PERSONAL JURISDICTION
(Where can P sue D and in which state?)
OVERVIEW
BASIC PRINCIPLES
For a court to hear a case, it must have BOTH SMJ and PJ
¶ PJ à power to hear a case involving this particular D
¶ SMJ à power to hear a case of this particular nature
Pennoyer v. Neff | jurisdiction based on a state’s inherent power over people & property w/in that state
¶ In personam jurisdiction | Jurisdiction over persons w/in the state
§ i.e. by either their presence w/in or their consent
¶ In rem jurisdiction | jurisdiction over property w/in the state for claims regarding the property itself
§ i.e. quite title, ejectment
¶ quasi jurisdiction | claim unrelated to land but get jurisdiction by attaching property
challenging PJ à D has 2 options
¶ do nothing and take default judgment
§ what happens à nothing if D has no contacts w/ that state, but P then likely to enforce the judgment in Ds home state
§ advantageà D’s home state gets to make final ruling on whether there is PJ in the other state
§ disadvantage à if the court does decide there is PJ, then judgment enforced (thus must be absolutely sure no PJ in the other state to take on this risk)
¶ appear and object
§ what happens à file an objection for either insufficient service of process under 12(b)(4) if you think notice was improper, or if you think no PJ then file 12(b)(2) motion
§ advantage à if you lose you can appeal.
§ Disadvantage
Requirements
¶ To establish PJ, must satisfy both constitutional and statutory basis
¶ To establish sufficient service of process, must satisfy both constitutional and statutory basis when serving D
ESTABLISHING STATUTORY BASIS of PJ
FEDERALà FRCP 4(k)
4(k)(1)
¶ Serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes PJ over a D
§ If in fed court, and you satisfy the state’s long arm statute for PJ, then satisfy 4(k)(1)(a)
§ Who is a party joined under FRCP 14 or 19 and served not more than 100 miles from where summons issued (“Bulge jurisdiction”)
§ Fed statute authorizing nationwide service of process (I.e. antitrust/securities, interpleader)
4(k)(2)
¶ For claims arising under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes PJ over a D if
§ D is NOT s/t in any state’s courts of GJ; and
· Thus foreign Ds w/ insufficient contacts in any one state may be s/t jurisd in a federal Q case if sufficient contacts w/ the US
§ Exercising jurisd is consistent w/ the US constitution and laws
STATEàState long arm statutes (2 types)
Statutes authorizing PJ consistent w/ due process
¶ EX: “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent w/ the Constitution of this state or of the United States”
Statutes w/ enumerated provisions which may authorize less PJ than w/b constitutionally permissible
¶ EX: any person or through his agent does any of the acts enumerated in this statute subjects himself to jurisdiction in this state (i.e. (1) operating/conducting/engaging in business in this state; (2) committing tortious acts w/in state; (3) breaching K in this state)
§ If D does not meet any provision of the enumerated statute then inquiry stops, if fail this part do not need to analyze the constitutional aspect (however for exam, assume an incorrect decision warrants constitutional analysis)
¶ Courts generally interpret them to authorize jurisdiction consistent w/ due process
¶ Gibbonsà statute requiring substantial activity in FL
§ Just b/c a D filed suit several years ago does not subject that D to suit in that forum for the rest of their life
§ A prior suit may be considered substantial activity if filed simultaneously, or w/in days/weeks of the second suit in the same state and in the same court, filing separate suits w/b a waste of time/resources
ESTABLISHING CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS of PJ
SPECIFIC JURISDICTION
Concept
¶ the claim arises from or is related to the D’s contacts w/ the forum state
¶ NOTE: the constitutional basis for both SJ and GJ is International Shoe, all other cases are just extensions,
· Are there established channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum state
· Is the product marketed through a distributor who serves as a sales agent in the forum state
o Contractual relationships
§ Burger Kingà need more than just a K to show contacts
o Internet websites
§ Pavlovichà sliding scale for internet cases
· Passive websites (no PJ)
o Post info only, don’t sell products, don’t require membership/registration, D may not know who he is reaching (ex: personal blogs)
· Middle ground websites (c/h PJ)
o No exchange of money, but everyone has access (i.e. Wikipedia)
· Online storefronts (PJ most likely to exist)
o Buy and sell products, ship products, engages financial transactions, obtains personal information through registration/membership, advertises (i.e. amazon)
§ Whether D c/ foresee suit in that forum
· If D sells products in all 50 states, but then may look to reasonable factors
§ Relationship btw the contact and the claim
¶ Reasonableness Factors (Worldwide)
§ Burden on D (traveling for litigation, litigating in foreign tribunal, interpreting/applying foreign law)
§ State’s interest in (1) regulating D’s conduct and/or (2) opening courts to its residents
§ Location of witnesses, evidence
§ P’s interest in obtaining relief in that forum
§ Federalism concerns
· Judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of dispute
· Shared interest of several states in furthering substantive social policies
· if PJ starts to get too expansive, then P c/ assert PJ anywhere, thus must give respect to federalism
