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
the state. National Equip. Rental Ltd. a) Consent through FSC?2

4. Parties may also consent to jurisdiction by b) Consent through

virtues of their conduct in litigation. The S. Ct. appointment of an agent?3
held that by filing a complaint, the P consent to a c) Consent through conduct Yes
counterclaim filed against the P by the D. Adam. in litigation?4 Valid P.J.
A D has a right to object to PJ that can be waived
at any time. A failure to raise a timely objection d) Nonresident motorist
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
location a permanent home and facts indicating No
that the party had physically located there. Must No Must be a long-arm statute that
Does the long-arm statute
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 PJ contacts‖ analysis?10
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
within terms of LAS and jurisdiction is a) Burden on the D (primary No PJ. In Asahi, the S. Ct. found
constitutional (Shoe test). concern). unreasonableness b/c:

10. See Minimum Contacts Framework flowchart. b) Forum State's interest in a) Unreasonable burden to defend
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 several States in furthering when haling a foreign company
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 act No PJ
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
$250 mm over 5 years to independent Texas
Valid PJ = continuous and systematic activities Probably no PJ = continuous and systematic dealers not sufficient for GJ in Texas.
Systematic Activity

in FSt + cause of action is related to that activity activities in FSt + cause of action is not related to Bearry.
Continuous &

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

Probably PJ = sporadic activity or single act in
FSt + cause of action arises out of that activity
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
• Manufacturer sold products in Illinois
situation? Look at LAS. Still must pass two-
prong test of DPC.
E.g., Helicopteros (no PJ), see list of other cases
No PJ = Sporadic or casual activity of D in FSt +
cause of action is not related to that activity
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.
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.

or act E.g., Hanson Braband.

Or Single Act

• Hong Kong Corp. sold $35 mm of products

Specific Jurisdiction? Usually enough but still throughout U.S. and made no effort to limit
must be purposeful availment and claim must distribution to particular states; courts found
―arise out of‖ the contact, no just be ―related to‖ GJ in NC. Hayes.
• Finding GJ where D leased an office and
it. employed sales agents and clerical staff.
E.g., McGee, Helicopteros (no PJ b/c claim was Bankhead Enterprises, Inc.
―related to‖ but do not ―arise out of‖ the contact) • 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. Subsequently,
continuous and resulted in a large volume of interstate business for the D. Also, obligation M brought in personam suit against F for child support. S. Ct. ruled no PJ b/c there was
to pay unemployment taxes arose from the contacts. 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