PERSONAL JURISDICTION:
GENERAL
PERSONAL
JURISDICTION (IPJ)
Constitutional
Statutory
CHART:
14th Am.GENERAL
Due ProcessPJ
Clause: (“DPC”)
notice & opportunity to be heard
Does this ∆ have sufficient connection with the FS
so that jurisdiction comports with due process?
Article IV, §1 Full Faith & Credit Clause:
full faith and credit given in each state
Deference to judgments passed in other states.
Service
Federal: FRCP 4(k)(2)
Does ∆ have sufficient contacts with the United
States as a whole? Fall back provision that ONLY
applies if there would be NO PJ under any other
provision – this is really rare because there must
be NO STATE with jurisdiction.
State: long arm statute (“LA§”)
YES
Is ∆ a resident of the
forum state (“FS”)?
Was ∆ PRESENT in
the forum state when
process was served?
YES PJ. Valid tag jurisdiction for
transient presence, regardless
of purpose. Burnham (SPLIT DECISION!)
YES
1.
YES PJ. Valid general jurisdiction.
2.
3.
Express: written in forum
selection clause Carnival Cruise, Zapata
Implied: (specific jdx) agent for
service, nonresident motorist Hess
Waived: legal submission by
coming to litigate Ireland Insurance
If ∆ is a corporation, are contacts
with FS “continuous and
systematic” as to render ∆
essentially “at home” in FS?
Goodyear, Daimler
NOTE: this is high threshold & requires
serious presence in the FS!
YES
NO
Helicopteros: purchasing/selling a lot of
product or frequently sending
employees to conduct business = NO PJ
Perkins: co. prez operating out of OH
sufficient to show general jdx = YES PJ
Does the claim arise
out of/relates to ∆’s
contact with the FS?
NO
YES
NO PJ. No in rem or
quasi in rem (“QIR”)
jurisdiction.
NO
YES
Could get in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction.
Go to MINIMUM CONTACTS analysis.
Shaffer: owning stock insufficient for PJ; Type 2 QIR
= limited. Property must be cause of claim = NO PJ
Savchuk: no QIR by attaching insurance K = NO PJ
NO PJ. No specific or
general jurisdiction.
NO
YES
Does the FS’s long
arm statute provide
PJ over ∆? FRCP 4(k)
Does own
PROPERTY in FS?
Is there an
attachment
statute?
NO
Did ∆…
CONSENT to be sued?
on service of process?
PROPERTY JURISDICTION
YES PJ. Valid general jurisdiction by
DOMICILE
Individuals
Corporations
“Domicile” Milliken Incorporation, HQ
NO
Did service comply with FRCP 4? Waiver 4(d)?
State: Did service comply with state rules
unenumerated (full extent of DPC) v. enumerated
TRADITIONAL JURISDICTION Pennoyer (sovereignty)
Federal: FRCP 4 (a-e, h, n)
Reasonably calculated under the
circumstances to give NOTICE to
interested parties Milliken
State NO PJ – must be a § basis if
non-resident ∆ not served in FS, or
NO
YES
Federal – only if jdx provided under
other FRCP 4(k) provisions, such as:
nationwide service statute (class action),
bulge rule for FRCP 14/19 joinder
Does it satisfy MINIMUM CONTACTS analysis? Burger King ** SEE MIN CONTACTS CHART!! **
International Shoe: ∆ must have sufficient minimum contacts within the FS such that
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
NO
MIN CONTACTS
MODERN TEST
NO PJ. No specific jurisdiction. ∆
has not purposefully availed
herself to the FS.
YES
NO PJ. Even though ∆ has
minimum contacts with FS, due
process prevents exercise of PJ.
Asahi: foreign ∆ burden too great
YES PJ. Valid specific jurisdiction.
Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz (SC 1985) YES PJ
NO
YES
REASONABLENESS TEST:
Does imposing jurisdiction meet the
notions of fair play and substantial
justice? Consider: Burger King
1. Burden on ∆
2. Interest of π
3. Interest of FS in adjudicating
∆ franchisee of BK in MI, stopped making payments
and continued to operate store.BK sue for breach of K in FL, choice of law clause for FL
• Brennan: (majority) FL has IPJ. Similar to WWVW (where Brennan dissented), wants choice of law closer to choice of forum
• 2-part test: Nicastro
1.
MIN CONTACTS: Has D purposefully established minimum contacts in the state?
2.
REASONABLENESS: Are notions of fair play satisfied by establishing jurisdiction there?
• Defendant’s inconvenience, plaintiff’s interest,
interstate judicial system and the shared interest of the several states
5