Personal Jurisdiction 1

js5389's version from 2015-12-10 21:30

Personal Jurisdiction

Specific Jurisdiction


Three types of specific jurisdiction:
Question Answer
In personamexercised over a person in his capacity as a citizen of the forum state
In remexercised over land/“real property” w/in a state (land/person’s rights to the land in dispute)
- Usually ends with default judgment
Quasi in remtrying to sue a person so you use the fact that their land is in the forum to get to them
- Unlike w/ in rem, the land is not the source of the controversy – you can’t find the actual person, and you’re using the land to try to get them to come back to the forum
—In olden days, this wouldn’t have been cool, b/c ∆’s coming into a forum even to contest a claim would have been considered to have consented to juris; now w/alternative pleading, you can come to the forum w/o consenting


Question Answer
Dual sovereigntywe have state (general jurisdiction) and federal (limited jurisdiction) --> we give federal courts the same jurisdiction power as the highest state court (SDNY = NY Ct of Appeals)
Mobile society14% of US population moves every year, and people go from state to state; constitution protects right to interstate travel so we have to anticipate people moving in a way that medieval English gov’t did not
a. Cars – mobile torts (made for a mobile population, enables travel)
b. Corporations – mobile breach of k (no physical presence, “a legal fiction”)
c. Internet – mobile tort and breach! Yo its errywhere, S.Ct. don’t know what to do


Question Answer
Pennoyer v. Neff FactsIndigent Neff makes a k with lawyer Mitchell in OR, then peaces out to CA w/o paying (breaches the k); pursuant to OR breach of k law, Mitchell files suit in OR, posts notice in local newspaper and on a plot of land Neff owns in OR. Neff obv doesn’t see this, ct enters default judgment, land is auctioned off to pay Mitchell’s fees and sold to Pennoyer. Neff comes back and is like dude where’s my land?
Pennoyer v. Neff HoldingOR court did not have personal jurisdiction over Neff now that he lives in CA
- Zero-sum problem: to the extent CA allows OR to come in and exact judgment against a CA resident, it is that much less a sovereign; to the extent OR cannot protect its citizens in a breach of k case that occurred in OR and is governed by OR law, OR is that much less a sovereign
Pennoyer conditions for personal jurisdiction (need at least 1 to estab personal juris)1. Domiciliary
2. In state personal service
3. Consent to jurisdiction
Hess v. Pawloski FactsPA resident crashes into MA resident’s car on MA highway and then goes back to PA. MA statute says that if you drive on MA roads, you implicitly consent to MA juris via MA appointing a state agent to serve as recipient for in-state service (creating a “fiction” around 2/3 of the Penn factors). You also receive notice by registered mail and ct cannot act against you until you return acknowledgement of receipt of notice
Hess v. Pawloski Factsthere is jurisdiction b/c of implicit consent
Hess v. Pawloski Takeawayswhat is ACTUALLY happening here is ct is saying juris is ok b/c notice requirement of due process has been satisfied; the only meaningful notice is the mailed one, which satisfies none of the Pennoyer factors
Long-Arm Statutesgives forum states jurisdiction over actors for acts occurring outside the forum state when those acts cause harms w/in the forum state
- - This allowed states to satisfy the Pennoyer conditions and DP notice req w/o so much formalism --> essentially, SI reads this as: “you’re on notice that the constitution applies to you!” [i.e. if you cause a harm somewhere, you can get haled into court there --> these have begun to create a zero-sum problem as well]
Gray v. American Radiator∆ manu’d radiator part in OH that was used in a radiator in IL (neither sale nor manu occurred in IL – purchaser brought it in there). Ct found juris under a long-arm statute
- Sounds like Brennan’s foreseeability/stream of commerce test in WWV
International Shoe v. Washington FactsShoe incorp’d in DE, HQ in MO, has salesman in WA who set up showrooms there, etc. WA says you’re here enough that you should have to pay unemployment benefits for your workers. WA serves salesperson (this does not count! These people do not rep the corp) and also mails service to MO HQ.
International Shoe v. Washington HoldingCt claims not to overturn Pennoyer, says that juris can be based on Shoe’s transactions in the state that give rise to the suit. (basically, WA can’t look at Shoe’s articles of incorporation, but a person who buys a shoe in WA can sue Shoe in WA! --> transactionally related)
International Shoe Standard for personal jurisdiction1. ∆ must have minimum contacts with the forum
- Asks: did the activity that is the basis of the suit occur in some relation to the forum?
- Relies on purposeful availment – did the ∆ go into the forum intending to use its resources to obtain some benefit? If yes, then purposeful availment and therefore minimum contacts
2. Jurisdiction must not interfere w/ traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
- “Indicia” of fairness in Shoe: purposeful availment, balance of inconvenience on parties (Shoe already has a presence in the forum), continuous and “systematic and contiuous presence” (we know from Hess that one contact is enough b/c you can’t just get freebie torts, but here it shows fairness –you’re here a lot, so pay for your ppl)
Justice Black’s dissent expressed concern for FPSJ std: said it was “mush,” and that “states have power to tax and sue those dealing with its citizens w/in its boundaries;” said there should only be minimum contacts, and that FPSJ could create a zero-sum problem w/states not being able to protect their residents
- Issacharoff: Black was wrong!! States courts will always lean toward an expansion of jurisdiction when it’s a question of protecting citizens against out of state actors who inflict injury upon them in the forum state (duh, this is what it means to get home-towned)
McGee v. International Life Factsmom of CA resident policy holder sues ∆ insurance co based in TX in CA to recover a policy payout. CA ct rules for mom; ∆ challenges [collateral challenge] CA juris, π goes to TX to try to get j’mt enforced.
McGee v. International Life HoldingCA juris was proper even though ∆ only had one contact with the state (this one insurance policy w/this one guy, that they only got b/c they bought a co that insured him --> the reinsurement counts as purposeful availment; doesn’t violate FPSJ b/c ∆ is a big company and have to enforce under full faith and credit if CA juris is proper)
McGee v. International Life Takeawayby McGee, there were 9 different factors weighing in on the minimum contacts analysis --> Scalia says any time you have more than 3, you have mush.
- Shit was gettin’ cray with McGee --> only one tiny insurance k establishes minimum contacts?? It has to end somewhere!! Start to see the limit in Worldwide Volkswagen
World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodsen FactsRobinsons (NY residents) buy a car in NY and it explodes in OK while driving it to their new home in AZ. Want to keep case in OK state ct b/c its particularly π-friendly; sue foreign manu and importer (who consent to juris), as well as NY-based dealership (Seaway) and regional distrib (WWV) in the hopes of defeating juris (R’s still considered NY doms b/c hadn’t reached AZ yet).
World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodsen Holdingno personal juris in OK over NY dealer and distrib b/c chattel driven juris does not satisfy min contacts (stream of commerce ends when chattel reaches the ultimate consumer --> R’s brought car to OK by their own unilateral activity; ∆’s did not purposefully avail themselves of the forum)
World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodsen Takeawaypurposeful availment now becomes the std for minimum contacts
Two distinct views arise out of WWV1. Majority holding: purposeful availment = targeting the forum
- Advertising in the forum
- Other k’s in the forum (reciprocity argument --> ∆ benefits from rights in forum, so all subject to obligations in forum)
- Design the product for specific use in a particular forum
— W/o these, no purposeful availment, and no minimum contacts

2. Brennan’s dissent: emphasis on foreseeability/stream of commerce
- Once you inject a product into the stream of commerce, you are liable in whatever distant forum it is reasonably foreseeable that your product will be used