You are on page 1of 4

Motion Hearing #2

Parties π - Barry Kane, Alabama resident Δ - Tasty Foods, California resident Δ – Marty’s Marketing, Mexico resident. Place of Incident New Orleans, Louisiana Court Filed Federal District Court Alabama

Team A: Motion to Dismiss * As has long been settled, and as we reaffirm today, a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum State. International Shoe Co. *Tasty Foods, is located clear across the country in California. *Its primary office and its only manufacturing plant exist in CA. *Marty’s Marketing, is not even from the United States. *Neither party purposely availed himself to Alabama. NOT ONE SALE WAS MADE. * Merely causing an effect within the forum state without purposeful availment will not support jurisdiction. * The International Shoe court has held that if a corporation had had in-state activities that have been continuous and systematic, then that company has had presence in that

without additional conduct. this case fits within the rule that "minimum requirements inherent in the concept of 'fair play and substantial justice' may defeat the . WE HAVE NEITHER A CONTINUOUS OR SYSTEMATIC PATTERN IN ALABAMA. Burger King v. Concurring Justice: *This finding alone requires reversal. World Wide Volkswagen. His amenability to suit would travel with the chattel. World Wide Volkswagen. * Yet "foreseeability" alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. * The unique burdens placed upon one who must defend oneself in a foreign legal system should have significant weight in assessing the reasonableness of stretching the long arm of personal jurisdiction over national borders. * Every seller of chattels would in effect appoint the chattel his agent for service of process. Asahi. * The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirements of contact with the forum State. Hanson v. every Supreme Court was in agreement that this burden alone. * Minimum requirements inherent in the concept of “fair play and substantial justice” may defeat the reasonableness of jurisdiction even if the Δ has purposefully engaged in forum activities. thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws. World Wide Volkswagen. Rudzewiez. presented a reason not to exercise jurisdiction. It is essential in each case that there be some act by which the D purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State. * Petitioners carry on no activity whatsoever in Alabama. Denckla * A Δ’s conduct and connection with the forum state should be such that he reasonably anticipates being haled into court. They close no sales and perform no services there. is not an act on the Δ purposefully directed toward the forum state and does not establish minimum contact with the forum state.state and established a minimum contact. And in the Asahi decision. They avail themselves of none of the privileges and benefits of Alabama law. * The placement of a product into the stream of commerce.

* In Nelson v. and as we reaffirm today. from the protection which our law has given to the marketing of its product. to a degree. Even Louisiana would be more appropriate in consideration of witnesses. Grey. Team B: Opposing Motion to Dismiss * As has long been settled. Miller. * To the extent that its business may be directly affected by transactions occurring here it enjoys benefits from the laws of this State. McGee v International Life. International Shoe Co. the commission of a single tort within this State was held sufficient to sustain jurisdiction under the present statute. and it has undoubtedly benefited. International Shoe. is evidence that both companies had “additional conduct” necessary to establish a substantial connection." Burger King. With that privilege. Asahi v. *Alabama has a manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents when their insurers refuse to pay claims. *The Co’s took privilege in the state of Alabama by conducting marketing in the State. took place in Louisiana. Superior Court. quoting International Shoe Co.reasonableness of jurisdiction even if the defendant has purposefully engaged in forum activities. *The circumstances from which this suit arises from. *Both companies were able distribute their product for marketing purposes in Alabama and therefore met the additional conduct necessary to move forward with in Asahi. *The fact that many states near Alabama were distributed Cajun Spice in conjunction with the fact that Δ purposefully sought market in Alabama by distributing free samples. a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum State. Twin State Improvement Corp. * Smyth v. *Court looks to increase growth and “nationalized commerce” in the country and asserts that there has developed a trend clearly discernible toward expanding the permissible . comes obligations which require a Δ to be subject to that state’s jurisdiction.: continuous activity within the state is not necessary as a prerequisite to jurisdiction.

International Life Ins. Gray v. in its role as a guarantor against inconvenient litigation.scope of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations and other non residents.. this trend is largely attributable to a fundamental transformation in the American economy. Cf. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary . * The limits imposed on state jurisdiction by the Due Process Clause. As we noted in McGee v. McGee v. Co. International Life. have been substantially relaxed over the years. * The forum State does not exceed its powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State.