Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Personal Jurisdiction

Step #1
Is there a long-arm statute providing jurisdiction?
Gives courts in personam jurisdiction over out-of-state
defendants who have some incidental contact with the state
Claim must arise from the contact with the forum state
Every state has a long-arm statute.
o California or Laundry List?
o Gray injury theory or No?

Step #2
Is the statute constitutional?
Due Process Clause of 14th amendment
Requirements:
Minimum Contacts
Fair/reasonable for D to be sued in the state
Sufficient with conditions of fair play and substantial
justice for D to be sued in the state
Notice & opportunity to be heard

Valid PJ: Transient Jurisdiction:


[Burnham, Scalia: historical analysis,
Brennan:
Becausein
min. contacts,
Was D served
with process
the state? Fairness]
Unless procured by force or fraud
[Tickle v. Barton]
Is D a resident of the forum state?
Valid PJ
General
Individual: Domicile
[Mas
v. Perry] Jurisdiction
Defendant
can
be suedprinciple
in the state on any
Corporation: State of incorporation,
claim,
even
one
that
arose
place of business (nerve-center) [Hertzfrom activities
elsewhere.
Corp. v. Friend]

Has D consented to PJ?


Valid PJ [Carnival
General Cruise
Jurisdiction
Contract/Express:
Lines,
Defendant
can
be
sued
in
the
state on
Burger King]
any claim, even one that arose from
Agent: [National Equip. Rental Ltd]
activities elsewhere.
Litigation/Waiver: Appear in court
[Insurance Corp. of Ireland]
Implied: Nonresident Motorist Statute [Hess
v. Pawloski]

If none of the above Move to


Minimum Contacts Analysis

No PJ: even if min. contacts, still


need statutory basis as well if D
not served while present in the
state

Minimum Contacts Analysis


Minimum Contacts International Shoe
A corp. that chooses to conduct activity within a state
(implicitly) accepts a duty to answer for its in state activities
in local courts
Need #1 CONTACT (McGee or WWV), #2 FAIRNESS
(Burger King)
D should understand/foresee that activities could have an
impact and lead to a lawsuit
State has a right to orderly conduct of affairs within its
borders
D who deliberately chooses to take advantage of the
benefits and protections of the laws cannot cry foul
when that state calls her to court

General Jurisdiction
Basically D is so involved with the
state that state has jurisdiction over
everything and anything even if did not
occur there
Continuous and systematic contact
with the state (not merely
casual/indirect)
Usually domicile
Helicopteros: If D engages in
continuous and systematic activity in
forum sufficient basis for PJ even if
action arises from activities outside the
forum

Specific Jurisdiction
Arises from a contact/connection between the
state and the underlying claim
Claim MUST arise from the contact with the
forum state
State Interests:
o Providing redress to citizens
o P obtaining relief in convenient forum
o Enforcing substantive law/policy
o Inconvenience to D
Purposeful Availment: Made a deliberate
choice to relate to the state in some meaningful
way
o Sending a representative to the jurisdiction
o Soliciting business
o Advertising goods
o Delivering goods
Stream of Commerce Asahi court split,
OConnor says mere awareness not purposeful
availment, Concurrence says putting out
substantial quantities is enough

Personal Jurisdiction
Shoe Retailer; Systematic and continuous acts
Summary: S. Ct. ruled contacts (salesmen based in
the state) were systematic and continuous and
resulted in a large volume of interstate business for
the D. Also, obligation to pay unemployment taxes
arose from the contacts.
Gray When only contact with state is injury PJ is
still valid. Whether satisfy due process depends on
facts. Is products presence isolated?
McGee Insurance K; Single act Summary: S. Ct.
sustained a states assertion of jurisdiction over a
nonresident D whose only contacts with the state
were its issuance of an insurance policy sued upon
to a state resident and its receipt of policy premium
payments from that resident.
Burger King K; Continuous obligations Summary:
S. Ct. looked at the entire contractual relationship.
Must look at the prior negotiations and
contemplated future consequences, along with the
terms of the K and the parties actual course of
dealings. D agreed to choice-of-law provision, which
require litigation in Fla. S. Ct. cited it as a factor, but
not dispositive.
Calder Libel; [Intentional] Tortious out-of-state
conduct Summary: P brought suit against a writer
and editor, both citizens of Fla., claiming they wrote
a defamatory article about her. The Ds had never
visited Calif. in connection w/ the article and it was
produced in Fla. Article was published nationwide.
S. Ct. upheld jurisdiction b/c the harm was suffered
in FSt. Jurisdiction is based on the effects of their
Florida conduct in California. The Ds should
anticipate being haled into court there. Actions from
outside the state that has foreseeable tortious effects
inside the state can be a basis for asserting
jurisdiction.
Burnham Divorce; Transient presence Summary:
A husband filed for divorce in New Jersey; she
subsequently filed for divorce in California. During a
three-day stay in California while on business, he
swung by Ms. Burnham's residence to visit his
children. Even though these were his only contacts,
notions of tradition and b/c he was not an absentee
D, persuaded the Court to rule that tran
jurisdiction was permissible. No precedential value.
Make sure to argue concurring opinions.
Hess Non-resident motorist statute; Implied
consent

NO Personal Jurisdiction
WWV Products liability; No purposeful availment
Summary: S. Ct. ruled no valid PJ over NY auto
retailer and regional distributor b/c neither of those
Ds had purposefully attempted to serve the OK
market. It was not sufficient the Ds might derive
revenue and benefit from the fact that the cars are
mobile and thus could be used in OK. The unilateral
activity of the P in driving to OK could not be used
assert PJit was the Ds conduct that was crucial.
Helicopteros In-state purchase; No general
jurisdiction Summary: S. Ct. ruled that purchases and
related trips standing alone, are not a sufficient basis
for a FSs assertion of PJ. Even if these purchases
happened at regular intervals, they are not enough if
the cause of action is not related to these transactions.
The brief presence of the Ds employees in Texas for
the purpose of attending the training sessions is not
enough either.
Shaffer Attachment of intangible property; QIR type
2; Also not reasonable Summary: P brought a
derivative shareholders suit by attaching the stock of
non-resident directors. The situs of the stock was
deemed to be in Delaware (SOI). The companys PPB
was in Arizona. The D argued that this assertion of
QIR jurisdiction violated their DPC rights b/c they
had no other contacts with Delaware. The S. Ct. struck
down jurisdiction and ruled that all actions, including
in-rem and QIR ones, adjudicated interests in people.
Therefore, the same test used for in personam
jurisdiction must be used for in rem or QIR
jurisdiction, which is the minimum contacts test of
Shoe and its progeny.
Asahi Sales into FS; Majority of S. Ct. felt there were
minimum contacts. D put goods into the stream of
commerce with the knowledge that they were
regularly sold in the FS. D benefited economically
from such acts. However, there was no additional
conduct such as designing the product for the market
in the FS, advertising in the FS, establishing channels
for providing regular advice in the FS, marketing the
product through a distributor who has agreed to serve
as the sales agent in the FS. No precedential value.
Argue other opinions.
McIntyre P injured on machine made by UK
manufacturer. Sold to US but not directly to NJ.
Kennedy: Not purposefully availment, reject stream of
commerce, this is isolated. Ginsburg: Foreign corp is
making $$ in US and not paying for its torts.
Goodyear State cannot exercise gen. PJ over a

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Concerns the power of the court to decide this kind of case


Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction
State courts generally courts of unlimited subject matter jurisdiction
In cases in federal courts, SMJ must be pleaded and proved

Waiver
No such thing as a waiver of lack of SMJ
Lack of SMJ cannot be cured by the defendants consent
Objection
Lack of SMJ can be raised by any party, even the party who brought the lawsuit
Lack of SMJ can be raised at any time, including for the first time on appeal
Diversity
Described in Art. III Sec. 2 as between citizens of different states
o Also includes cases where the United States is a party, cases
involving ambassadors, ministers, and foreign citizens, and cases
between states
o Framers of the constitution feared out of state citizens would suffer
prejudice

Amount Requirement
Covers disputes between citizens of different
states or citizens of a state and a foreign country,
if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
(Plaintiffs dont actually have to recover that
amount though)
Has to be atleast $75,000.01! (Freeland
v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co.)
If a single plaintiff brings two or more
claims against a single defendant, the
amounts may be added together to reach
the required amount
o A single plaintiff cannot aggregate
amounts sought from different
defendants
Multiple Plaintiffs against a single
defendant: Atleast one must exceed
$75,000 (Exxon Mobil Corp v.
Allapattah Services Inc.)
Plaintiffs good faith claim for more than
the amount required controls, unless it
appears to a legal certainty that the
claim is really for less. (St. Paul
Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.)

Complete Diversity
Requires complete diversity every citizenship
on the plaintiffs side must be different from every
citizenship on the defendants side of the case
There must be complete diversity when the
action is commenced (when complaint was
filed)
Every individual is a citizen of the state of
domicile
o (1) Place of residence (physical)
o (2) With the intent to remain
indefinitely (mental)
o Domicile will remain the same until
these two criteria are met in another
state (Mas v. Perry)
o If person has multiple residences
look at a variety of factors drivers
license, voter registration, place of
employment, etc
Corporations are domiciled in the state(s)
which it is incorporated and also the state
where it has its principal place of business
(Defined in 1332(c)(1))
o Principle place of business: place
where a corporations officers direct,
control, and coordinate the corporate
activities. The nerve center or
headquarters. (Hertz Corp v. Friend)

Federal Question
Exists when a claim arise under federal law
Well-pleaded complaint rule a complaint that says all it needs to say and no
more
o Plaintiffs claim must be based on federal law Mottley

Source of Federal Question SMJ:


Article III, sec. 2 of the constitution
28 USC 1331 claim arising under federal law
The constitution only conveys SMJ to the Supreme Court, lower federal courts
get their SMJ by statute Congress gets to decide!

Osborn v. Bank of the US


(Broad interpretation)
Arising under in Article III Sec. 2 is
very broadly construed, and it is
probably satisfied in any case in
which a party seeks to rely on or
establish a proposition of federal law
in order to prove either a claim or a
defense in the case. Applies when a
federal statute is an ingredient of
the case
In Osborn Justice Marshall even
stated that any case brought by the
Bank of the US would arise under
federal law, since the bank was
incorporate under federal statute.

Grable
(Substantial Issue)
Action to quiet title, because IRS had taken his
property without proper notice according to a
federal statute
Sup Ct: A federal court ought to be able to
hear claims recognized under state law that
nonetheless turn on a substantial question of
federal law
Might not be appropriate in every situation but
the court should use its discretion on the
importance of the federal issue.

Mottley
(Narrow interpretation)
This was a state contract issue, not a
federal issue, EVEN THOUGH, it was
very clear that the defendant would
rely on a federal statute as a defense.
Well pleaded complaint rule case
must arise under federal law for
purposes of 28 USC 1331, asks whether
the plaintiff would have to raise the
federal issue in a complaint that
includes the elements to prove to
establish her claim, and only those
elements. Jurisdiction must be
determined from what appears in the
plaintiffs statement of his own claim,
not from any anticipated defense the
complaint alleges or the defendant will
assert.
Policy argument: Judicial
administration courts need to
determine their jurisdiction from the
outset. Otherwise Plaintiff could just
invoke federal jurisdiction simply by
referring in their complaints defenses
that the defendant MIGHT raise.