Personal Jurisdiction

Footnotes: No Must be a long-arm statute that

Is there a long-arm statute
allows for assertion of PJ over
1. All states have some kind of statute that allows providing for jurisdiction?8,9
non-resident Ds.
for a traditional basis for asserting jurisdiction.
Yes
2. A person may consent to PJ long in advance of
the litigation. Sometimes parties to a contract Was D present in the FSt Yes Valid PJ even for transient
agree to litigate only in a designated forum. when process was served on presence and regardless of
Such provisions have been upheld even if it is him? purpose. Burnham.
burdensome for one party. Carnival Cruise
Lines. No

3. Consent to jurisdiction can be manifested by Are any of the following true?

appoint of an agent for service of process within
a) Consent through FSC?2
the state. National Equip. Rental Ltd.
b) Consent through
4. Parties may also consent to jurisdiction by
appointment of an agent?3
virtues of their conduct in litigation. The S. Ct.
held that by filing a complaint, the P consent to c) Consent through conduct Yes
a counterclaim filed against the P by the D. in litigation?4 Valid P.J.
Adam. A D has a right to object to PJ that can be
waived at any time. A failure to raise a timely d) Nonresident motorist
objection constitutes a waiver statute applies?5

5. All states have nonresident motorist statutes e) D is domiciled in FSt?6

similar to Hess. An example of implied consent f) State of incorporation or
and specific jurisdiction. principal place of business?7
6. The intent of the individual to make a particular
No
location a permanent home and facts indicating
that the party had physically located there. No Must be a long-arm statute that
Does the long-arm statute
Must be at the time the cause of action arose. allows for assertion of PJ over
provide for these contacts?8,9
Milliken. A state can assert jurisdiction to non-resident Ds.
dissolve a marriage if either spouse is domiciled
Yes
there.
No
7. Weigh nerve center v. place of activity. Olson. Is there a purposeful No PJ; must be “purposeful
See Subject Matter Jurisdiction flowchart. availment?10 availment.” Hanson.

8. Some are enumerated acts and some are Yes

coextensive with 14th Amendment. Most LAS
No
are not D friendly. Usually must defeat by Satisfies “minimum
No PJ. Shoe.
showing LAS is unconstitutional. Most allow contacts” analysis?10
PJ for tortious acts committed w/in the FSt and
for tortious injury in the FSt caused by an act or Yes
omission outside of the FSt. Argue both.
Is jurisdiction reasonable?
9. Every state has one. PJ is only proper if falls
a) Burden on the D (primary No PJ. In Asahi, the S. Ct. found
within terms of LAS and jurisdiction is
concern). unreasonableness b/c:
constitutional (Shoe test).
b) Forum State's interest in a) Unreasonable burden to defend
10. See Minimum Contacts Framework flowchart.
adjudicating the dispute. on foreign soil.

No c) P’s interest in obtaining b) Forum does not have a

Does the D own convenient and effective reasonable interest in adjudicating
No
property in FSt? relief. a dispute between two foreign
companies over an claim that
No in rem or d) Interstate judicial system’s arose from an action that took
QIR interest in obtaining the most place in Taiwan
jurisdiction. efficient resolution of
controversies. c) P was not a resident of the FSt.
Is there an
attachment statute? e) Shared interest of the d) Great care must be exercised
No when haling a foreign company
several States in furthering
fundamental substantive into a US court
Yes
social policies.

Could get in rem or Yes

QIR jurisdiction; go
to minimum Valid P.J.
contacts analysis.
 Minimum Contacts Framework
No
Was there a purposeful availment?
a) Were the contacts the result of the unilateral activity of the P? It is essential that there be some No PJ
act by which the D purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the
FSt, thus invoking the benefit and protection of its laws.
b) Are the D’s conduct and connection with the FSt such that he should reasonably anticipate being
haled to court there?
c) Did D deliberately engage in significant activities within the FS or has he created continuing
obligations between himself and resident of the FSt? General Jurisdiction Cases
• D has 17 to 21 employees in the forum and
annual sales there of $9 to $13 mm; no GJ.
Yes Nichols.
Related/Arises Not Related • Manufacturer’s sales in products worth
Valid PJ = continuous and systematic activities in Probably no PJ = continuous and systematic $250 mm over 5 years to independent Texas
FSt + cause of action is related to that activity activities in FSt + cause of action is not related to dealers not sufficient for GJ in Texas.
Systematic Activity

Bearry.
E.g., Shoe that activity • Noting that sales in NH of 10k to 15k
Continuous &

Probably PJ = sporadic activity or single act in FSt + No PJ = Sporadic or casual activity of D in FSt +
cause of action arises out of that activity or act
Specific Jurisdiction? Usually enough but still
Sporadic, Casual
General Jurisdiction? Contacts must be substantial
or domiciled. Left up to the FSt. When would a FSt
want to assert PJ in this situation? Look at LAS.
Still must pass two-prong test of DPC.
E.g., Helicopteros (no PJ), see list of other cases
cause of action is not related to that activity
E.g., Hanson
copies per month of a magazine “may not
be so substantial as to support jurisdiction
over a cause of action unrelated to those
activities.” Keeton.
• Manufacturer sold products in Illinois
through independent dealer and sponsored
sales promotions in Illinois; dealer was
required to perform warranty work on all of
manufacturer’s products and to make
records and facilities available for
manufacturer’s inspection; court held
manufacturer subject to GJ in Illinois.

Braband.
Or Single Act

must be purposeful availment and claim must “arise • Hong Kong Corp. sold $35 mm of products
out of” the contact, no just be “related to” it. throughout U.S. and made no effort to limit
E.g., McGee, Helicopteros (no PJ b/c claim was distribution to particular states; courts found
GJ in NC. Hayes.
“related to” but do not “arise out of” the contact) • Finding GJ where D leased an office and
employed sales agents and clerical staff.
Bankhead Enterprises, Inc.
• Finding GJ over foreign airline which
maintained one and a half room office and
employed several people. Bryant.
• Finding no GJ over Wal-Mart in Texas
despite D’s operating 264 large stores.
Follette.

Valid PJ No PJ
Shoe – Retailer; Systematic and continuous acts Kulko – Domestic Relations; No purposeful availment
Summary: S. Ct. ruled contacts (salesmen based in the state) were systematic and Summary: Divorced father sent children to go live w/ the mother in Calif.
continuous and resulted in a large volume of interstate business for the D. Also, obligation Subsequently, M brought in personam suit against F for child support. S. Ct. ruled no PJ
to pay unemployment taxes arose from the contacts. b/c there was no purposeful act and no economic benefit.

McGee – Insurance K; Single act WWV – Products liability; No purposeful availment

Summary: S. Ct. sustained a state’s assertion of jurisdiction over a nonresident D whose
only contacts with the state were its issuance of an insurance policy sued upon to a state
resident and its receipt of policy premium payments from that resident.
Burger King – K; Continuous obligations
Summary: S. Ct. looked at the entire contractual relationship. Must look at the prior
negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the K and the
parties’ actual course of dealings. D agreed to choice-of-law provision, which require
litigation in Fla. S. Ct. cited it as a factor, but not dispositive.
Keeton – Libel; Tortious out-of-state conduct
Summary: P, citizen of NY, brought suit in NH solely b/c of long statute of limitations. S.
Ct. upheld. P alleged article defamed her in NH. S. Ct. upheld b/c cause of action arose out
of the contacts and the FSt had interest in cooperating w/ other states to provide forum for
litigation in unitary proceedings
Calder – Libel; [Intentional] Tortious out-of-state conduct
Summary: P brought suit against a writer and editor, both citizens of Fla., claiming they
wrote a defamatory article about her. The Ds had never visited Calif. in connection w/ the
article and it was produced in Fla. Article was published nationwide. S. Ct. upheld
jurisdiction b/c the harm was suffered in FSt. Jurisdiction is based on the “effects” of their
Florida conduct in California. The Ds should anticipate being haled into court there.
Actions from outside the state that has foreseeable tortious effects inside the state can be a
basis for asserting jurisdiction.
Burnham – Divorce; Transient presence
Summary: A husband filed for divorce in New Jersey; she subsequently filed for divorce in
California. During a three-day stay in California while on business, he swung by Ms.
Burnham's residence to visit his children. Even though these were his only contacts, notions
of tradition and b/c he was not an absentee D, persuaded the Court to rule that “tag”
jurisdiction was permissible. No precedential value. Make sure to argue concurring
opinions.
Summary: S. Ct. ruled no valid PJ over NY auto retailer and regional distributor b/c
neither of those Ds had purposefully attempted to serve the OK market. It was not
sufficient the Ds might derive revenue and benefit from the fact that the cars are mobile
and thus could be used in OK. The unilateral activity of the P in driving to OK could
not be used assert PJ—it was the D’s conduct that was crucial.
Helicopteros – In-state purchase; No general jurisdiction
Summary: S. Ct. ruled that purchases and related trips standing alone, are not a sufficient
basis for a FS’s assertion of PJ. Even if these purchases happened at regular intervals,
they are not enough if the cause of action is not related to these transactions. The brief
presence of the D’s employees in Texas for the purpose of attending the training sessions
is not enough either.
Shaffer – Attachment of intangible property; QIR type 2; Also not
reasonable
Summary: P brought a derivative shareholders’ suit by attaching the stock of non-
resident directors. The situs of the stock was deemed to be in Delaware (SOI). The
company’s PPB was in Arizona. The D argued that this assertion of QIR jurisdiction
violated their DPC rights b/c they had no other contacts with Delaware. The S. Ct.
struck down jurisdiction and ruled that all actions, including in-rem and QIR ones,
adjudicated interests in people. Therefore, the same test used for in personam
jurisdiction must be used for in rem or QIR jurisdiction, which is the minimum contacts
test of Shoe and its progeny.
Asahi – Sales into FSt; Not reasonable
Summary: Majority of S. Ct. felt there were minimum contacts. D put goods into the
stream of commerce with the knowledge that they were regularly sold in the FSt. D
benefited economically from such acts. However, there was no additional conduct such
as designing the product for the market in the FS, advertising in the FS, establishing
channels for providing regular advice in the FS, marketing the product through a
distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the FSt. No precedential value.
Argue other opinions.

Hess – Non-resident motorist statute; Implied consent Hanson – Trust; No purposeful availment