#11014 - Personal Jurisdiction - Civil Procedure

General in personam jurisdiction may be exercised in the state in which a corporation is incorporated and in the state of its principal place of business.

1. A corporation may have sufficient activity in other states, beyond these two, to support general jurisdiction

2. Other indicators of sufficient contacts to support general jurisdiction: permanent business location and permanent employees; extensive sales (not clear)

An individual domiciled in a state may fairly be required to defend any claim in that state.

Transient jurisdiction: the forum state has jurisdiction over the D after D is served with process while temporarily in the state for activities unrelated to the action (Burnham). D must voluntarily enter into the state (cannot be forced or induced into the state). A corporation cannot be subject to transient jurisdiction.

1. Policy arguments for transient jurisdiction:

   1. It’s a clear rule: upholding transient presence allows a state court to ignore the complicated balancing required by the International Shoe "minimum contacts" test.

   2. Although the rule may seem harsh on the D, the harshness of the "transient rule" on a defendant may be mitigated by the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

2. Policy arguments against transient jurisdiction:

   1. It will inhibit D’s right to travel. Attorneys who believe that their clients do not have "minimum contacts" with the forum state, should prudently advise them not to enter that state if they wish to avoid being subject to the state's jurisdiction through service of process.

   2. The doctrine of forum non conveniens is discretionary, and rarely will a trial court be overruled for failure to grant the defendant's motion for dismissal based on forum non conveniens.

   3. Long-arm statutes are better adapted to take into consideration fairness and convenience

   4. If "transient rule" were abolished, it would also be less likely for defendants to be subjected to an unfair choice of law

Plaintiff has the burden to establish that jurisdiction is appropriate.

When analyzing jurisdiction, start with the P. P is domiciled in the state; P waives any personal jurisdiction claim by bringing the lawsuit within the state.

Step one: Minimum contact test (International Shoe): courts of a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if she has such minimum contacts with the state that it does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to require her to return and defend a lawsuit in that state. Specific jurisdiction depends on the quality and nature of the contacts with the state. Casual and isolated contacts do not constitute minimum contact.

1. Also applicable to corporation: A corporation that chooses to conduct activities within a state accepts a reciprocal duty to answer for its instate activities in the local courts.

2. Rationale: actor that chooses to conduct activities in state accepts duty to answer for activities in that state because he implicitly enjoys benefits and protection of state’s law.

Finding minimum contacts (purposeful availment + foreseeability)

1. Purposeful availment: The defendant who purposely avails himself of the opportunity to conduct activities in a state should expect to be sued there for claims arising out of his activities in the state. (Hanson) Unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contract with the forum state. (Hanson)

   1. The D directed the activity at the forum state

2. Foreseeability: the foreseeability that the D’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into the court. (WWVW)

   1. The D knows which state his customers are resided.

3. There may be minimum contact even if D has never been in the state (Cadler)

4. Minimum contacts should be determined at the time the accident happened, not at the time of the lawsuit.

5. Contractual relationship does not necessarily mean there is minimum contact: it depends on whether negotiations were directed to the forum state, whether K requires fulfillment of contractual obligations in the forum state, and on provision in the contract (is there a forum selection clause?) Burger King

6. Stream of commerce (entry of D’s products into the forum state through commercial channels of distribution: wholesalers, etc.):

   1. Asahi OConnor opinion: a defendant that that merely sells its product to another company, without controlling where that other company would redistribute it, is not subject to jurisdiction of another state where the product is ultimately sold. Jurisdiction is based on purposeful availment, and to establish jurisdiction a defendant should establish direct contacts in the consumer’s state; establishes sales agents; advertises; has dealership networks; or makes other deliberate efforts to market its goods in the state.

   2. Asahi Brennan concurrence: sales of large quantities of product in a state, even indirectly through the stream of commerce, would support jurisdiction in that state.

   3. McIntyre plurality: there must be conduct purposefully directed at forum state in order to support forum state’s exercise of PJ over the manufacturer. It’s not enough that the manufacturer might have foreseen that goods would reach the forum state.

   4. McIntyre Breyer concurrence: an isolated sale does not support PJ over the manufacturer.

   5. McIntyre dissent: D...