1) Statutory Analysis of PJ Personal Jurisdiction 'Cause every party needs some PJ

Subject
1) Does the state's long-arm statute permit PJ? Matter
Const. Due Process sets
- It almost guaranteed will for purpose of the exam. Write Const. Limit.
outer bounds of PJ
about that shit anyway for points.
Stat. Limit sets inner
- Sets the inner bounds.
bounds of PJ
- Per FCRP Rule 4(k), if the state can exercise PJ, a Fed.
? must be w/n both
district court within that state can as well. Stat. Limit
Personal
Venue
Jurisdiction
2) Constitutional Due Process Analysis
? must be here
Step 2: Does a traditional basis of jurisdiction apply?
- Is ? domiciled in the forum?
Yes. In Rem & Quasi in Rem:
- Was ? served w/ process inside the forum?
- A registered agent of corp. ? served w/ process inside - After Shafer, IR & QIR also now
the forum? require (for intanglibe property):
Step 2a: Note Split in Authority Burnham (1) A relevant "attachment"
- Did ? otherwise consent to personal jurisdiction in the
- Scalia +3 say that traditional basis alone is sufficient statute
for Personal Jurisdiction; BUT (2) Attachment must occur at
No. - Brennan + 3 say that an Int'l Shoe Test still required. outset of case
(3) A Shoe minimum contacts
Step 3: Do the Shoe ("minimum contacts analysis") test must be performed.

Under both of these, weigh the relevant factors on sides both FOR & AGAINST on test to score max points
First, was there purposeful availment? Second, is foreseeability met?
- ? must "reach out" into the forum 1) Must be foreseeable that ? would get sued in the forum state (not just
- The unilateral actions of another are insufficient foreseeable that product would get there); AND
Calder Effects Test: 2) Stream of Commerce Analysis. Asahi McIntyre SPLIT IN AUTHORITY
Are actions TARGETED at forum state & cause + (2a) Brennan "SoC" Theory: There is a contact if product put into SoC and the
EFFECTS there? manufacturer/ seller could REASONABLE ANTICIPATE it would get to the
Walden 2014: Must target state itself, not just forum state.
people domiciled there. Airport police case. (2b) O'Connor "Soc +" Theory: The manufacturer must have specifically
TARGETED the forum state (advertisements, special edition, customer
Shoe Part 1: Internet? SEE BELOW FOR SCALE service, etc)
Is there a
Internet Sliding Scale Contacts Test; Zippo Test adopted by Pavlovich. Has not been adopted by SCOTUS.
Insufficient Contacts

? simply posted information
on a website that does little
more than make information
avaliable to those who are
interested in it; is not grounds
for the exercise of PJ.
"interactive websites where a
user can exchange info w/ a
host computer. Exercise of PJ
is determined by examining
the level of inteactivity and
the commerical nature of the
exchange of information"
Sufficient Contacts
"? clearly does business over the
Internet. If ? does business w/
residents of foreign jurisdiction that
involve the knowing and repeated
transmission of computer files over
the internent, PJ is proper

General for People: Is ? at General for Corps: Contacts must be

MUST now find home here or served in the "continuous and systematic" to point of being
No. general OR
state? "at home" though so far only state of
Shoe Part 2: jurisdiction incorporation and PPoB ("nerve center"/
Primary inquiry: Does the
Asses headquarters) recognized.
? 's claim arise from the ? 's
relatedness
contact with the forum?
of contact
Can be either
Yes.
specific or general
DO NOT FORGET: LITIGATING
JURISDICTION
If ? does not challenge the jurisdiction
Five Fairness Factors: Remember BK. Fairness irrelevant if no relevant contacts. in his first motion/ answer to the court,
(1) Forum is unconstitutionally, heinously burdensome for ? . ? bears the burden of it is COMPLETELY WAIVED per Rule
showing this. This is probably the most important of these factors, though court does not 12(h).
Shoe Part 3: indicate.
Fair Play & (2) Forum's interest in hearing claim. If the forum state has interest in protecting its DO NOT FORGET
Substantial citizens from scams or otherwise. Keeton v. Hustler - State interst in not having fraudulent Also keep in mind the availability of IR
Justice info published. and QiR to get some form of
Assessment (3) ? 's interest in the forum state. Ex, ? may have suffered injury & cannot travel. jurisdiction if facts mention property in
ONLY FOR (4) Legal system's interest in efficiency. Ex, PJ may be good if all witnesses and evidence the forum state.
SPECIFIC PJ are in the forum area
(5) Shared substantive policies of the states. Kulko all states have interest in "preserving
family harmony" otherwise court has been super vauge on this one.

Ultimately: If there is a relevant contact, the suit is based on it, and the fairness factors do not weigh against PJ in the forum, jurisdiction is PROPER.