Personal Jurisdiction Flashcards
(31 cards)
constructive service
fake notice, newspaper article
Pennoyer framework for due process
In personam:
- in-state service
- domicile
- consent (implied, express)
- voluntary appearance
In rem:
- in-state property (tangible, intangible)
- seized pre-judgment
objections to personal jurisdiction must be raised
early. if a pre-answer motion is filed w/out raising the complaint, it’s waived
holdings in Milliken v Meyers
Notice:
personal service outside state and service at usual place of abode (sub service) is “reasonably calculated to give D actual notice of the proceedings and an oppurtunity to be heard.”
Personal Jurisdiction:
- Domicile is sufficient basis for this substituted service
- “the authority of a state over one if its citizens is not terminated by the mere fact of his absence from the state”
- “enjoyment of privileges of residence within the state and the attendant right to invoke the protection of its laws”
Holding in International Shoe
- Int Shoe, by its activities in state has rendered itself amenable to suit in courts in Washington - these courts have personal jurisdiction over them
- depends on the extent of the defendant’s contacts in relation to the claim asserted
grid view of personal jurisdiction
look at notes
reasonableness is dependant on D’s convenience
rule 4(k)(1)(a)
the personal jurisdiction of the federal court shall be the same as the court of the state in which the federal court is sitting
International Shoe sliding scale
“a high level of activities will support jurisdiction even over claims unrelated to those activities. By contrast, a low level of activity (‘contact’ in the jargon) will support jurisdiction, but only over claims related to that contact”
General and specific jurisdiction for individuals and corporations
General: very substantial contacts:
individuals - domicile
corporations - state of incorporation, principle place
Specific: isolated contacts:
the more closely related the contacts and the suit, the better
McGee v. International Life Ins. implication and deets
nationalization of economy and improvements in tech make it less inconvenient for corporate defendants to face suit in foreign states
the contract had a substantial connection with the state
CONTACTS AND CONNECTION TO CLAIM
Hanson v Denckla
Supreme Court held that FL could not exercise jurisdiction over defendant trustee
why? inconvenience, burdens and territorial limits
here are the big takeaways: there was insufficient connections with the state (the bank did not conduct any business in FL other than the deceased woman managing the trust from there)
also, and this is big league: the defendant did not, in any of its actions, purposefully avail itself of the privileges and legal protections of the state
What relics of Pennoyer survive Int Shoe?
for personal jurisdiction:
- appearance
- domicile
- consent
true in-rem vs quasi in-rem
true:
- plaintiff’s claim is related to the property
quasi:
- plaintiff’s claim is unrelated to the property
- property is used as a “jurisdictional hook”
Shaffer v Heitner
- plaintiff attached property of defendants - their Greyhound stock - in Delaware
- International Shoe applies to natural persons as well as corporations
- instead of sovereignty, the legacy of International Shoe made the relationship between the forum, the defendant, and the litigation the central concern
- judicial jurisdiction over a thing (in rem) = “jurisdiction over the interests of persons in a thing”
- the minimum contacts test applies to property within the state
- the stocks were not related to the claim, so the fact that they were “located” in Delaware is insufficient
- no purposeful availment (officers of corporation which is incorporated in Delaware, but principle place of business and their activities elsewhere)
- no consent just because they became officers of a corporation in Delaware and purchased stocks located there
legacy (implications) of Shaffer v Heitner
-attaching property does not, by itself, establish jurisdiciton
-
two purposes of minimum contacts test
- ) to protect defendants against too burdensome litigation in inconvenient forum
- ) to ensure states do not over-reach and breach other state sovereignty
Reasonableness/Fairness
- burden on D
- other relevant factors
- forum state interest
- plaintiff’s interest
- interstate judicial system
- shared interest of states in furthering social policies
Two-step approach established by Worldwide Volkswagen
- ) minimum contacts:
- defendant must purposefully establish minimum contacts
- the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being hailed into court there
- ) Reasonableness:
- after minimum contacts have been established, we have to look at factors which decide if exercising jurisdiction would be consistent with “fair play and substantial justice”
- factors: the burden on the defendant, the forum state’s interest, the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolutions, and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies
Asahi
Issue: Whether the mere awareness on the part of a foreign defendant that the components it manufactured, sold, and delivered outside the United States would reach the forum state in the stream of commerce constitutes sufficient minimum contacts rendering jurisdiction appropriate
Held: no jurisdiction
split decision on minimum contacts and personal jurisdiction (keep in mind: stream of commerce)
Reasonableness - fails whether minimum contacts are established or not
Marks Rule
“when a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, ‘the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.’”
J. McIntyre v. Nicastro summary
Kennedy: new test: purposeful availment is determined by the Defendant’s intention [expectations] to submit to a sovereignty - the forum state jurisdiction
stream of commerce
when a corporation selling goods enters its goods into the stream of commerce in a state. generally only held to establish jurisdiction if they targeted the state, not if the goods just got there
Calder Effects Test
determines purposeful availment. defendant must have 1.) known the probable impact of conduct on defendant and 2.) knew that the injury would be felt primarily in the forum state
sliding scale test in Abdouch v Lopez
the website was “interactive”
other than two subscribers and small amounts of sales in forum state, defendant’s contacts with state “nonexistant”
when p’s claim is for an intentional tort, activities must be purposely focused on the forum state
also, the defendant’s contacts with the forum state were unrelated to the cause of action
as for Calder in this case, the defendant’s actions were aimed at the entire world, not NE
