In Personam Personal Jurisdiction Flashcards
(34 cards)
Federal Rule 4(K)(1)
A Federal district court piggy backs on its states long arm statute allowing it to excercise in personam personal jurisdiction in the same way the state court would which is likely to the full extent the constitution allows unless the state has a specific long arm statute giving the state in personam jurisdiction, in specific instances while in compliance with the constitution.
Pennoyer test
Domicile, presence, consent
International shoe Test
1) Minimum contacts in the forum state that are systematic and continuous
2) the exercise of in personam personal jurisdiction would not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
5 fairness factor for 2nd prong of I-Shoe
WWV
1) Burden on the defendant
2) The forum state interest in adjudicating the claim
3) The plaintiffs concern with obtaining convenient and effective relief
4) The interstate judicial systems interest
5) The goal of substantive social policies
Purposeful Availment
Is the defendant doing something to promote interaction with the forum state
invoking protections and benefits of the state Hanson v Deckla.
Minimum Contacts-stautory
When a state statute Gray v Am Radiator, dictates that the defendant who commitied a tort by himself or through an agent submits to that states jurisdiction
Minimum contacts-Mcgee
One claim is enough to bring personal jurisdiction. defendant was life insurance holder, only client in california. premiums, invoice and everything was mailed from cali. Defendant tried to dispute say nor jurisdiciton, supreme court said yes there is.
Minimum contacts-unilateral activity
not enough, those who claim a relationship with a non resident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state. Hanson v Deckla
Minimum Contacts-Foreseeability
Alone is not enough, must analyze defendants conduct and connection with the forum state, and are they as such that he should reasonable anticipate being haled into court there? World Wide Volkswagen
Minimum contacts-Calder Effects test
insufficient minimum contacts, but where an action is targeted at a specific forum, and has foreseeable effects calder v jones
Minimum Contacts Zippo Test
Active V Interactive v Passive
1) websites that conduct business over the Internet-active likely to avail
2) websites where users exchange information with the host computers- (interactive) availment determined by interactivity and commercial nature
3) websites that do little more than present information- passive unlikely to avail
General Jurisdiction
Sufficient Contacts with the forum to warrant asserting jurisdiction over it for all matters
Specific Jurisdiction
Sufficient contact with the state forum to warrant asserting jurisdiction over it for matters related to its activity with the forum without having enough contacts to warrant general
Not Continuous and systematic?
not enough for General Jurisdiction
Specific v General fair or unfair?
If asserting specific then probably fair
if asserting general then probably not fair
Qir-1
: Resolving Interests in (quiet title to) property just as parties to suit
QIR-2
defendants ownership of property in forum state provides basis for jurisdiction (even if claim in lawsuit unrelated to property) But judgement limited to the value of the property
but if direct assertion of jurisdiction violates constitution then it is impermissible.
Carnival Cruise Lines
Supreme court did not consider defendants minimum contacts arguments instead it addressed the enforce-ability of the forum selection clause as a matter of contact law
Including a reasonable forum clause in a form contract of this kind well may be permissible
Burnham Scalia Opinion/ Case Holding
even if in state for short period of time it can be argued that the defendant availed themselves to the benefits and protection of the state even though he was not a resident there
Purposefully directed standard
When a website is not active the defendant must somehow purposefully direct an action by an individualized targeting of the state and that foreseeability of effects (calder effects test) in the forum state was not enough
Burnham Decision Brennan Opinion
Questioned whether in personam Jxn could be found, if the actor was in the state involuntarily
Outcome Determinative Test
York Case
Whether to apply state or Federal Law:
1) Determine impact of state law on holding of case
2) State laws which are more determinative in regards to outcome should be applied
3) Not as determinative should be subsumed by fed law
4) Cases in which state law was merely procedural and not substantive federal law should be applied
Twin Aims of Erie case
1) Discourage Forum Shopping
2) Prevent unfair administration of justice
When no federal directive–>
Apply erie test and outcome determine test
