must be made by the defendant.

Blue Ridge Motors sells automobiles only through dealerships located in Virginia. A Virginia customer buys a vehicle and later drives it to Colorado, where an accident allegedly caused by a manufacturing defect occurs.

Under World-Wide Volkswagen, what is the strongest argument that Colorado lacks jurisdiction over Blue Ridge Motors?

 

A. Colorado has no interest in accidents occurring on its highways.

 

B. Cars are expected to remain in the state where they are purchased.

 

C. The customer's decision to drive the vehicle to Colorado cannot create the defendant's minimum contacts with Colorado.

 

D. Product liability claims must always be filed where the product was sold.

✅ Correct Answer: C - The customer's decision to drive the vehicle to Colorado cannot create the defendant's minimum contacts with Colorado.

Explanation: The consumer's unilateral actions cannot establish the defendant's contacts with the forum.

Which additional fact would most strengthen Colorado's exercise of jurisdiction over Blue Ridge Motors?

 

A. Blue Ridge Motors regularly advertised in Colorado and sold vehicles through Colorado dealerships.

 

B. Blue Ridge Motors knew cars often travel across state lines.

 

C. The plaintiff received medical treatment in Colorado.

 

D. The plaintiff became a Colorado resident before filing suit.

✅ Correct Answer: A - Blue Ridge Motors regularly advertised in Colorado and sold vehicles through Colorado dealerships.

Explanation: Purposeful efforts to serve the Colorado market create contacts with the forum.

"If a company can foresee that its product might end up in another state, it should expect to be sued there."

Which response best reflects the reasoning of World-Wide Volkswagen?

 

A. The statement is correct because automobiles are mobile.

 

B. The statement is correct whenever an accident occurs.

 

C. The statement is incorrect because foreseeability alone is insufficient; the defendant must purposefully establish contacts with the forum state.

 

D. The statement is incorrect because jurisdiction depends only on where the defendant is incorporated.

✅ Correct Answer: C - The statement is incorrect because foreseeability alone is insufficient; the defendant must purposefully establish contacts with the forum state.

Explanation: The Court distinguished between foreseeability that a product may travel and purposeful conduct directed toward the forum.