Week 4 | General Jurisdiction and Refinements to Specific Jurisdiction
Personal Jurisdiction & Rule 12 Waiver Mechanics
I. Overview of Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)
Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's authority over the parties in a lawsuit. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a court cannot bind a non-resident defendant unless the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" (International Shoe Co. v. Washington).
[Does Personal Jurisdiction Exist?]
|
+--------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| | |
[General Jurisdiction] [Specific Jurisdiction] [Transient/Tag]
At home in forum state? Claim arises from contacts? Present & served in forum?
• Indiv: Domicile • Purposeful Availment • Individuals ONLY
• Corp: Inc. / PPB • Arise out / Relate to • Inapplicable to Corps
II. The Three Groundings of Personal Jurisdiction
1. General (All-Purpose) Jurisdiction
Definition: Allows a court to hear any and all claims against a defendant, even if the conduct occurred entirely outside the forum state.
Standard: The defendant's contacts must be so "continuous and systematic" as to render them essentially "at home" in the forum state (Goodyear, Daimler).
Individual Application: An individual’s primary place of domicile.
Corporate Application (Daimler AG v. Bauman):
State of Incorporation
Principal Place of Business (PPB)
Note: Exceptional cases exist (Perkins), but doing substantial or nationwide sales alone does not make a corporation "at home" in a state (Daimler, Bristol-Myers Squibb).
2. Specific (Case-Linked) Jurisdiction
Definition: Jurisdiction over claims that arise out of or relate to the defendant's deliberate contacts with the forum state.
Three-Prong Test:
Purposeful Availment: The defendant must purposefully direct activities at the forum state or invoke the benefits and protections of its laws (International Shoe).
Foreseeability Alone Is Insufficient: It is not enough that a defendant could foresee a product traveling to a forum state; the defendant must target the forum (World-Wide Volkswagen).
Arise Out of or Relate To:
Causation / Arise Out Of: The injury was caused directly by the defendant's in-state conduct (Radio Shack Hypo).
Relate To (Ford Motor Co. v. Montana): Even if the specific item was sold/manufactured elsewhere, if the defendant extensively cultivated, marketed, and serviced that product market within the forum, the claim sufficiently relates to those contacts.
Reasonableness & Fair Play: Exercising jurisdiction must accord with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, balancing the burden on the defendant against the forum state's interest.
3. Transient / "Tag" Jurisdiction
Definition: Service of process on an individual physically present within the forum state (Burnham v. Superior Court).
Individual Application: Valid for natural persons, regardless of whether the suit relates to their activities in the state.
Corporate Exclusion: Tag jurisdiction does not apply to corporations. Serving an officer, owner, or agent while they are temporarily visiting or vacationing in a state does not establish jurisdiction over the corporate entity (Lawn Co. Hypo).
III. Case Analysis Summaries
[Key Modern Supreme Court Precedents]
Goodyear (2011) Daimler (2014) BMS (2017) Ford (2021)
• Foreign subsidiaries not • Sales volume alone does • Out-of-state plaintiffs • Specific jurisdiction exists
at home based on minor not establish General cannot join in-state claims if defendant targeted forum
unrelated sales. Jurisdiction (*Daimler*). without direct link. market for product.
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011): Foreign subsidiaries of a U.S. parent are not subject to general jurisdiction merely because some of their products reached the forum state via the stream of commerce when the fatal accident occurred abroad.
Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014): Doing a high volume of business in a state does not render a foreign corporation "at home" there. General jurisdiction over corporations requires Incorporation or PPB[cite: 3].
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (2017): Non-resident plaintiffs cannot establish specific jurisdiction over a defendant corporation if their specific injuries did not occur in, arise out of, or relate to the forum state, even if in-state plaintiffs suffered identical injuries from the same product[cite: 3].
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana (2021): Confirmed that specific jurisdiction does not require a strict causal link between in-state conduct and the injury[cite: 4]. If a company actively markets, sells, and services a vehicle model in the forum, an accident involving that model in the forum "relates to" those contacts[cite: 4].
IV. Rule 12 Motions & Waiver Mechanics
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 governs responsive pleadings, pre-answer motions, and defensive waivers.
1. FRCP 12(b) Defenses
12(b)(1): Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Can be raised at ANY time)
12(b)(2): Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Waivable)
12(b)(3): Improper Venue (Waivable)
12(b)(4): Insufficient Process (Waivable)
12(b)(5): Insufficient Service of Process (Waivable)
12(b)(6): Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted
12(b)(7): Failure to Join a Party Under Rule 19
2. The Omnibus Motion Rule & Waiver (Rule 12(g) & 12(h))
Strict Waiver Rules (Rule 12(h)(1)): The waivable defenses—12(b)(2) through 12(b)(5)—MUST be consolidated into a party's first Rule 12 response.
Consolidation Requirement (Rule 12(g)(2)): If a defendant files a pre-answer Rule 12 motion, they must include all available 12(b)(2)–(5) defenses. Omitted waivable defenses are permanently waived and cannot be raised in a second pre-answer motion or in the answer.
[Did Defendant File a Pre-Answer Motion?]
|
+--------------------+--------------------+
| |
[YES] [NO]
| |
Did they include 12(b)(2) PJ |
in that FIRST motion? |
| |
+---------+---------+ Preserved if included
| | in the FIRST Answer!
[YES] [NO]
| |
Preserved! WAIVED!
Cannot add via 2nd
motion or Answer.
V. Application & Practice Hypotheticals
Class Hypotheticals Breakdown
Scenario 1: Jamie v. Lawn Co. (Montana)
Facts: Suit in MT for injuries from a defective lawnmower made in WY. Owner served in MT while on vacation.
Analysis:
General Jurisdiction: No. Lawn Co. is incorporated and has its PPB in WY; it is not "at home" in MT (Daimler)[cite: 3].
Specific Jurisdiction: No. Lawn Co. did not market, sell, or purposefully avail itself of MT (International Shoe)[cite: 3].
Tag Jurisdiction: No. Tag jurisdiction applies only to natural persons, not corporations (Burnham)[cite: 4]. Serving an owner/officer on vacation does not establish jurisdiction over the corporate entity.
Outcome: Motion to dismiss granted; no personal jurisdiction.
Scenario 2: Alex v. Radio Shack (California)
Facts: Suit in CA for defective walkie-talkie made in AZ but purchased by Alex in CA.
Analysis:
General Jurisdiction: No. Radio Shack's PPB is AZ (Daimler)[cite: 3].
Specific Jurisdiction: Yes. Radio Shack purposefully availed itself by selling products in CA, and Alex's claim arises directly out of the sale of that defective product in CA (International Shoe, Ford)[cite: 3, 4].
Outcome: Personal jurisdiction is proper under specific jurisdiction.
Scenario 3: Elyse v. Brad (Hawaii)
Facts: Suit in HI against Brad (CA domiciliary) for defective surfboard sold in CA. Brad knew surfboards might be taken to HI.
Analysis:
General Jurisdiction: No. Brad is domiciled in CA (Bristol-Myers Squibb)[cite: 3].
Specific Jurisdiction: No. Under World-Wide Volkswagen, mere foreseeability that a product will travel into a forum state is insufficient. Brad did not purposefully direct business or target HI.
Outcome: Motion to dismiss granted; no personal jurisdiction.
Scenario 4: Jackson v. Dena (New York)
Facts: Jackson (NY) sues Dena (FL domiciliary) in NY over a phone made/sold in FL by Den Cell. Jackson bought it in FL; it exploded in NY. Dena owns an unrelated ice cream shop in NY.
Analysis:
General Jurisdiction: No. Dena is domiciled in FL (Bristol-Myers Squibb)[cite: 3]. Owning a small business in NY does not make her "at home" in NY for all purposes.
Specific Jurisdiction: No. Foreseeability fails (World-Wide Volkswagen). Furthermore, under Bristol-Myers Squibb, ownership of the NY ice cream shop cannot support specific jurisdiction because Jackson's injury does not arise out of or relate to that ice cream business[cite: 3].
Outcome: Motion to dismiss granted; no personal jurisdiction.
Rule 12 Procedural Hypo Breakdown
D files a pre-answer 12(b)(6) motion. Upon denial, D files a second pre-answer 12(b)(2) motion.
Result: Waived. Under Rule 12(g)(2), D was required to consolidate 12(b)(2) into the first pre-answer motion.
D files a pre-answer 12(b)(6) motion. Upon denial, D files an answer raising a 12(b)(2) defense.
Result: Waived. Under Rule 12(h)(1), failing to include 12(b)(2) in the initial pre-answer motion waives the defense permanently.
D files NO pre-answer motion, but raises a 12(b)(2) personal jurisdiction defense in the Answer.
Result: Preserved. Pre-answer motions are optional; raising the defense in the initial responsive pleading preserves it[cite: 5].
D files a pre-answer 12(b)(1) motion. Upon denial, D files a 12(b)(2) motion.
Result: Waived. Rule 12(b)(1) is a pre-answer motion[cite: 5]. Because D omitted 12(b)(2) from that first motion, it is waived under 12(g)(2)[cite: 5].