2.A Personal Jurisdiction

Question 1

General Rule: personal jurisdiction

Answer 1

Personal jurisdiction is the court’s power to have jurisdiction over the defendant and such exercise must comport with due process.

Question 2

General Rule: traditional tests

Answer 2

Traditional PJ may be exercised if (1) the defendant CONSENTS to suit in the forum, (2) was present and SERVED in the forum or (3) is DOMICILED in the forum.

Question 3

General Rule: long arm statute

Answer 3

If there is no traditional basis, courts will next look to the state’s LONG-ARM STATUTE.

California’s long-arm statute says that PJ is allowed to the SAME EXTENT AS PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

Question 4

After stating the Long-Arm Statute rule, you’ll describe how it’s applied

Answer 4

When applying the long arm statute we should consider

(1) whether SPECIFIC or GENERAL jurisdiction apply and

(2) that “due process” is satisfied - meaning the defendant has such “MINIMUM CONTACTS” with the forum state that a suit there WOUDN’T OFFEND TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

Question 5

After stating the Long-Arm Statute rules, you will start a new paragraph called “Specific or General Jurisdiction” - what will that discuss?

Answer 5

The court will look at the quality and nature of the contacts.

There is GENERAL jurisdiction if: the defendant has SYSTEMATIC AND CONTINUOUS CONTACTS with the forum state.

If less than “systematic and continuous,” there will be SPECIFIC jurisdiction if the cause of action ARISE OUT OF RELATES TO Defendant’s contact with the forum state.

Question 6

After discussing “Specific and General Jurisdiction” you will start a new paragraph called “Due Process” - what will that discuss?

Answer 6

In then applying the “due process” test (i.e., as above min. contacts and not offending fair play and sub. justice).

MINIMUM CONTACTS means (1) PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT and (2) FORSEEABILITY.

Question 7

General Rule: purposeful availment

Answer 7

If a defendant has voluntarily reached out to a state and purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities there - i.e., taking advantage of the benefits and protections of that state’s laws - it should expect to fall within the purview of that state.

Question 8

General Rule: forseeable?

Answer 8

Means was it foreseeable that defendant would be sued in forum state?

Question 9

Five elements of the balancing test (i.e., traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”)?

Answer 9

Balancing test requires showings for:

(1) the BURDEN on defendant to ANSWER in the forum state - i.e., so gravely inconvenient = severe disadvantage of suit there, witnesses and evidence elsewhere, etc.

(2) the FORUM state’s INTEREST IN ADJUDICATING the matter - i.e., interest in providing forum redress for residents (protecting their health/safety)

(3) the PLAINTIFF’S INTEREST in CONVENIENT EFFECTIVE RELIEF - can they obtain it elsewhere?

(4) the NATIONAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM’s interest in EFFICIENT RELIEF

(5) the FORUM states’ interests in FURTHERING FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL POLICIES

NOTE: (4) and (5) are likely to be NEUTRAL on the facts (i.e., tort).