Personal Jurisdiction

Question 1

General Jurisdiction

Answer 1

Defendants are subject to PJ wherever they are domiciled

Question 2

Specific Jurisdiction

Question 3

Tag Jurisdiction

Question 4

Domicile

Answer 4

A fixed, permanent residence where a party intends to return when absent therefrom.

Question 5

Domicile: Person v. Company

Answer 5

Person - wherever they are domiciled
Company - place of incorporation and principal place of business, or rare occasions where its as if they moved their principal place of business (Perkins)

Question 6

Principal Place of Business

Answer 6

The place where the corporation’s high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the organization’s activities

Question 7

Long-Arm Statutes

Answer 7

Unlimited: to the full-extent allowed by the constitution
Enumerated: specific limits to the statute

Question 8

Due Process Analysis

Answer 8

“Minimum contacts to the extent that does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (International Shoe v. Washington)

Question 9

Fair Play and Substantial Justice (Factors)

Answer 9

1. Burden to the defendant
2. Plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief
3. State’s interest in the adjudication
4. Interstate system interest in efficient resolution
5. Shared state interest in furthering fundamental social policies
   (World Wide Volkswagen)

Question 10

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.

Answer 10

Arizona life insurer who dealt with customers domiciled in California and accepted payments from California was sufficient to satisfy minimum contacts for PJ in California state courts.

Question 11

Hanson v. Denckla

Answer 11

PA resident enters trust with DE bank. She moved to FL and altered her will in Florida, changing her beneficiaries of the will and trust. Found trust company did not have minimum contacts with FL: no office, no business, no transactions, no assets, no solicitation of business, etc. because of the unilateral activity (quality and nature) and never purposefully availed themselves of the privileges of conducting business in the forum state.

Question 12

Purposeful Availment

Answer 12

whether D’s activities manifest an intention to submit to the power of a sovereign: targeting the forum, not simply expecting the product’s arrival (Nicastro)

Question 13

World Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson

Answer 13

An Audi bought in NYC is involved in a crash in Oklahoma causing severe burns to the victims who brought claims in State Courts; attempted suit in Oklahoma despite distributor only doing business in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut

Question 14

Stream of Commerce Rule

Answer 14

the mere deliverance of product(s) into the stream of commerce with the possibility of them entering a forum is not sufficient contacts

Question 15

Effects Test

Answer 15

Where conduct from one jurisdiction has an impact on another. (Keaton v. Hustler Magazine)

Question 16

Keaton v. Hustler Magazine (NH case)

Answer 16

P sued D in NH because the SOL allowed the suit to be brought; P helped produce a magazine in NH and sold 10-15,000 magazine copies within NH.
Holding: NH had a legitimate interest; D had “continuous and systematic” contacts to satisfy minimum contacts requirement; also bound by long-arm statute

Question 17

Calder v. Jones (Libel Case)

Answer 17

Where D’s were “primary participants in an intentional wrongdoing to a California resident” that which had in-state effects
Libel case where P works and lives in California, and D’s used California sources, sold to California, and the harm done was primarily done in California, despite the D’s living in Florida.

Question 18

Kulko v. Superior Court (Divorce Case)

Answer 18

The “effects” test is limited to use for commercial disputes or where a wrongful act generates in-state effects

Question 19

Walden v. Fiore (Airport Case)

Answer 19

Tortious injury to residents while out of state, by an out-of-state actor, is insufficient to create PJ w/o a meaningful connection between D and forum state

Question 20

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

Answer 20

Minimum contacts determination must evaluate D’s purposeful acts toward the forum state; must be reasonably on notice that they might be sued in the court

Question 21

Contracts: Reasonably on Notice of Suit

Answer 21

(1) Prior Negotiations; (2) Contemplated future consequences; (3) Terms of K and the actual course of dealing (Burger King)

Question 22

Asahi Metal v. Superior Court (Majority)

Answer 22

Rule: Mere awareness that a foreign manufacturer’s product may end in the stream of commerce in a particular location does not create “particular availment.” – maintaining PJ would be unfair for the foreign entity

Facts: Zurcher (California) sues Cheng Shen (Taiwan) for a product liability issue leading to a motorcycle accident that files an indemnification against Asahi Metal (Japan) for making the faulty tire valve. Held that knowledge that Cheng Shen sold to California was not substantial enough for PJ because they did not “purposefully avail” themselves to the forum state. Although, even if it were, it would not be fair for them to litigate in a foreign country.

Question 23

Asahi (Brennan’s Concurrence)

Answer 23

Fairness can be evaluated even where minimum contacts is satisfied.

Question 24

J. McIntyre v. Nicastro

Answer 24

Rule: Mere entrance within the stream of commerce where it’s reasonably expected goods will appear in a state does not create a substantial connection to prove the “purposeful availment” requirement for personal jurisdiction

Facts: D availed themselves to the United States at various times but never in New Jersey. Without direct contacts with the state/forum, minimum contacts and purposeful availability cannot be shown.

Question 25

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown

Answer 25

foreign subsidiary companies w/ a US parent company cannot be held liable in domestic forum where they’ve had no contacts with that forum

Question 26

Perkins v. Benguet (Standalone Case)

Answer 26

PJ created over a Philippines based company whose operations were overseen entirely in Ohio during WWII

Question 27

BNSF v. Tyrrell

Answer 27

Delaware Corporation w/ primary place of business in Texas only has 6% of tracks, less than 10% of annual income and less than 5% of the workforce in Montana. Unable to establish PJ outside of claims arising from activities within that forum.

Question 28

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. Cal. San Francisco County

Answer 28

678 plaintiffs, 88 from California, 33 other states represented sue for a Plavix drug causing health damages in California. Drugs were manufactured in New York; P’s could only file suit where they purchased, were sold, or where damages to them occurred.

Question 29

Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co.

Answer 29

PJ over out-of-state insurance co. that consents to their in-state office receiving notice as if being personal service to the company themselves

Question 30

Ins. Corp. Ireland v. Compagnie des Beauxites de Guinee

Answer 30

CBG is a Delaware company only doing business in the Republic of Guinea with a domestic insurance coverage in Pa., and abroad. Sues foreign Insurance Co. in the US who fails to supply discovery to combat claims when appearing specially. Failure to give discovery, was a failure to combat, PJ established by court ruling.

Question 31

M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co

Answer 31

Agreement to handle suit within a forum must be upheld as contractually agreed upon where reasonable

Question 33

Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute

Answer 33

Plaintiffs injured in Mexico, w/ clause all disputes are handled in Florida. Failure to establish PJ in Washington, given the agreement was legal and “fundamentally fair”

Question 34

Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.

Answer 34

PJ may be created by conducting business or making contracts within the forum; intermediately when an exchange of information occurs; less likely where information is made available by not bilaterally exchanged

Question 35

Harris v. Balk

Answer 35

Harris (NC) borrowed from Balk (NC), who owed money to Epstein (MD). Epstein served Harris while in MD to recover part of the money owed by Balk ($180 to relieve Harris’s debt to Balk and pay a portion of Balk’s debt to Epstein). Debtors are subject to PJ wherever their Creditor brings the claim if they are served while in that state.

Question 36

Burnham v. Superior Court

Answer 36

Non-residents may be served in the forum and be subject to PJ not in violation of due process. Historically, it has been a traditional notion of fair play and substantial justice. The father brought a divorce claim in California while on a business trip and was subject to PJ as he was present in the state when he was serving.