Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Oregon School of Law
Moffitt, Michael L.

PERSONAL JURISDICTION – make sure to run LONG ARM TEST

(Before a court can decide a case, it must have jurisdiction over the parties as well as over the subject)

First
Does the ∆ meet any of the traditional bases (Penoyer)?

***Personal Jurisdiction is automatically established under the traditional bases***

1. Traditional Bases
a. “Traditional Presence”
i. Is the ∆ located in the forum state?
1. “Transient Presence”
a. ∆ is subject to a foreign state’s jdx if served with process while IN the forum state (Burnham v. Superior State of CA)
b. Consent (∆ can waive an objection to PERSONAL jdx – does he?)
i. Does the ∆ consent to litigating in the forum state?
c. Citizenship/Residence
i. Is the ∆ a resident of the forum state?
d. Property
i. Does the ∆ have property within the forum state?
e. Domicile ( = cureent dwelling place + intent to remain indefinitely)
i. Is the ∆’s current abode/dwelling place in the forum state?
ii. Does the ∆ intend to return to forum state?
iii. Place of true, fixed and permanent home and principal est., and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent
1. Example
a. In WWVW v. Woodson, the Robinsons’ domicile was NY (not AZ) because they never actually made it to AZ and so were never there

Second
Does the state have a “long-arm” statute that would allow us to subject the ∆ to personal jdx in this forum?

Long-Arm Statutes allow a court to exercise jurisdiction based on particular factors

2. Long-Arm Statutes
a. Rule
i. TheΔmaynotbeservedoutsideoftheforumstateUNLESStheforumstate has enacted a statute authorizing out-of-state service under certaincircumstances,i.e.Shoe&It’sProgeny.
ii. This statute allows the court of a state to obtain jurisdiction over person not physically present within the state at the time of the services.
iii. Allows jurisdiction on the basis of certain links between the ∆ and the forum state (traditional bases)
b. Enumerated Lon-Arm Statutes
i. Usually list things that ∆ can do to subject himself to personal jdx within the forum state à typically restricted to the Shoe Test
c. CA has a long arm statute authorizing courts “on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the State of the Constitution.

3. General JDX
a. Continuous and systematic ties with the forum state
b. ∆ can be sued on a claim that arose anywhere in the world
4. Specific JDX
a. ∆ being sued on a claim that has some connection with the forum state

Use the Shoe Test if you can’t get PERSONAL JDX Via the TRADITIONAL BASES

5. International Shoe Test
a. Rule
i. Forum may exercise personal JDX over ∆ only if the ∆ has had
1. Minimum contacts with the forum state “and that
2. Exercise of JDX does not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
b. Factors
i. Issue arises out of
1. Systematic & Continuous Actionwithin the Forum
a. Court can use the ∆’s systematic & continuous contact to establish JDX for any cause of action against the ∆
2. Isolated Acts/Non-systematic/Non-Continuous
a. Court can establish JDX over ∆ for causes of action arising from that in-state activity
3. Purposeful Availment– (∆ reaches out to forum in some way)
a. Does the ∆ do business in the forum state?
b. Does the ∆ avail himself to the benefits and protections of the forum state’s laws?
4. Foreseeability
a. ∆ must be able to foresee getting sued in the forum, not just that his product would end up there.
b. Can the ∆ reasonably foresee being ‘haled’ into court in the forum state?
5. Forum State Interest
a. Is it in the forum state’s interest to adjudicate the case?
b. Does the forum state have an interest in providing a remedy for its citizens?
c. Are most of the witnesses in the forum state?
d. Is most of the evidence in the forum state?
6. EXCEPTION
a. Convenience/Inconvenience
i. The ∆ will almost always try to argue that the forum is inconvenient, however, the court will still have jdx UNLESS exercising JDX is “so gravely difficult and inconvenient that a party is unfairly put at a severe disadvantage in the comparison to his opponent”
1. Tough standard to meet – Subst. enough to cause a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE?
7. Stream of Commerce
a. Split Authority
i. Position 1
1. It is a contact if ∆ puts product in the stream and reasonably anticipates the product would get to the other states
ii. Position 2
1. The ∆ must put his produce in the stream and reasonably anticipate the produce in the stream and reasonably anticipate the product getting the other states AND ∆ must show intent/purpose to serve those other states

Cases

Pennoyerv.Neff

Establishes“traditionalbases”andthefactthatyoucannotestablishpersonaljdxoveraΔwhois
not present inthe forum

International Shoe

Establishes test weuse to determine if personaljdx over a Δis proper

McGee v. International Life
Insurance

TXcorporationhadonly1contactwith CA;GetssuedforbreachofK;Courtupholdsjdxbecause:(1)
ΔsolicitedKfromCA;(2)ΠsclaimarosedirectlyfromΔ’scontactw/CA;and(3)CAhadastronginterestinproviding a forum for its citizens

Hanson v. Denckla

Mrs.Donner(λPA)openedtrustwithDEbank. ShelatermovestoFLanddiesinFL. CouldtheDE
bankbesubjecttojdxinFL? No. TheDEbankhadnorelevantcontacts withFLanddidnotpurposefullyavailitselftoFL(i.e.neverreachedouttoFL). TheonlyconnectionithadtoFLwasthrough Mrs.Donner’s (3rdparty) unilateralmovethere.

WWVW v. Woodson

Robinsons (λNY)buy an Audi on their way to AZ. They get intoa car accidentinOKandsueseveral
companiesin OK claimingthattheAudi was improperlymanufactured. ThecourtheldtherewasnotjdxoverWWVW(whoonlydidbusinessinCT,NY,andNJ)norSeawayMotors(whoonlydidbusinessinNY)becausetherewasnopurposefulavailmentandalthoughitwas“foreseeable”that

the forum state, the more likely it is that ∆’s web related activities will be found to constitute minimum contacts with the forum state

Unlikelytoest.jdx

ARGUEBOTHSIDES

Morelikelytoest.jdx

Posting Cases Interactive Websites Primary Purpose
1. Posting Cases
a. Passive
b. Sites used merely to post information
c. Sites not used to conduct business
2. Primary Purpose
a. Site is est. for the primary purpose of conducting business transactions with residents of other JDX, including residents of forum state OR
b. Site allows forum-state residents to sign up to receive repeated ongoing communications from the host company – significant numbers do so
3. Interactive Websites
a. Some interaction between forum-state users and the derendant’s website, but NO significant volume of commercial transactions or ongoing communication
i. Targeted
1. When making arguments, consider whether the defendant targeted residents of the forum state
a. If not, probably not JDX at least the cause of action does not arise out of one of the fourm state transactions
4. MillenniumEnterprisesv.MillenniumMusic
a. Plaintiff sued Defendant in OR Federal Court for trademark infringement (bothcompanies had same name).DefendantownedsomeretailmusicstoresinSC,andalsomaintains a website, although almost all of D’s revenue camefromretailstoresales. DdidnotsellanyCD’stoORresidentsthroughitswebsite,exceptfor1CDtoacustomeractingunderthedirectionofthePlaintiff
i. Holding:
1. No personal JDX over ∆
2. ∆ did not show “deliberate action within the forum state in the forum state in the form of transactions between the defendant and residents of the forum or conduct suggesting the defendant purposefully directed business at OR residents.
5. Catacomb Press Case
a. Expresses that a general forum does not make the website of a active nature
6. Zidon
a. Purpose was to reach out and harm individual and professional reputation
i. (Calder) Harm was felt