Personal Jurisdiction Flashcards
(36 cards)
General Jurisdiction
Defendants are subject to PJ wherever they are domiciled
Specific Jurisdiction
Tag Jurisdiction
Domicile
A fixed, permanent residence where a party intends to return when absent therefrom.
Domicile: Person v. Company
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)
Principal Place of Business
The place where the corporation’s high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the organization’s activities
Long-Arm Statutes
Unlimited: to the full-extent allowed by the constitution
Enumerated: specific limits to the statute
Due Process Analysis
“Minimum contacts to the extent that does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (International Shoe v. Washington)
Fair Play and Substantial Justice (Factors)
- Burden to the defendant
- Plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief
- State’s interest in the adjudication
- Interstate system interest in efficient resolution
- Shared state interest in furthering fundamental social policies
(World Wide Volkswagen)
McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.
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.
Hanson v. Denckla
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.
Purposeful Availment
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)
World Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson
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
Stream of Commerce Rule
the mere deliverance of product(s) into the stream of commerce with the possibility of them entering a forum is not sufficient contacts
Effects Test
Where conduct from one jurisdiction has an impact on another. (Keaton v. Hustler Magazine)
Keaton v. Hustler Magazine (NH case)
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
Calder v. Jones (Libel Case)
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.
Kulko v. Superior Court (Divorce Case)
The “effects” test is limited to use for commercial disputes or where a wrongful act generates in-state effects
Walden v. Fiore (Airport Case)
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
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
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
Contracts: Reasonably on Notice of Suit
(1) Prior Negotiations; (2) Contemplated future consequences; (3) Terms of K and the actual course of dealing (Burger King)
Asahi Metal v. Superior Court (Majority)
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.
Asahi (Brennan’s Concurrence)
Fairness can be evaluated even where minimum contacts is satisfied.
J. McIntyre v. Nicastro
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.
