Personal Jurisdiction
1. Three Main Themes:
1. Power and Federalism
a. States have the power to regulate people within its borders
b. Care is taken to ensure that a state does not encroach on another state’s power over its residents.
2. Consent
a. If you are in a state, you are consenting to its laws, and hence, jurisdiction of that state.
b. You may consent to jurisdiction in a state that wouldn’t otherwise have jurisdiction.
3. Fairness and Notice
a. This concept has to do with Due Process. Everyone is entitled to defend themselves.
2. Rule of Pennoyer: Traditional Bases for Personal Jurisdiction
1. Presence within the state
i. Property within the state (See IV)
1. In rem- Δ must own land at time lawsuit is started and property must be properly attached; notice through publication
· “true” in rem- property is the subject matter of the litigation; ex) two brothers sue each other over who inherits land
· “quasi” in rem- property not subject of suit but is used to satisfy the judgment; must own at time of judgment and must be properly attached; Ex) seize car to satisfy judgment in negligent driving case
2. Domicile
i. For a natural person:
1. Residence
2. Intent to remain
ii. For a corporation:
1. Center of business, or
2. Center of operations
3. Consent/Waiver/Appointment of an agent within the state to receive service of process
i. Procedural Waiver
1. By failing to raise the issue in a timely manner:
Rule 12b: You may make a pre-answer motion.
A pre-answer motion must raise a question to personal jurisdiction. Otherwise, the right to object is forfeited (12g, no second motions; 12h1a, waived.)
Also waived if raised in neither a pre-answer motion or the answer.
4. Status: Relationship b/t Resident & Non-Resident or Corporate Agent
i. i.e., marriage
3. Modern Framework for In Personam Jurisdiction under Int’l Shoe
Shoe applies only to non-resident defendants not present in the state. The standards in Shoe were created as a substitute for physical presence.
1. Rule- In order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam consistent with Due Process, if he is not present within the territory of the forum, he must have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
a. Minimum Contacts
i. Types:
1. Purposeful Availment: Hanson v. Denkla
i.e., Received benefits and protections of the state through e.g., continuous and systematic contacts.
a. Contracts with the forum state
. “Fair Play” in Stream of Commerce Cases: Five Tests
a. Burden on the defendant – burdens on corporate defendants tend to be diluted as compared to burdens on individual defendants.
b. The state’s interest – what interests does the forum have in having that litigation in that state as far as protecting its citizens and corporations?
c. The plaintiff’s interest – everyone would prefer to sue in their own forum.
d. Interstate efficiency interest – is this forum better, more efficient, more expedient, or cheaper than any other forum? It is rare that jurisdiction in a case turns on efficiency, because it can usually be argued both ways.
e. Interstate policy interest – this would be a stretch. The Courts of Appeals these days tend to lump this and efficiency together.
4. Modern In Rem Jurisdiction: Shaffer v. Heitner
1. The minimum contacts test is the all encompassing test of personal jurisdiction.
a. Property must be related in some substantial way to the litigation to establish jurisdiction under Shoe.
i. The mere fact that property is present does not necessarily allow for jurisdiction. It may be a contact, but it still has to meet the minimum requirements as related to the litigation at hand.
