Determining Personal Jurisdiction

Was D present in the forum state

when process was served on him?
There is VALID personal
jurisdiction. - Burnham
Does the forum states long arm
statue provide for jurisdiction over
D? Gray, W
!es
"o
The forum state cannot
e#ercise p.j. over D
"o
$s any of the followin% true?
-D is domiciled in forum state
&or is corp incorporated state'
-D has consented
-D owns property ( is su)ject
-D re%ularly transacts
)usiness in state
There is VALID p.j.
!es
"o
*t least some of Ds contacts
with the forum state
voluntarily?
"o
"o
D lac+s minimum contacts
with the forum and no p.j.
, need purposeful
availment - -anson
Does the cause of
action arise out of or
relate to Ds contact
*re Ds contacts
with the forum
state .systematic
and
!es
"o
/ontacts not
minimum and no
p.j.
"o
*re Ds contacts with the state sufficiently %reat
that they should )e deemed minimum contacts?
- reasona)ly anticipate be haled into court (VW
0cGee , p.j. , o)li%ation, premiums from /* residents, witness
-anson , no p.j. )1c lac+ office in 23, )usiness, creation of trust in 4*
Gray , p.j. - product .w1 contemplation of use in state5 , tort in state
W , no p.j. - car )ou%ht in "! as "! residents ( 4 )rou%ht to state
6ul+o , no p.j. - sent +ids to live w1 mom in state
6eeton , p.j. , suit related to ma%a7ine distri)ution, interest in li)el
/alder , p.j. , )runt of harm directed towards state w1 distri)ution
Bur%er , p.j. , lon% term 6, foreseea)le injury, choice of law was state
*sahi , no p.j. , no a%ree, )ut stream, volume, dan%er, value
!es
D lac!s minimum
contacts with the
forum and the forum
therefore cant
e#ercise p.j. over
"o
!es
8urisdiction reasonable, comport
with traditional notions of fair
play?
&a' Burden of D &inconvenient liti%ation'
&)' 2orum state interest
&c' $nterstate judicial efficiency
&d' 9u)stantive social policies
!es
:ven thou%h D has
minimum contacts with
due process prevents
the e#ercise of p.j.
*sahi , not reasona)le even
for Brennan
"o
"he court may
constitutionally
e#ercise p$%$
over D
!es
general
specific
Determining Diversity
Cannot be waived!!
Does at least one side
consist solely of foreign
countries or citi7ens of
forei%n countries?
2or diversity purposes, a
corp. is deemed to )e a
citi7en of;
&$ 'tate of Incorporation
($ )rincipal )lace of
$s a corporation a
"o
Alienage
%urisdiction ,
$s the suit )etween
a citi7en of a state
on one side, and a
forei%n country or
citi7ens or su)jects
The is *+
diversity
jurisdiction
!es
"o
!es
$s diversity
complete? "o 4 is a
citi7en of the same
state as any D.
9traw)rid%e, 0as
Does the amount in
controversy e#ceed
,-./000 as made in
%ood faith )y 4? 0as
<=>>?&a'
There is *+
diversity
jurisdiction
!es
"o
There I'
diversity
jurisdiction.
"o
!es
"o
!es
+ther 1ay to get 'ub%ect 2atter 3urisdiction
4ederal 5uestion 3urisdiction
-<=>>= , .actions arisin% under the
/onstitution,
@federalA laws5
-no amount in controversy reBuirement
-0ottley - must )e .Well pleaded
complaint5
-must )e a federal claim )y 4 not a
defense )y D
"o
$s an unincorporated
entity a party?
2or diversity purposes, an
unincorporated entity is
deemed to )e a citi7en of
every state 1here
members are citi6ens.
i.e. only
forei%ners
"o
/ontinue analysis
There is *+
diversity
jurisdiction
!es
<=>>? , permanent
aliens citi7ens of
domicile
7emoval
-4s choice where to file, )ut D remove state to
fed
-D cant remove if case filed in Ds state of
residence
-removal statute narrower than diversity statute
=. ) could file in fed
court - )ut filed in
state <=CC=&a'
-exception; <=CC=&)'