LEAR CIVIL PROCEDURE SPRING 2014
PERSONAL JURIDICTION
Personal Jurisdiction Roadmap
Long-Arm Statute Analysis
· Say which prong you think is relevant and what the defendant’s argument would be. Go through each item in statute and say yes/no.
· Look at: Language, Case Law, Legislative Intent
· Examples
o Transacts any business in state or contracts anywhere
§ Look to see where they were supplying goods, evidence that they tailored goods to a specific forum state or just US at large?
o Tort in state
§ Gray – negligent manufacturing – tort occurs where P is injured, even if D’s negligence occurred elsewhere.
o Tortious act without the state- if arguing that breach occurred at the time of manufacturing
§ Goods came in the state through the ordinary stream of commerce
o Owning Property – only relevant if the cause of action arises out of said property
o General jurisdiction – continuous and systematic presence?
o Gray – Look at legislative intent/understand words in ordinary and plain meaning.
· Contract Only: Choice of Forum Clauses are enforcable
· Make a conclusion (yes). Reiterate which prongs of the statute you think you can assert valid jurisdiction.
Due-Process Analysis
· Purposeful Availment
o Did they reach out to that state?
o Define what type of case you have:
o Finished product/Tort (something sold to the end customer)– WorldWide Justice White’s “Seek to serve” minimum contact standard
§ Look for sales office, advertisements, deliberately focusing on a specific market, taking advantage of a state’s legal system.
§ If you see online marketing – make sure it’s specifically geared toward your state.
o Component Part/Tort (or anything in stream of commerce)
§ Asahi – go through each analysis because it’s unclear which one is actually law.
· O’Connor – Stream of Commerce plus seek to serve (Asahi) standard (hardest test to satisfy) – Wants a “substantial connection” between the D and the forum state for a finding of minimum contacts done by an action of the defendant purposefully directed to the forum state.
o Look for designing specifically to that forum state (same thing as in finished products).
§ Did they have a channel for regular service?
§ Did they have control over advertisement?
· Brennan – stream of commerce enough (no “seek to serve” requirement).
o Mere awareness that your product is going to end up somewhere is enough because stream of commerce is predictable.
o D takes advantages of benefits/opportunity to market his product in a state, so should be expected to be haled into court if products cause a tortious injury within that state.
· Stevens – Were the D’s contacts enough? Eyeball it. “Purposeful availment requires a constitutional determination affected by the volume of products, value, and the hazardous character.”
o Contract case-Use the Burger King analysis
§ Rare that she gives these – BUT if it’s an indemnity claim but underlying issue is a tort, do both analyses!
§ Look for negotiations, contemplated future consequences, prior dealings between the parties, K terms, benefit derived from forum state.
· Reasonableness (same for torts and Ks) – burden of proof on D – must make a “compelling case”
o Burden on D
§ Difficult for D to make
§ Depends on mobility of defense and not necessarily wealth disparity
§ Distance/difficulty for evidence and witnesses to travel
§ Do we need to actually visit the site?
§ Who are the witnesses? Do you have control over them?
§ Foreign legal system
· Do they already have lawyers there though?
§ Small company? CEO can’t afford to be absent
o State’s Interest
§ Usually want to compensate the victim
§ Deter people from committing these crimes in their state in the future
§ Protect their citizens (if other defective products are still in the state).
§ Applying their own law
· Although in tort cases, place of injury is normally the law that will apply regardless of where suit is brought
o P’s Interest
§ Where the evidence is
§ Injured? Not movable
o Interstate Interest in Judicial Efficiency
§ Do we want to solve this in one trial or break it up into multiple ones? – usually want to solve it in one.
§ Only arises with more than 1 D where 2 or more lawsuits would be broken up
o Shared Interest of the Several States in Furthering Fundamental Social Policies
§ Make up some kind of policy argument – probably pretty similar to the state’s interest. Could mention that O’Connor would want to consider foreign affairs (if product or D is foreign). Lear doesn’t even really know what this means so just make something up.
o Conclude – is it reasonable?
o If yes – they can bring their action.
*No need to write a full paragraph on each of these, it takes a long time to write out an essay on this whole thing so one sentence on each factor should do.
*Brennan’s balancing of interests – sometimes when contacts are low for PA, incredible reasonableness will make PJ OK.
General Jurisdiction
o Make sure the long-arm statute allows for general jurisdiction – but it usually will
o Cause of action doesn’t arise from the D’s actions with the forum state. Any big corporation should have general jurisdiction anywhere.
o “Continuous and systematic general business contacts.”
o Look at each contact separately like in Helicopteros.
o Reasonableness analysis – not the law that we have to do this analysis. (says it's up in the fair for reasonableness in GJ then to the analysis anyway) Make note of that and then do the analysis anyway. (Same analysis as before).
o Reasons why π would want to sue a certain place list. Reasons why ∆ might not want to be sued there list.
Personal Jurisdiction Background/Cases
· 3 kinds of personal jurisdiction
o In personam
§ Against the person – court would have power over the D herself
§ Usually contract or tort law
o In Rem
§ Actions to quiet title over some kind of property
§ Sue the property and anyone that thinks they should have title should show up
o Quasi In Rem
§ Court renders judgment for or against a person but recovery is limited to the value of property that is within the jurisdiction
· 2 step process to determining whether personal jurisdiction is valid
o Look at state’s long arm statute, then
o Due Process analysis
· When cause of action arises from activity in a certain state, then that state has personal jurisdiction
o Pj will apply if there are continuous and systematic activities in tha
t by the current to other states.
§ State Law does not mention purposeful availment
· McGee v. International Life Insurance
o McGee, the beneficiary of a life insurance policy held by D, a Texas company, brought suit in Cali when D refused to pay. Insurance co had only sold that one contract in Cali.
o Jurisdiction was granted because
§ Texas co solicited business (like purposeful availment, just hasn’t been introduced yet)
§ Cali had an interest in providing justice
§ “Substantial Interest” in protecting it's citizens.
· Hanson v. Denckla
o Various claimants to a Deleware trust filed suit against the trustee in Florida, claiming that the trust was invalid under Florida law.
o No personal jurisdiction because the defendant’s contacts with the state were negligible and non-deliberate and the claim didn’t’ arise from those contacts. P just moved to Florida after setting up trust w/ the bank
o The contacts between the D and the forum must result from D’s “purposeful availment”
o Ask – did the defendant purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its law? Only look at D’s behavior, not P’s.
o Unilateral Contact is not enough
· World Wide VW v. Woodson (Tort Case)
o Two Part Test:
§ Purposeful Availment( To the benefits and protections of that State's Law) Did defendant seek to serve the forum state? (Directly or Indirectly) Forseeable is no irrelevant. (Rejects Interest Balancing)
§ Reasonableness
o A NY family passing through Oklahoma was in a car accident, and tried to bring suit in OK against the dealer who sold them the car in NY
o Supreme Court says no jurisdiction bc no purposeful availment – they didn’t “seek to serve” Oklahoma or the market there
o A D must have chosen to have some contact with that state despite the considerations of fairness, convenience, and the interests of the state in overseeing the litigation aka must “seek to serve”
§ Requirement- Seek to serve the forum market, either directly or inderctly through offices, sales agents, advertising, technical assistance, sales, design products for us in that state, and control distribution chain.
o D must actually act! Make list of everything D did to seek to serve the state.
o Foreseeability is relevant but test is not foreseeability that product would get there – it must be foreseeable that the D could get SUED in the forum
o Brennan dissent wants to redirect the argument to the concept of fairness/convenience
o White Dissent: Cited Gray with approval. Distinguished between component and finished product
