Personal Jurisdiction 2

js5389's version from 2015-12-11 13:52

Personal Jurisdiction Pt. 2

Question Answer
THREE PROBLEMS POST-WWV1. WWV doctrine draws the line at ∆’s actions – doesn’t care about π’s!! Don’t take state’s or πs relative interest in adjudication in the forum into account
2. Rosenthal problem: an OK resident injured by the exploding car would also have to sue in NY – why can’t OK protect its citizens???
3. Brennan’s dissent: foreseeability std creates a problem for small businesses (i.e. the sandwich shop in the airport) and will have a chilling effect on their business. Brennan equates sufficiency w/necessity (just b/c there are min contacts, doesn’t mean that this is necessarily the best place for the suit)
- Ex. Burger King v. Rudzewicz: K between 2 MI residents and a FL corp to open up a BK franchise in MI. MI residents go to FL once to go to BK training and BK sues them in FL. Juris is proper here under Brennan’s reasoning, even though this obv isn’t right
Calder v. Jones FactsFL magazine wrote a defamatory story about ∆ CA entertainer; she sued in CA
Calder v. Jones Holdingjuris was proper b/c they had substantial circulation in CA (purposeful availment) and didn’t violate FPSJ b/c the harm was targeted at the CA forum (about a CA entertainer concerning her actions in CA --> “effects test” [the effects of the harm are felt in CA, so ∆ is liable in CA])
Keeton v. Hustler Factsπ sues Hustler in NH where ∆ has some circulation b/c it’s the most π-friendly forum and the only one in which the statute hadn’t run.
Keeton v. Hustler HoldingUnder Calder, juris is proper b/c there was circulation (purposeful availment) and π was defamed to readers in NH (targeting the forum, FPSJ)
ReemsHarry Reems sued in TN for violating TN obscenity law by his performance in a movie; juris found proper b/c he received royalties from showings in TN
- Highlights the problem of libel tourism/states not being able to protect their ∆’s from being held to foreign stds
(Zippo test)- When you’re ordering something (active website – one you can interact with) you pull the internet seller into your forum (i.e. eBay, Amazon)
- When you just post something online (passive website – only provides info), we don’t know where the forum is!
- Middle ground: if information exchange is possible (you post, and others in the forum can respond,) then need to examine nature of and extent of exchange.
Pavlovich v. Superior Court Factsπ’s operating scheme to share open source code to decrypt DVD data. DVD industry sues in CA, saying the effects were felt here b/c the majority of the industry is here (Calder effects test) and clearly ∆ wanted to release this code to hurt us. Π said he was just posting the code and had no control over what others did with it. π’s only “contact” with CA forum was the posting; he currently lives in TX and created the site when he was a student in IN
Pavlovich v. Superior Court Holdingyou can sue π where the stuff was uploaded, but b/c this was a passive website, π’s posting did not satisfy the minimum contacts analysis
Pavlovich v. Superior Court TakeawayTHIS IS MEANINGLESS --> once you upload something, its in play everywhere. This isn’t fair! And this opinion makes no sense – shows us S.Ct. is at a loss re: internet juris
Asahi v. Superior Court FactsOriginal CA resident π injured in CA in motorcycle accident. Sues Honda, who impleads Cheng Shin (Japanese tire manu), who in turn impleads Asahi (Taiwanese manu of valve for tires). Π-Honda case settles out, so all that’s left is the indemnity suit btwn Cheng Shin and Asahi in CA state ct
Asahi v. Superior Court (Stevens) Controlling OpinionFPSJ is not satisfied, so no jurisdiction over Asahi
- Stevens doesn’t want to get into min contacts; like Brennan, thinks it’s a threshold inquiry and all the play is in the FPSJ. Stevens says when you’re dealing with a “thick stream” of commerce, presume min contacts is met and proceed to FPSJ – you’re asking all the same questions anyway
FPSJ BALANCING TEST(Matthews test redux) – turns FPSJ into a DP question
1. ∆’s burden (here, high b/c Asahi is small and from Taiwan)
2. π’s interest (here, low b/c π is Cheng Shin [from Japan])
3. State’s interest (here, low b/c CS and A not CA residents and k not governed by CA law)
4. Systematic efficiency (allow random Asians to go forward on an indemnity claim in CA state court does not promote systemic efficiency
- Like w/ Mathews, collapse the minimum contacts inquiry into this element
O’Connor’s PluralityNo minimum contacts --> raised the minimum contacts inquiry to a much more rigorous std than just a threshold inquiry
- Purposeful availment requires that you direct your product toward the forum, not just that it is foreseeable that it would end up there through the stream of commerce (“more rigorous form of WWV std”)
Brennan’s PluralityYes minimum contacts b/c stream of commerce
- On the facts presented, it is inconceivable that Asahi could think the end market was Taiwan or even Japan --> they knew the product would ultimately be marketed in a foreign forum, so it was foreseeable that when they placed their valves in the stream of commerce, they might end up in CA
TAKEAWAY FROM ASAHI1. Reviving the importance of FPSJ and making minimum contacts a low, threshold inquiry that is easily satisfied (all the play is in the FPSJ balancing test)
2. WWV is still good law b/c the one car was an isolated incident, and therefore not a “thick stream,” so did not constitute purposeful availment by Stevens’ std here
3. A “vindication” of Justice Black’s concern that FPSJ can preclude juris even when there are minimum contacts (with Brennan/Stevens analysis)
REMAINING PROBLEMS AFTER ASAHI1. Private ordering (now anyone can be haled into court! How do we order our lives w/this uncertainty?)
2. Balancing test creates unpredictable results (especially clear in internet cases)
3. Problem of the foreign ∆ (magnet forum problem – how do we order foreign entities some measure of protection; flip side is we can’t protect our own citizens from libel tourism, etc)
Burnham v. Superior Court FactsParties were married in WV, moved to NJ and had 2 kids, then decided to get divorced and agreed to do so in NJ under irrec diffs; wife left and hub filed under desertion and didn’t try to serve her, so wife filed for divorce in CA, where she had moved w/ the kids. Hub went to CA on business and also saw the kids, was served when dropping daughter off w/mom.
Burnham v. Superior Court Controlling Opinion (Stevens)1. in state service satisfies due process
- Stevens basically says everyone is right! Scalia, Brennan, and White (White just says this seems to make sense)
- Issacharoff: this is the worst S.Ct. opinion ever (pre-McIntyre)
Scalia (constitution = compact)ANY personal service satisfies due process and establishes personal jurisdiction
- Look back to the traditional common law territorial notion of juris (Pennoyer) – in state service has always been considered to establish juris, so no need to question it now
- Don’t even need to go to FPSJ b/c that was simply developed as a stand-in for Pennoyer factors in a modern world --> if you have 1/3 Penn factors, you have juris
Brennan (constitution = blueprint)whenever you enter a forum, you are purposefully availing yourself of its resources (by driving on the road, etc, you avail yourself of forum’s “benefits” i.e. hospitals, public utilities, so you are also subject to its obligations)
- Under this standard, there are no circumstances under which someone served while in a forum state would not be subject to that forum’s jurisdictional powers
Burnham TakeawayIf you’re in the state just one time, you can be subject to jurisdiction there, even if the reason you were in the state was completely transactionally unrelated to the activity that gave rise to the suit
Walden v. Fiore Factsπs (fiores)had large amount of cash seized at airport in Ga., Filed suit in Nevada, alleging that cash was seized without probable cause, delays in returning, etc.
Walden v. Fiore HoldingNo jurisdiction in Nev for Ga. resident. Π cannot be only link between ∆ and forum. Relationships must arise out of contacts ∆ himself has with state. Distinguished from Calder because effects felt not just on Shirley Jones, but on Cal. residents generally. Since libel harm only occurs when people read it, that is when harm is perpetrated. Πs just happened to be in Nev., otherwise no specific connection to state.
J.McIntyre v. Nicastro Factsπ in New Jersey injured hand while operating metal-shearing machines produced by ∆ in UK and sold through ∆s exclusive American distributor. ∆ challenged NJs right to exercise personal jurisdiction.
J.McIntyre v. Nicastro HoldingNew Jersey is without power to adjudge the rights and liabilities of J. Mcintyre, and its exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process. ∆s actions not his expectations empower a State’s courts to subject him to judgment. Says that while there may be purposeful availment of US market, not one in NJ. At no time did ∆ engage in activities in NJ that reveal an intent to benefit from protection of NJ laws.
J.McIntyre v. Nicastro Concurrence thinks majority is too absolute. In this case, single isolated sale makes jurisdiction improper but there are many types of manufacturers and it is less fair to some ∆s than others to travel to foreign markets
J.McIntyre v. Nicastro Dissent∆ targeted US, never purposefully avoided NJ. Fundamentally unfair to US πs. Burden should go on manufacturer. Can’t use legal fiction to avoid jurisdiction in all places.

General Jursidiction

Question Answer
Daimler v. Bauman Factsπ (Argentinian residents) sue ∆ (German car manufacturer) in Cal. courts for human rights violations in Argentina. Π says ∆ should be subject to general personal jurisdiction because of California contacts of MBUSA, which is Daimler subsidiary. Incorporated in Delaware; Principal place of business NJ.
Daimler v. Bauman HoldingGeneral Personal Jurisdiction cannot be justified since there is not principal place of business for either Daimler or mBUSA in Cal. ∆ not “at home” in California. Asks the question: Where is the best place for the lawsuit? We don’t use Asahi, because Asahi is related to specific jurisdiction.
Daimler v. Bauman Concurrence (Sotomayor)Wants to apply Asahi test. (would lead to same result). Concerned about small companies.
Goodyear v. Brown Factsπ’s kids were killed in a car accident in France as a result of negligently manu’d tires. Π’s sued Goodyear USA (OH corp), which did not contest juris [SI: unclear why not] and its three euro subsidiaries that operate in Turkey, France, and Luxembourg in North Carolina.
Goodyear v. Brown Holdingno specific juris b/c the accident occurred in France and the tires alleged to cause it were manu’d abroad (no transactional relation btwn activity and forum). NO GENERAL JURIS b/c they are “in no sense at home in the forum”
Shaffer v. HeitnerQuasi in rem action; π sues stock certificates physically located in DE. Jurisdiction is denied. SI says this is right, otherwise it would create general jurisdiction over everybody. Jurisdiction is always subject to Due Process balancing.
HertzCorps are domiciled in:
1. Their place of incorporation (usually Delaware)
2. Their main place of business


Question Answer
Attack1. Analyze minimum contacts under O’C (rigorous min contacts) and Brennan (threshold min contacts)
2. Then do the Asahi FPSJ balancing test
3. Then look to McIntyre to see if that changes anything