Modern Personal Jurisdiction Flashcards Preview

Civil Procedure > Modern Personal Jurisdiction > Flashcards

Flashcards in Modern Personal Jurisdiction Deck (6)
Loading flashcards...

What are the World Wide Volkswagon Reasonableness Factors?

1) Burden on the Defendant
2) States interest in resolving the dispute
3) P's interest in effective relief and convenience
4) Judicial interest in efficiency
5) Shared interest among the several states as it pertains to public policy.
These factors must be considered, but the defendant must first have the required minimum contacts as well.
Note on Fairness factors: Once the contacts are established, the defendant must have COMPELLING UNFAIRNESS to remove jurisdiction.
More contacts --> more compelling unfairness
Less contacts --> less compelling unfairness


When is foreseeability enough to grant personal jurisdiction?

When defendant is purposely targeting a specific state.
The defendant must be able to FORESEE that he will be haled into court there. So the defendant puts the product into the stream of commerce KNOWING that it will end up in that states market.


What does the Due Process Test look like? (Just the Contacts and Fairness Factors parts)

1) Look at the contacts and determine if they are sufficient:
a) Purposeful activity by D
b) Not done by a third party
c) Activity such that the D avails themselves to the forum
d) Activity such that D could foresee being haled into court in the forum
2) If contacts are adequate, consider the fairness factors:
a) Burden on Defendant
b) Forum states interest
c) Plaintiff's interest
d) Judicial system's interest
e) All the states interest in the furtherance of public policy.
Note on Fairness Factors: Once contacts are adequately established,, the defendant must have COMPELLING UNFAIRNESS to remove jurisdiction
More contacts --> more compelling reasons
Less contacts --> less compelling reasons


As far as internet activities go, when does a forum have jurisdiction?

Simply posting information online = No jurisdiction
Knowingly Exchanging information = Possible jurisdiction
"Doing business" or making $ = Yes jurisdiction


Do the contacts or fairness factors carry more weight in jurisdiction cases concerning internet transactions?

The court will look more at the contacts than at the fairness factors in these types of cases.


What are the three separate rules given by the court as to how to handle defendants who are located outside the US but shipping goods into the US (J. McIntyre Machine v. Nicastro)?

Rule 1 (Kennedy and Plurality): The defendant did not intend to be within the state, just within the US as a whole. The fairness factors would indicate jurisdiction but there are not enough contacts.
Rule 2 (Breyer): The rule of direct contacts within a state is too broad and would make it impossible to ever have jurisdiction over a defendant who is located outside of the country.
Rule 3 (Ginsburg): Believes that McIntyre took a step back as far as personal jurisdiction goes and will make it much more difficult to gain jurisdiction over a defendant.