PERSONAL JURISDICTION
"BIG PICTURE DAY"
By Professor Ira Steven Nathenson
Link to materials here
STATE COURT
IN PERSONAM: Look to applicable state long arm + 14th am. DP
14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS
MODERN BASIS: MINIMUM CONTACTS
SPECIFIC JURISDICTION (case-specific): Remember that specific jurisdiction MAY exist on even one contact (Hess reimagined); specific jurisdiction is almost certain for systematic & continuous contacts, subject to satisfying Steps 2 # 3 of the test.
STEP 3: REASONABLENESS
Apply factors:
Interest of FS
Interest of P
Burden on D
GENERAL JURISDICTION ("all purpose"): continuous, systematic, and substantial contacts placing D essentially "at home." No need to assess relation of contacts to claim b/c contacts can be unrelated to the claim. Also, no need to assess reasonableness factors per Daimler FN20.
Corp: PPOB
STEP 1: MINIMUM CONTACTS SHOWING DEFENDANT HAS PURPOSELY AVAILED ITSELF OF PRIVILEGES & BENEFITS OF LAWS OF FS.
STEP 2; CONTACTS RELATE TO OR GIVE RISE TO THE CLAIM: see Ford
Substantive social policy
FEDERAL COURT
IN PERSONAM
IN REM & QIR
FRCP 4(n):
FRCP 4(k)(1)(B): "Bulge" rule.
D served no more than 100 miles of where summons issued
FRCP 4(n)(2): if in personam jurisdiction not available, can use applicable state law of that state to seize assets found in that district. State law limited by 14th am. DP. Look to right side of graphic (state).
STATE LONG-ARM STATUTE
Special PA scenarios
TRADITIONAL BASES
Domicile
Consent & Waiver
Forum selection clause
General appearance
Implied consent?
Sanction?
Stipulation
Transient Presence (Tag): Keep in mind that voluntariness and/or intentional presence must exist. No force or fraudulent inducement to entry.
Scalia: still a traditional basis, no need for MC test.
Brennan: MC test (is tag a super-contact for general jurisdiction? Does Daimler mean Brennan cannot be right?)
Individual: domicile
"Exceptional case" (Daimler FN19)
Stream of commerce: Law unsettled b/c of WWVW, Asahi, Nicastro.
Regular assessment of quality & nature of contacts showing PA
O'Connor: "Additional conduct of the defendant may indicate an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum State, for example, designing the product for the market in the forum State, advertising in the forum State, establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum State, or marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State. But a defendant's awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum State does not convert the mere act of placing the product into the stream into an act purposefully directed toward the forum State."
Stevens: "[P]urposeful availment requires a constitutional determination that is affected by the volume, the value, and the hazardous character of the components."
But-for test
Sufficient relationship between contacts and suit?
Evidence test
Internet? Zippo
Intentional torts: Calder & Walden
Contracts: Burger King
Negligence: Hess (as Shoe reinterprets)
Taxes: Shoe
Brennan: D SOC refers to "regular and anticipated flow of products from manufacture to distribution to retail sale. As long as a participant in this process is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise."
If D has PA'd FS, the presume reasonableness of PJ. D has BOP of showing compelling case of unreasonableness. (You don't see this in casebook, but J. Brennan says this in Burger King.
Corp: Inc.
IN REM & QIR
Does 14th am. permit the seizure? Look to Shaffer, which says to look to MC test. Scope of Shaffer unclear. Does it cover "ALL" property? Everything but real estate? Just QIR?
QIR II.A: "may" be PJ.
QIR II.B: no PJ without more
In REM: "usually" PJ
Is there a statute or rule (typically state) permitting seizure of the property?
FRCP 4(k)(2): Federal long-arm.
4(k)(1)(A) jurisdiction unavailable in ANY state court.
PJ does not violate 5th amendment DP (i.e., D has sufficient minimum contacts with USA).
FRCP 4(k)(1)(C): Use a specialized federal PJ statute.
D joined under FRCP 14 or 19
FRCP 4(k)(1)(A): Analyze PJ as the corresponding state court would, i.e., long arm + 14th am DP. Look to right side of graphic (state).
FRCP 4(n)(1): applicable federal law permitting jurisdiction over property.
Claim arises under federal law.
D served in federal judicial district
QIR I: "usually" PJ.
Efficiency
Inherent power of court
Enumerated specialized
Enumerated laundry list
Unenumerated
click to edit