Personal Jurisdiction

Question 1

Introduction - PJ

Answer 1

1. Traditional Basis
2. Long Arm Statute
3. Constitutional Limitations

Question 2

(1) Traditional Basis for IPJ

Answer 2

In personam jurisdiction (IPJ) refers to court’s ability to exercise power over the defendant

Traditionally: IPJ based on
* (a) where party is domiciled,
* (b) presence in state when served, or
* (c) consent

Is there traditional basis for IPJ?

Question 3

(2) Long Arm Statute

Answer 3

If no traditional basis, see if state has long arm statute that would grant IPJ over D.

Federal court must analyze IPJ as if it’s state court in forum state so it needs to use state long arm statute to determine if there’s IPJ.
* CA: California’s long-arm statute gives court power over any persons over which state can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction.

Other states: If long-arm statute provides a specific list of circumstances where court can exercise IPJ, it must still meet constitutional standard.

Question 4

(3) Constitutional Limitations

Answer 4

IPJ is constitutional if there are sufficient contacts with forum state so as to not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
* US Supreme Court list three primary factors: contacts, relatedness, and fairness

Question 5

Minimum contacts

Answer 5

Must show purposeful availment and foreseeability:

1. D purposefully availed itself of privilege of conducting activities in forum state, thus invoking benefits and protections of its laws
2. D knew or reasonably anticipated that its activites in forum state made it FORESEEABLE that it would be haled into court there

Question 6

Relatedness of Claim to Contacts

Answer 6

Specific jurisdiction: exists when claim relates to D’s conduct with forum state

General jurisdiction: exists when D is “at home” in the forum
* Court must have general jx if there is no connection between P’s claim and D’s contacts with the forum
* Corporation: “at home” in states where it has principal place of business and where it’s incorporated
* Individual: “at home” where he’s domiciled (permanent residence with intent to reside there)

Question 7

Fairness

Answer 7

ONLY for specific jurisdiction

Court will look at whether it’s fair to exercise IPJ over D based on its contacts with forum state. Factors:
* Convenience: look at if forum state is so gravely inconvenient that D is put at severe disadvantage
* State’s interest: state’s legitimate interest in providing redress for residents
* Other factors: plaintiff’s interest, judicial system’s interest, shared interests of states

Why doesn’t it apply to general jx? If D has no connection with forum state, it would be unfair to expect it to litigate a lawsuit in that state, and that state’s interest in providing a forum for its citizens would not override D’s lack of minimum contacts with the forum.