Personal Jurisdiction - BarBri - Civil Procedure

Question 1

What question does personal jurisdiction ask?

Answer 1

Can the plaintiff sue the defendant in this state?

Question 2

Define Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 2

The power the Court has over the parties, specifically the defendant, in a case.

Question 3

Is personal jurisdiction analyzed differently in state v. federal court?

Answer 3

No. They are analyzed the same.

Question 4

What are the Court’s jurisdictional predicates regarding personal jurisdiction?

Answer 4

(1) Court has power over the defendant himself
(2) Court has power over the defendant’s property (meaning her property resides in a state’s jurisdiction)

Question 5

List the three kinds of personal jurisdiction

Answer 5

(1) In Personam
(2) General Jurisdiction
(3) Specific Jurisdiction

Question 6

Describe In Personam jurisdiction

Answer 6

The court has power over the defendant himself.
- Domicile in the state, sold products there, used the roads.

Question 7

Describe General Jurisdiction

Answer 7

The defendant can be sued in this state for a claim that arose anywhere in the universe.

EX: If California has general jurisdiction over you, you can be sued in California for something you did in California, for something you did in Florida, NY, or Chicago.

Question 8

Which cases have changed the test regarding how courts decide if there is general jurisdiction over a defendant?

Answer 8

(1) Goodyear
(2) Daimler
(3) BNSF

General Jurisdiction is now proper only where the defendant is at home or essentially at home.

Question 9

General Jurisdiction is now proper only where _________________.

What is the test used?

Answer 9

the defendant is at home or essentially at home.

TEST: Is the defendant at home or essentially at home in this forum?

Question 10

What does “at home” mean regarding general jurisdiction?

Answer 10

For a human, at home is where you are domiciled.

• Every human has a domicile but ONLY ONE. And so you are subject to general jurisdiction in the state of your domicile.

Question 11

Describe Specific Jurisdiction

Answer 11

With specific jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s claim arises from the defendant’s contact with the forum state. It is related to the defendant’s contact with the forum state.

EX: If California has specific jurisdiction over you, you are being sued in California for something you did in California.

(notion of relatedness)

Question 12

What is a Forum?

Answer 12

The state that is conducting the hearing or proceeding.

Question 13

Describe the notion of relatedness

Answer 13

The idea of whether a case has general or specific jurisdiction

Does the plaintiff’s claim arise from the defendant’s contact with the forum?

Question 14

‘Whether a case has general or specific jurisdiction depends upon what?

Answer 14

Relatedness

Question 15

Describe In Rem (personal jurisdiction)

Answer 15

The does not have power over the defendant himself but over her property in that state.

Property refers to any kind of property: land, car, watch, bank account, etc.,

Question 16

Describe Quas-in-rem

Answer 16

Same as In Rem where the court has power over the defendant’s property but involves a situation where the defendant’s property is seized to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim.

Question 17

What is the difference between In Rem and Quasi-in-rem?

Question 18

The _______ tells courts how far they can go in exercising personal jurisdiction of any of the three types.

Answer 18

Due Process Clause

Question 19

What are the two analyses for personal jurisdiction?

Answer 19

(1) Statutory
(2) Constitutional

Question 20

What does the statutory analyses for personal jurisdiction ask?

Answer 20

• Is there a state statute that allows PJ in this case?
• If no, then there’s no PJ even if the case falls within the due process circle
• If yes, then you perform the second analysis of constitutionality

Question 21

True or False:

The fact that a case falls within the due process circle and is constitutional allows for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.

Answer 21

FALSE

• We only get personal jurisdiction if state law has allowed us to exercise personal jurisdiction in the case.
• In other words, personal jurisdiction is not self-executing.

(remember there is a two-step personal jurisdiction analysis (1) statutory (2) constitutional

Question 22

Describe the Pennoyer v. Neff case.

Answer 22

Traditional Bases of In Personam Jurisdiction

Question 23

What are the traditional bases of In Personam jurisdiction as established in Pennoyer?

Answer 23

(1) Presence
* The defendant is served with process while voluntarily present in the forum state.
(2) Agent/Representative
* Defendants agent is served with process while in the forum state.
(3) Domicile
* The defendant is domiciled (resides) in the forum state.
(4) Consent
* The defendant consents to jurisdiction even if the court has no jurisdiction over the defendant.

Question 24

Describe an Agent

Answer 24

An agent is a representative who may have the authority to accept process of service on one’s behalf.

Question 25

If you’re suing a defendant who is not domiciled in the forum state, does not consent, and does not have an agent, then the only way to get him under Pennoyer is what?

Answer 25

Serve process on him in the forum state.

Question 26

Serving process on someone because more difficult as society became more mobile. How did the court react to those technological changes?

Answer 26

For a couple of generations, it expanded the traditional bases of Pennoyer.

The best example being Hess v. Pawloski

(Hess v. Pawloski- not a case covered in book)

Question 27

Hess v. Pawloski

(Note: Not covered in Book)

A Pennsylvanian drove his car to Massachusetts. He’s involved in a car wreck and injures the plaintiff, who is a Massachusetts citizen. The plaintiff sues the Pennsylvanian in Massachusetts. But by the time he’s sued, the defendant had gotten back to Pennsylvania, so he couldn’t serve process on him in Massachusetts.

Is there jurisdiction?

Answer 27

Yes. Because of the Nonresident Motorist Act (which is still in effect today)

Massachusetts had a statute that said, when you drive a motor vehicle into our state, you’re doing two things.

(1) Consenting to specific jurisdiction (consenting jurisdiction for a claim that arises from your use of the motor vehicle)
(2) Appointing a state official, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles as an agent for service of process.

The SC upheld this in Hess v. Pawloski

Question 28

What does the Nonresident Motorist Act do?

Answer 28

Expands the idea of consent to include implied consent.

(we infer when you drive into our state that you are consenting to specific jurisdiction and an agent to accept your service of process)

Question 29

When do things change regarding personal jurisdiction?

Answer 29

With International Shoe which does not try to expand the traditional bases but creates a new formula.

Question 30

Describe the new formula International Shoe established regarding personal jurisdiction.

Answer 30

Personal jurisdiction is okay if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the forum so that jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Question 31

Today, if you cannot serve someone while they are present in the forum state, then what do you do?

Answer 31

Apply the International Shoe minimum contacts test

Question 32

True or False:

The minimum contacts test established in International Shoe did not overrule Pennoyer but aids as a supplement.

If we cannot get personal jurisdiction based on the traditional bases (Pennoyer), then we try for minimum contracts.

Answer 32

True

(double check this)

We may always do International Shoe regardless on Traditional bases (pennoyer)

Question 33

Describe McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.

Answer 33

A Texas insurance company sells only one contract of insurance in California. It got sued in California for breaching that very contract.

The court said California does have PJ over the Texas company by emphasizing two things:

(1) The Texas company reached out to California. It solicited this business from California. (purposeful availment)
(2) The State’s interest. California had an interest in providing a courtroom for its people who were being ripped off allegedly by an out-of-state company.

Question 34

Describe Hanson v. Denckla

Answer 34

Gives us a critically important phrase:

The contact under International Shoe between the defendant and the forum state must result from the defendant’s “purposeful availment.”

Question 35

We know that International Shoe requires contact between the defendant and the forum. And what Hanson says is that that contact must result from something ________.

Answer 35

The defendant did.

It cannot be the act of someone else.

Good example: World-Wide Volkswagen

Question 36

Describe the facts of World-Wide Volkswagen

Answer 36

• A New York family purchased an automobile in New York to drive to the new family home in Arizona. However, on the way, they were involved in a terrible car wreck in Oklahoma. They sued in Oklahoma and it was a product liability case. They alleged that the car was defectively designed and that caused the fire that injured the family members.

Question 37

What was held in World-Wide Volkswagen?

Answer 37

The Supreme Court held that Oklahoma did not have In Personam jurisdiction over two of the defendants. One of the defendants was the New York retailer that sold them the car and the other was the New York distributor that distributed the car in New York.

Question 38

What was the courts reasoning in World-Wide Volkswagen for why Oklahoma did not have In Personam jurisdiction over the defendants?

Answer 38

There was no jurisdiction in Oklahoma because the defendants had no purposeful availment.

• The New York defendants had not reached out to Oklahoma. They did not solicit business from Oklahoma. They did not send anything to Oklahoma.
• And so notice, the car got to Oklahoma, but the defendants did not do that. The car got to Oklahoma because the plaintiffs drove it there. That cannot be purposeful availment.
• Purposeful availment: is an act by the defendant

Question 39

True of False:

A defendant may purposefully avail to a forum (reach out), but that does not mean that the defendant has to step foot in the forum.

Answer 39

True

Question 40

What does World-Wide tell us about foreseeability?

Answer 40

It is foreseeable that the product would get to Oklahoma. However, it must be foreseeable that the defendant could get sued in the forum of Oklahoma.

• The defendant must reach out (purposefully avail) the forum, but that does not mean that the defendant has to step foot in forum

Question 41

Calder v. Jones

Two defendants in Florida. Everything they did was in Florida. They wrote and edited a National Enquier story about a movie actress in California and the article that was published defamed the actress in California. The actress sued these two in California. And they said there was no purposeful availment because they never went to California.

The Supreme Court stated that there is purposeful availment, and they can be sued in California. Why?

Answer 41

Because they caused an effect in California (Calder Effect Test)

• Those people in Florida reached out to California sources, they used California sources, their article was aimed at the plaintiff in California, and it was aimed at harming her in her business in California. So there was purposeful availment.

Question 42

(Walden v. Fiore)

(Not in Book)

Here the plaintiffs are citizens of Nevada. They had been in the Caribbean and they’re flying home to Nevada. They fly through the Atlanta Airport. They’re changing planes in Atlanta and a police officer in Atlanta who’s working with security seizes a bunch of cash that they had. The seizure was wrongful. The plaintiffs then go home to Nevada and sue the police officer in Nevada saying, hey, you caused an effect in Nevada. We get to Nevada, we don’t have the cash because you seized it.

What did the Court hold?

Answer 42

No jurisdiction because the tie with Nevada was the happenstance that the plaintiffs lived there. The police officer in Atlanta did not target Nevada as the writer and editor of that story had targeted California in Calder v. Jones.

In other words, there was no effect jurisdiction

Question 43

(Burger King)

(Not in Book)

This is a contract case. The case is brought in Florida by Burger King which is a huge multi-billion dollar corporation. Burger King wants to sue in Florida because that’s where it’s headquartered. It wants to sue at home. It sues two individuals who happened to run a Burger King up in Michigan. And those two are arguing no personal jurisdiction in Florida.

What were the two important things from Burger King?

Answer 43

(1) The Court confirms that contact and fairness are different parts of the International Shoe Test.
(2) (VERY IMPORTANT) Contact comes first. You must have a relevant contact between the defendant and the forum state before you assess fairness.

Question 44

(Burger King)

Now on the facts of Burger King, contact was easy. These two guys up in Michigan obviously availed themselves of Florida. They asked Burger King Corporation in Florida to give them a 20-year franchise agreement. So there’s clearly availment, there’s clearly contact.

Defendants argued, yes, we have contact but jurisdiction is not fair because we’re just the individuals, we don’t have any money. We should not have to go down and litigate in Burger King’s home court, Burger King ought to come up here.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

Answer 44

rejected the argument altogether. The Supreme Court established a very tough burden here. If you are arguing that there should be no jurisdiction because it’s not fair, the burden is on the defendant to show not just the inconvenience but also that it is so gravely inconvenient that you’re at a severe disadvantage in the case. (this is an extremely difficult burden)

Question 45

What is below an example of?

I make a component, valves, in state A. I sell my valves to a widget manufacturer in state B only. The widget manufacturer in state B puts my valves into its widgets and then sells the finished widgets in the states C, D, and E. So my valve gets from state A to state C, D, and E but I did not send it there, I sent it only to state B. The widget manufacturer in state B sent it onto the other states.

One of my valves explodes in state C and I get sued in state C. Do I have a contact with state C? Have I purposefully availed myself of state C?

Answer 45

Stream of Commerce

Question 46

What did the court hold in Asahi (stream of commerce- previous example)?

Answer 46

There was a split of authority and there is no majority rationale in Asahi. There are two equally viable theories. The Court split 4 to 4 and the last judge did not join one side or the other.

4 justices said that it is a contact. There is purposeful availment - I put the product into the stream, and I reasonably anticipate that it will get to state C.

4 other justices said that in their view you need more than that. You need what the above justices said plus an intent to serve the market in state C. So it’s not enough that I put my value into the stream of commerce and I reasonably anticipated it would get to State C. You’ve got to show that I, the state A valve manufacturer, intended to serve the market in state C.

• EX: By advertising there or providing customer service there.

Question 47

Which stream of commerce theory is law?

(Asahi)

Answer 47

Neither. Both theories are viable.

(you need to state both theories when talking about the stream of commerce)

Question 48

(McIntrye)

(Stream of Commerce)

Same fact pattern as Asahi. The only difference is it was a finished product. But the Court makes nothing of that. Here you have an English company sell its machines to Ohio. The English company reaches out only to Ohio. Now a separate company in Ohio then sells these machines into all the other states, including New Jersey. The plaintiff is injured in New Jersey, which was his home state, while working on one of these machines. Plaintiff sues the English company in New Jersey.

Question: Does the English company have purposeful availment of New Jersey? Does it have a contact with New Jersey?

Answer 48

There is no majority opinion in McIntyre either.

4 justices adopt the 2nd approach (O’Connor theory) in Asahi, where they say its not enough just to put it in the stream and reasonably anticipate that it’ll get to New Jersey. You’ve got to show that the English company intended to serve the market in New Jersey. And there are no facts showing that, so there’s no jurisdiction. It did not advertise in New Jersey, it did not have customer service, etc., in New Jersey.

2 other justices agree that there is no jurisdiction in New Jersey but they do not take sides in this split

3 dissenting justices lead by Ginsburg would uphold New Jersey jurisdiction (Brennan opinion). They stated that when the English company put this product into the stream of commerce, sold it to Ohio, it knew that it was going to get to New Jersey. It has targeted the USA and, therefore, it should be subject to jurisdiction in any state where the product causes injury.

Question 49

Where are we in the Stream of Commerce?

Answer 49

We have never had a majority opinion. We have, however, two viable theories.

One is the Brennan opinion, which was adopted by Ginsburg in Mcntyre,

The other is the O’Connor theory, which was adopted by Kennedy in McIntyre.

It’s a split of authority, which is great on exams because it gives you a chance to show off. If you get stream of commerce, you must apply both of those tests and come to a reasonable conclusion.

Question 50

(Burnham)

(IN BOOK)

A New Jersey man is sued in California. He is served with process while in California. But the claim against him arose in New Jersey. So its okay only if ______

What is the issue?

What was the holding?

Answer 50

California has general jurisdiction over Mr. Burnham.

Issue: Is a traditional basis (presence) good by itself or must this case be analyzed under International Shoe?

Held: Court ruled in a 4 to 4 split again, thus no majority view.

4 justices say that the traditional basis of presence when you’re served is good on its own, International Shoe is irrelevant. This is good because of the historical pedigree. (International Shoe test is used only when the defendant is not present when served)

4 other justices said that we must apply International Shoe and that the historical pedigree does not matter, the traditional bases do not matter as it’s all been swept away by International Shoe.

There is no majority opinion regarding if International Shoe supplements or replaces traditional bases (Pennoyer)

All 9 justices agreed that California had general jurisdiction. They just did so on different policy grounds.

Question 51

The big impact of Goodyear, Daimler, and BNSF has been on what?

Answer 51

General jurisdiction over corporations

Question 52

The Court says that a corporation is at home (domicile) where?

Answer 52

Only in two (2) places

(1) The state where it’s incorporated (where you are subject to general jurisdiction)
(2) The state where you have your principal place of business
* Principal place of business means the corporate headquarters where the decisions are made.

Question 53

A corporation can be subject to _________ only where it’s at home or essentially at home. And we know a corporation is at home (1) where it was incorporated and (2) where it has its principal place of business.

Answer 53

General jurisdiction

Question 54

Goodyear

Answer 54

Left open the possibility that there might be another state based on the level of activity of the corporation in that state. But this seems very unlikely based on the subsequent cases. Basically, they say, well you could have general jurisdiction if 100% of the business is in one state. But if 100% of the business is in one state, you’re probably going to be incorporated there or have your principal place of business there.

Question 55

Describe specific jurisdiction

Answer 55

With specific jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s claim arises from the defendant’s contact with the forum state. It is related to the defendant’s contact with the forum state.

Question 56

Describe Bristol-Myers Squibb: (BMS)

Answer 56

• This is a suit against a pharmaceutical giant. The suit is in California. It alleges that its drug, Plavix, caused personal injuries.
  
  • Most of the cases we’ve seen where there’s no jurisdiction have been because there was no contact - the defendant did not have a contact with the forum. That was true in Hanson, World-Wide, Asah, McIntrye, and Walden. That was true in all those cases.
• But with BMS, we have something different. In BMS, the defendant had a ton of contacts with California (had offices there, etc). The problem was relatedness, which is, of course, required for us to get specific jurisdiction.
• Now in BMS, there are two sets of plaintiffs. There are California plaintiffs and there are non-California plaintiffs. The California Court has personal jurisdiction over the claims against BMS by the California plaintiffs because there’s relatedness. The claims by the California plaintiffs relate to what BMS did in California - it sold those pills in California, they were ingested in California, and the harm was done in California, so there is relatedness and specific jurisdiction for the claims by the California plaintiffs.
• But there is no jurisdiction for the claims against BMS by the non-Californians. The non-Californians cannot sue BMS in California because their claim does not arise in California, there claim arose in Ohio - that’s where they bought those pills, that’s where the ingested them, that’s where they were harmed.
  
  • And they argued, but they’re identical to the pills in California, but that does not matter.
    
    • The test for relatedness - for specific jurisdiction: for specific jurisdiction, plaintiffs claim must arise from or relate to defendant’s contact with the forum.
  • Under BMS, it seems that the defendant’s contact with the forum must include the very product (the very pills or widgets) that hurt the plaintiff. It’s not enough that the pills are identical.
    
    • For relatedness under BMS, you’re going to have to show that the defendant’s contact with the forum included the very product that hurt the plaintiff and the California contact did not include the pills that hurt the people in Ohio.

Question 57

What is the test for relatedness (specific jurisdiction)?

Answer 57

plaintiff’s claim must arise from or relate to defendants contact with the forum

Question 58

Describe a relevant contact?

Answer 58

(1) Purposeful availment
(2) Foreseeability

Question 59

Describe purposeful availment

Answer 59

The contact between the defendant and the forum must result from the defendant’s act. The defendant must reach out to the forum.

• Maybe by soliciting business there, making money there, using the roads there, etc.

Question 60

Describe Forseeability

Answer 60

Remember, its not foreseeable that the product would get there. Instead, it has to be foreseeable that the defendant could get sued in this state.

Question 61

True or False:

For minimum contact, you need contact between the defendant and the forum. The contact must result from the defendant’s purposeful availment and must render it foreseeable that the defendant could get sued there.

Answer 61

True

Question 62

Describe BMS Test:

Answer 62

Does the defendant’s contact with the forum include the very thing/product that harmed this plaintiff?

(i) If so, there is relatedness, and its specific jurisdiction
(ii) If not, then jurisdiction is only okay in this state if there’s general jurisdiction.

Question 63

The Court told us in Daimler, by stating if the defendant’s at home and we get general jurisdiction, fairness analysis is irrelevant. Why?

Answer 63

Because fairness analysis only applies to specific jurisdiction.

Question 64

What are the 5 fairness factors?

Answer 64

1. Burden is on the defendant (comes from Burger King)
   
   1. Court says the burden is on the defendant to show no just the inconvenience but that it’s so gravely inconvenient you’re at a severe disadvantage in the case and that’s almost impossible to do.
2. Forum state’s interest
   
   1. Best example is McGee, the court in McGee upheld jurisdiction in California in part because California had an interest in providing justice for its people who were being ripped off by an out of state company. So if the plaintiff is a citizen of that forum, we will always have some state interests like that. Depending on the facts, there may be some other state interests as well.
3. Plaintiff’s interest
   
   1. For example, the plaintiff may be badly injured and it may be very difficult for the plaintiff to travel to the defendant’s home state. That is a fairness factor that would help us find that jurisdictions fair here.
4. Legal Systems Interest in efficiency
   
   1. For example, if there’s a state where all the witnesses and all the evidence happens to be, if they’re all in one place, that may make that state the most convenient place which is also a fairness consideration.
   2. (courts have never really mentioned it)
5. Shared Substantive policies of the states
   
   1. (courts have never really mentioned it either except in one case)
   2. Kulko case rejected jurisdiction and it state one of the reasons for that was family harmony, that if we allow jurisdiction in cases like this, there is going to be all kinds of nasty family fights in court.

Question 65

Analytically, on the exam, the first question you have to tackle is whether _____

Answer 65

a state statute allows PJ in this case.

(this is true whether we are in state or federal court)

Question 66

_________ allow jurisdiction over non-residents. Usually specific jurisdiction.

Answer 66

Long-arm statutes

Question 67

What are the two kinds of long-arm statutes?

Answer 67

(1) California Type, which states
* “We have jurisdiction to the full extent of the Constitution”
(2) Laundry List Long-Arm:

• Which gives us a list of things that defendant - non resident - can do in this forum and by doing them, subject herself to specific jurisdiction
• EX: For example, we have long-arm jurisdiction over a non-resident who transacts business in the forum.
• If you have a claim against a non-resident arising from his transaction of business in the forum, you’ve got him under the statute.

Question 68

On the exam you know what you’re looking for:

Answer 68

• Is there purposeful availment?
• Is there foreseeability
• Is there relatedness?
• What about the fairness factors?

Question 69

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Overview:

Answer 69

• Courts power over the case.
• In what Court in that state is the plaintiff going to sue?
  
  • The state or federal court?
  • State courts have general subject matter jurisdiction - they can hear any kind of case.
  • Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction because of the Constitution Article 3