I. Personal Jurisdiction (selection of forum)
a. Issue: in what states can the plaintiff sue the defendant?
b. Court must have power over something: either the def. or his property
c. Three types:
i. In personam: court has power over the defendant because of some contact she has with the forum for example (always preferable)
1. General in personam jurisdiction: The defendant can be sued in the forum on a claim that arose anywhere in the world
a. Subject to it if you have continuous and systematic ties with the forum (Helicopteros)
2. Specific in personam jurisdiction: The defendant is being sued on a claim that has some connection with the forum. So the claim arose from activity in the forum.
3. Constitutional limits:
a. Pennoyer v. Neff: stresses the state’s power over people and things in its boundaries.
i. when the defendant is served with process in the forum, he is subject to general jurisdiction. (PRESENCE)
1. the doctrine of fraudulent inducement invalidates service where the plaintiff has lured the defendant into the jurisdiction with falsehoods
ii. Defendant’s agent was served with process in the forum
iii. Defendant is domiciled in the forum so he is subject to general jurisdiction
iv. CONSENT: defendant consents to jurisdiction
b. Hess v. Poloski: expanded the traditional bases of Pennoyer
i. Here there was a statute saying that if you drive in our state, you appoint a state official as your agent for service of process. (statutes like this are always about specific jurisdiction)
1. this deals with the agent issue in Pennoyer and the consent issue because they said there was implied consent
c. International Shoe: new doctrinal formula
i. The state has jurisdiction if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the forum that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
ii. The minimum contacts test is very flexible and lead to an expansion of jurisdiction
iii. You can serve process outside of the state so long as the minimum contacts test is met
iv. Does not overrule Pennoyer. It deals with when the defendant is not present in the forum state. This is an addition to Pennoyer
d. McGee v. International Life: one contact with the forum state (selling policy)
i. 3 factors:
1. the defendant solicited that contract from California. It reached out to California.
2. Relatedness: The plaintiff’s claim arose directly from the defendant’s contact with CA.
3. State’s interest: CA had a strong interest in providing a forum for their people (even had a statute saying so)
e. Hanson v. Denckla?:
i. To be a relevant contact under international shoe, it must result from purposeful availment
f being served while in the forum survive by itself? (or do you have to assess the whole minimum contacts (International Shoe) thing?)
1. 2 approaches:
a. Presence when served is its own basis
b. You must apply International Shoe
k. A website’s ability to invoke jurisdiction
i. [ACTIVE BUSINESS WEBSITE = JURISDICTION]:Where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet. If the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the internet, personal jurisdiction is proper
ii. [PASSIVE WEBSITE = NO JURISDICTION]: Where a defendant has simply posted information on a website which is accessible to users in foreign jurisdictions. A passive website that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction
iii. [MIDDLE GROUND/INTERACTIVE WEBSITE = JURISDICTION DETERMINED BY FACTS]: This is the middle ground which is occupied by interactive websites where a user can exchange information with the host computer. The exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the website.
4. Analytical Framework for Exam (Constitutional):