Personal Jurisdiction Flashcards
If plaintiff’s claim does not arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contact with the forum state, how can a plaintiff sue?
the only way to proceed would be through general PJ.
If general PJ exists, a plaintiff can sue on a claim arising…
anywhere in the world.
General PJ requires a defendant to be…
at home in the forum state.
If a defendant is served with process in the forum, a court will have…
general personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
A corporation is “at home” in:
(1) Its state of incorporation, and
(2) Its principal place of business.
HYPO: Plaintiff, a citizen of California, goes on vacation to Alaska. While there, she slips and falls in a Big Mart Store. Big Mart does buisness in all 50 states, is incorporated in Delaware, and has its principal place of business in Arkansas. In California it has over 200 retail stores and employs 10,000 people. Plaintiff sues Big Mart in California. Does a California court have specific PJ over Big Mart?
No, the cause of action did not arise out of or relate to Big Mart’s activity in California.
Would a California court have general PJ over BigMart?
No – Big Mart is not incorporated in California and does not have its PPB in California.
(True/False): Absent waiver or consent to PJ by Big Mart, Plaintiff will be required to sue in Alaska, Delaware, or Arkansas.
True. Big Mart is subject to specific PJ in Alaska because that is where the accident happened, and it is subject to general PJ in Delaware and Arkansas because those states are where it is incorporated and where the PPB is located.
Doofus makes valves in Pennsylvania and sells them to a company in Minnesota. The Minnesota company then puts the valves into its widgets and sells the widgets nationwide. A Doofus valve in one of these widgets explodes in Nevada, injuring the Plaintiff. Is PJ in Nevada constitutional over Doofus?
Maybe.
Analysis:
(1) CONTACT: Was the contact a result of purposeful availment of Doofus to Nevada? Was it foreseeable that Doofus could be sued in Nevada?
(2) RELATEDNESS: Did the claim arise directly from the contact between Doofus and Nevada?
(3) FAIRNESS: Is PJ fair and reasonable over Doofus in Nevada? (1. Burden on D; 2. State’s interest; 3. Plaintiff’s interest).
When is the burden on the Defendant high enough that the forum would not be fair/reasonable?
When the Defendant can show that litigation in the forum would be so gravely inconvenient that it will be put at a severe disadvantage in the case.
