Civil Procedure
Sahani
Fall 2015
Personal Jurisdiction
· International Shoe
o Jurisdiction met if he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
§ Reasonable amount of contacts that are systematic and continuous and not single or occasional acts
o A corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state and it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state; therefore, is subject to jurisdiction
· McGee – A state court’s jurisdiction is sufficient for due process when suit is based on a contract which had substantial connection with that state
· Hanson v Denckla – The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state; Minimal contacts
· WWV
o Mere unilateral activity with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state
o Foreseeability is that the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there; Foreseeability alone insufficient; As long as there exist minimum contacts
· Kulko v Superior Court
o Court rejected jurisdiction over the D based on the unilateral activity of the P affiliating herself w/ the forum state
· Keeton v Hustler
o State’s assertion of PJ be predicated on minimum contacts
o Single publication rule; NH has interest in libel actions w/in its state; NH jurisdiction and long arm statute
· Calder v Jones
o “effect test” – PJ has certain minimum contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice; focus on the relationship among the D, forum, and the litigation
o petitioners must reasonably anticipate being haled into court there
· J McIntyre
o Due Process protects right to be subject to lawful authority and is not superseded by stream of commerce theory
o D may be subject to JXN of US but not any particular state; PJ requires a forum-by-forum analysis
o It’s not enough that the D might have predicated that its goods will reach forum state
o D must purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities in forum state, thus invoking benefits and protections of its laws
· Asahi
o II-B–reasonableness of the exercise of JXN in
where operations w/in a state are so substantial of such a nature to justify suit on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities
· Zippo
o SJ (specific jurisdiction)–contacts related to claim; GJ–contacts unrelated to claim; No SCOTUS case on internet JXN
· Helicopteros; GJ = increased contacts and S
· Shaffer
o When the only contact the D has w? the forum state is the location of property as defined by statute in the forum state, the forum lacks PJ over the D unless the min. contacts test of International Shoe is satisfied
o In rem – dispute about who owns property
o Quasi in rem – property is brought into case, but dispute about something else. Seizing property to satisfy judgment
· Transient JXN – Burnham
o JXN based on physical presence alone constitutes due process b/c it’s one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard and of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
