Jurisdiction Over Person

JURISDICTION OVER PERSON SPECIFIC: a single act or continuous but limited contacts, ∆ can be sued ONLY for a claim that arose in the forum

Long Arm Statutes: Must look at this first  constitutionality First look to see if there is a long arm statute for the state Statute takes jurisdiction over you itself, can’t grab more authority however than constitution allows FR 4k1d However in some cases the statute may limit jurisdictional power Argue convenience factors and minimal contacts statute that lists various things that could subject the ∆ to jurisdiction GENERAL: ∆ has continous and systematic ties with the forum, substantial ties

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Power is given to courts through article 3 section 2 of the constitution Personal jurisdiction can be achieved in 6 ways: service within the state and fairness appearance in state court FR 12g and h attachment of property with in the state with relevance to litigation resident of state consent minimum contacts: as to not offend notions of fair play and substantial justice 1st look at: personal availment AND forseeability NEXT: fairness factors Constitutionality POWER OVER PERSON: (In personam jurisdiction) TRADITIONAL BASES FOR PERSONAL JURISDICITON 1) ∆ served with process within state 2) service on ∆s agents/ appearance in state court 3) resident/ domiciled in state 4) consent- implied OR express Pennoyer v Neff: PRESENCE: PJ limited to boundaries of the state, full faith and credit clause of constitution article 4 – if valid jurisdiction sister states must enforce judgment of other states International Shoe v. Washington: MINIMUM CONTACTS Courts of a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if she has such minimum contacts with the state that it would not offend notions of fair play and substantial justice; minimum contacts jurisdiction is limited to claims arising from the defendant's contacts with the forum state Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz: Specific Jurisdiction: SINGLE ACT  PERSONAL JURISDICTION A single act because of their "quality and nature" will support "specific in personam jurisdiction" Continuous but limited activity in the forum state, such as an ongoing business relationship, will also support specific jurisdiction Due process protects you from a gross forum, but not one that is merely incovenenient.

McGee v International Shoe and Hanson v. Denckla: PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT The defendant must have "purposely avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws." - defendant must have made a deliberate choice to relate to the state in some meaningful way before it can be made to bear the burden of defending there (reaching in) World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson: FORSEEABILITY: Defendant must have sought direct benefits activities in the state sufficient to require it to submit to jurisdiction there. (Here no benefits were sought in Oklahoma so there was no personal jurisdiction) you can have all fairness factors, but if you have no personal availment then no jurisdiction Burnham v. Superior Court of California: SERVICE IN STATE (NO LAW B/C SPLIT) TRADTIONAL BASIS ENOUGH SAID 4 Jurisdiction based on in-state service only requires that the defendant be present in the state at the time that the summons and complaint are served upon her. In such cases, the defendant need not have had any contact with the state at the time of the events giving rise to the suit. (Presence is a basis alone  minimum contacts not necessary) DISSENT But other justices in dissent wanted fairness also incorporated. It doesn’t matter that he was served in forum  minimum contacts must still be evaluated Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court: STREAM OF COMMERCE (NO LAW B/C SPLIT) When an out-of-state component manufacturer sells  manufacturer of a finished product outside of the state  That manufacturer then incorporates the component into the finished product  distributes the product to the forum state. MINORITY (4) Sending goods into the stream of commerce constitutes "purposeful availment" whether or not the original maker knows that the goods will be sold in a particular state or cultivates customers there. Thus even though you have personal availment if you have no fairness factors  no jurisdiction SPLIT (4) Mere awareness that the stream of commerce may sweep goods into the state after they leave the defendant's hands does not suffice to satisfy "purposeful availment" - need clearer evidence that defendant seeks to serve the market in the particular state. Carnival Cruise Lines Inc. v Shute: CONSENT A defendant can consent to jurisdiction by giving express consent - by contract - appointment of agent to accept service of process - implied consent - consent by voluntary appearance - no challenge to personal jurisdiction made Consent by clause: must show two things 1. The forum state chosen is for good reason 2. the ticket contract was obtained with out fraud or over reaching (not unreasonable) CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS: 1. Do any of the TRADITIONAL BASES apply?  If no, move on… 2. MINIMUM CONTACTS analysis: - Relevant contact with forum  purposeful availment AND forseeability that ∆ would be sued in the forum state.

3. If yes  look at fairness factors FAIRNESS FACTORS: (these are used to define fair play and substantial justice) 1. Relatedness: does the Πs claim arise from the ∆s contact with the forum? - no relatedness with general jurisdiction 2. Is it convenient for defendant? (Burger King: tough standard) 3. Does the forum state have an interest? (McGee) 4. Is it convenient to plaintiff? 5. Is there efficiency of litigation? 6. Interstate interest in shared substantive policies? There is a preference to let the ocurt whose law is being applied to hear the case.