PJ: Issue is if (State) Fed CT has PJ over D.

3 kinds of PJ: in personum, in rem when D owned

property in state and quasi in rem when D owns property but is not disputed Penoyer. If in
rem/quasi, PJ satisfied. Ct will need to find in personum jdx over D. Whether there is PJ is a twostep analysis: 1)there is long-arm statute conferring jdx & 2) within Const bounds, not abridging
Ds right to Due Process. STATUTE: most states allow PJ in variety of contexts, such as PJ
over Ds who: 1)served with process in state, 2) domiciled in state, 3) commit tortuous act, enter
K, conduct business in state, or 4) otherwise consent. Under FRCP 4(k)(1)(A), fed ct use longarm statute. CONST: Next question is whether its within Const bound, satisfying Due Process
Clause to assert jdx over. Answer this by using minimum contacts test of Intl Shoe, which states
Due Process requires only that in order to subject D to judgment in personum, if he be not
present within territory of forum, he have certain min. contacts with it such that maintenance of
suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. If D did not purpose.
avail himself of laws/benefits of forum state, there is no PJ. Regardless, we still ask if D had
such minimum contacts with forum so that exercise of jdx satisfies Due Process. (Intl Shoe).
Two-step analysis includes: 1)sovereignty prong and 2)fairness prong. CONTACT: Where
contacts are continuous/systematic and give rise to COA, PJ typically found. Where contacts are
sporadic/casual and do not give rise to COA, PJ is not found. Where contacts are continuous and
systematic, but do not give rise to COA, general jdx, as opposed to specific jdx, and hurdle of
continuous/systematic contacts increases greatly, as they must also be substantial contacts.
These quadrant-based tests determines first prong, known as sovereignty prong, based on nature
of COA. Courts ultimately ask, does COA arise out of OR significantly relate to contacts with
state? (Apply facts-are contacts sporadic and casual? If not: are contacts with forum systematic
and continuous?) If no: contacts not deemed minimum because systematic and continuous
contacts are needed where claim does not relate to Ds contacts with forum state. (Perkins). if yes
to COA ?: Contact resulting from Ds actions purposeful avails D privileges of conducting
activities within forum, thus evoking benefits and protections of its laws. (Hanson) Contacts are
also based on foreseeability, where D could reasonably anticipate being haled to Ct. in forum.
Purposeful availment has been treated differently for different cases (chose one of TESTS). IN
THIS CASE BK CONTRACT: purposeful availment through contracts satisfied by: 1) prior
negotiations, 2) contemplated future consequences, 3) actual course of dealing, 4) terms and
choice of law provisions. (APPLY). Fairness is satisfied by measuring: 1) burden on D, 2) forum
states interest in adjudicating dispute, 3) Ps interest, 4) interstate judicial systems interest
(efficiency-witnesses, location), and 5) shared interests of several states. (APPLY). If first prong
is satisfied, D must provide compelling argument that it was unreasonable. Herelike BK there
was long K with forum clause and it was foreseeable that they would be haled to Ct in forum.
Therefore ASAHI S.O.C.: Cts use this analysis when dealing with products. Product can

either be: 1)manuf. product, made component of other product, sold again make other products
or 2)manufact. finished product, is sold to distributor, which sold to retailer. (APPLY). For SOC
related cases, Cts split as to what standard to use for sovereignty prong, which are: SOC &
SOC+.SOC approach permits PJ over nonresident D that delivers its products into SOC with
expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in forum state. The foreseeability required
in products liability context is not mere likelihood that product will find its way into forum state.
Rather, its that D's conduct and connection with forum state are such that he should reasonably
anticipate being haled into court there. (APPLY-argue both sides). The SOC+ approach permits
PJ when nonresident D sells large quantities of product in a State, even indirectly through SOC,
would support jdx in State, depending on nature/quantity of sales. Plus factors include: 1)office,
agents, employees/property in forum, 2) design product for forum state, 3)ads/soliciting in state,
4)selling product through distributor who acts as sales agent or 5 est. support channels for
customer advice in forum (APPLY). Therefore CALDER INTENTIONAL ACT: PJ exists
over D when there are: 1) intentional actions, 2) expressly aimed at the forum state and 3) causes
harm that the D knows is likely to be suffered to the forum state. Must individually target known
forum resident. Here..Therefore ZIPPO: PJ determined by whom initiates contact. Cts using
Zippo analysis require intentional, forum specific targeting or express aiming at forum and/or
interactions via website w/ residents of forum. Factors targeting/aiming include:1) disclaimers
such website intended for limited geog use, 2)statements posted on website directed at residents
of limited region, 3)designing website so wont interact w/ users out of state, 4)forum-selection
agreements. Some interactions via website, also done by actual residents in forum, such as:
search website, access customer service, ordering, track orders. Interactions analyzed using
sliding scale: PJ for active website -D clearly has business Ks with foreign residents,
know/repeating transmissions. Gray area interactive website where D exchanges info w/ host
computers, based on level of interactivity/commercial nature of exchange, place orders on site,
post comments. No PJ passive websites D has simple posts of info and is accessible to those
interested. Based on facts, is/is not PJ. (APPLY) Cybersquatting factors determ if ownership of
domain name (DN) expressly aimed at P: 1)if registrant has preexist, legit use of DN, 2)
likelihood confusion created by DN as to control of domain, 3)if registrant register DN incorp
other protected marks, 4)if trademark owner been directly solicited to purchase DN, 5)if DN
offered for sale by current registrant, if so, $? FAIRNESS. Assuming the appropriate
sovereignty prong has been satisfied, cts next look at the fairness prong, which includes: 1)
Actual burden of the D defending the forum, 2) Interest of the forum state in the case, 3)
Plaintiffs interest in getting relief and 4) convenience - efficient resolution of controversies and
5) public policy reasons. (APPLY both sides). All factors considered, State CT likely be deemed
to have/not have PJ over D for this case, and under FRCP 4k1A.