1) Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)
i) PJ involve one questions – In what states can the P sue the D?
ii) The same analysis for PJ is used for both state and federal courts.
iii) For a court to have jurisdiction, it must have power over the individual.
(1) There are two sources of that power.
(a) Power over the Defendant as a person, or
(b) Power over the Defendant’s property.
iv) In personum is power over the defendant herself. In personam jurisdiction permits a court to enter judgment that is personally binding on defendant.
v) In rem is power of the defendant’s property. IR permits a court to adjudicate the rights of all possible claimants in a specific piece of property.
vi) Quas in rem is power over the defendant’s property. QIR II permits the court to have jurisdiction over D’s property, but not over the D personally, to use the property to satisfy plaintiff’s personal claim against defendant. Use of QIR II as a basis for jurisdiction over nonresident defendants has been severely limited.
vii) The Due Process Clause sets the outer boundaries. It’s like a big circle. If our case falls within the circle, then we have CONSTITUTIONAL personal jurisdiction. But that is just the outer limit. We must also have a state statute that applies and grants jurisdiction.
viii) When analyzing a personal jurisdiction question, you start with two questions.
(1) Is there a state statute? (addressed in further detail below)
(2) If there is a state statute that allows personal jurisdiction, is the exercise of jurisdiction constitutional, meaning, is it within the Due Process Circle?
b) IN PERSONUM JURISDICTION
i) General in personum jurisdiction: Defendant can be sued in the court for a claim that arises anywhere.
ii) Specific In Personum Jurisdiction: The claim itself has a connection with the forum.
iii) The Constitutional Limits – The Due Process Circle.
(1) Pennoyer v. Neff – Exercise of raw physical power of the state over people and property in the state. Pennoyer emphasizes the territorial limits of a state; if you’re in the state, they’ve got you.
(a) From Pennoyer v. Neff, we have several traditional ways that are still good today, in which we can exercise power over a defendant.
(i) Presence: When the defendant is served in the forum (general jurisdiction). Transient Jurisdiction.
(ii) Defendant’s agent was served with process in the forum (agent can be self appointed, or appointed by a statute, e.g. State Visiting Automobile Driver Statutes).
(iii)Defendant is domiciled in the forum.
(iv)Defendant consents to jurisdiction within the forum.
(b) Pennoyer standards are tough because if you don’t have the latter three, then you must serve the defendant in the forum.
(c) Hess v. Palowski is consistent with Neff because it is the traditional service of process upon an agent appointed by statute.
(d) International Shoe
(i) International Shoe gave us a new doctrinal formula.
(ii) If a defendant has such “minimum contacts” with the forum that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
(iii)This test is very flexible and has led to an expansion of jurisdiction.
(iv)International Shoe makes it clear that you can serve process outside the forum.
(v) It is important to remember that International Shoe gives us two tests:
1. Contacts.
a. Nature and Quality. One act can be quality enough. Systematic and continuous activities are enough to meet quality. It’s a sliding scale that measures the impact of the contact(s) in the forum.
2. Fairness.
(vi)International Shoe does not overrule Pennoyer. The Pennoyer standards are still good law.
(e) McGee v. International Life
(i) Facts: Texas Corporation had ONE contact in California, and the S. Ct. upheld jurisdiction.
(ii) KEY: the defendant solicited the contact in CA.
(iii)The Supreme Court stressed relatedness (Plaintiff’s claim arose directly directly from defendant’s solicited contact in the forum).
(iv)The Supreme Court also stressed the state’s interest. CA had an interest in looking out for their citizens. Specifically, CA had a statute that said, “hey, we want to look out for our citizens when they deal with out of state insurance companies.”
(v) Solicitation of a forum can lead to jurisdiction.
(f) Hanson v. Dankel
(i) The Supreme Court used this case to stop the expansion of personal jurisdiction.
(ii) No jurisdiction because no relevant contact (checks facts of case).
(iii)To be a meaningful contact, it must be a contact of “purposeful availment,” meaning, the defendant has to reach out to the state, or the plaintiff particularly.
(iv)The unilateral acts of a third party cannot establish jurisdiction.
(g) WorldWide VolksWagon
(i) S. Ct. says no jurisdiction.
(ii) Defendant had no relevant contact with the forum.
(iii)Plaintiff said it was foreseeable that the car would wind up in Oklahoma, but the Supreme Court says that it “must be foreseeable that defendant would get sued in the forum” not just foreseeable that the product will get there.
(iv)Exam defendant’s foreseeability as to whether they can foresee being sued in whatever forum.
(v) Brennan dissent – less focus on contacts, more focus on fairness.
(h) Calder v. Jones
(i) Defendant didn’t even enter the state, b
. This might be rationalized by focusing on foreseeability of facing claims of this type in this state.
5. Commercial v. Non-Commercial – Purposeful availment is more easily found in commercial transactions.
(ii) If there is a contact then:
1. Fairness – Does the exercise of jurisdiction offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
a. The standards of fair play and substantial justice:
i. Inconvenience to the defendant and witness (standard from Burger King: defendant has to show it is so inconvenient he’s severely disadvantaged in the litigation).
ii. State’s Interest (McGee)
iii. Plaintiff’s Interests
iv. Legal System’s Interest in Efficiency (Supreme Court is fairly silent on this factor).
v. Intrastate interests in shared substantive policy (the Supreme Court is fairly silent on this standard, too. The only reference comes from Kelko in which the federal court did not exercise personal jurisdiction because domestic, familial matters are reserved for state courts).
2. Relatedness – Is the contact related to the claim? (McGee)
a. If so, even if it is a single contact with the forum, then the exercise of personal jurisdiction will be a little easier.
b. You don’t have to have relatedness if there are continuous and systematic contacts to establish general jurisdiction.
v) Statutory Inquiry
(1) This is the first question you ask when establishing personal jurisdiction. If you satisfy the statutory inquiry, then you can address the constitutional limits.
(2) Every state has a statute that says if you’re served with process in the state then you’re subject to general jurisdiction in that forum.
(3) Every state has a statute that says that if you’re domiciled, then you’re subject to general jurisdiction in that forum.
(4) Missed this one…?
(5) Every state has a long arm statute. There are two types of long arm statutes. The most common is the laundry list long arm statute.
The Laundry List Long Armed Statute (Professor will most likely give an example of the statute on the exam, unless it’s the long arm statute of the state in which we sit).
