Determining Personal Jurisdiction

Was D present in the forum state when process was served on him?

Yes

There is VALID personal jurisdiction. - Burnham

No
Does the forum states long arm statue provide for jurisdiction over D? Gray, VW Is any of the following true? -D is domiciled in forum state (or is corp incorporated state) -D has consented -D owns property & is subject -D regularly transacts business in state

No

The forum state cannot exercise p.j. over D

Yes

Yes

There is VALID p.j.

No At least some of Ds contacts with the forum state voluntarily? Does the cause of action arise out of or relate to Ds contact with forum state Yes specific No
general

No

Yes

D lacks minimum contacts with the forum and no p.j. need purposeful availment - Hanson

Are Ds contacts with the forum state systematic No and continuous? Helicopteros Yes No

Contacts not minimum and no p.j.

Yes

Are Ds contacts with the state sufficiently great that they should be deemed minimum contacts? - reasonably anticipate be haled into court (VW) McGee p.j. obligation, premiums from CA residents, witness Hanson no p.j. b/c lack office in FL, business, creation of trust in PA Gray p.j. - product w/ contemplation of use in state tort in state VW no p.j. - car bought in NY as NY residents & P brought to state Kulko no p.j. - sent kids to live w/ mom in state Keeton p.j. suit related to magazine distribution, interest in libel Calder p.j. brunt of harm directed towards state w/ distribution Burger p.j. long term K, foreseeable injury, choice of law was state Asahi no p.j. no agree, but stream, volume, danger, value Helic no p.j. negotiated, purchased, training, checks Shaffer no p.j. owned stock statute considered in state Jurisdiction reasonable, comport with traditional notions of fair play?
(a) Burden of D (inconvenient litigation) (b) Forum state interest (c) Interstate judicial efficiency (d) Substantive social policies (e) Ps interest

D lacks minimum contacts with the forum and the forum therefore cant exercise p.j. over

No

Even though D has minimum contacts with due process prevents the exercise of p.j. Asahi not reasonable even
for Brennan

The court may constitutionally exercise p.j. over D

Yes

Determining Diversity
Cannot be waived!!
Does at least one side consist solely of foreign countries or citizens of foreign countries? No Alienage jurisdiction Is the suit between a citizen of a state on one side, and a foreign country or citizens or subjects thereof on the other? Yes
1332 permanent aliens citizens of domicile

Yes

Yes For diversity purposes, a corp. is deemed to be a citizen of: 1. State of Incorporation 2. Principal Place of For diversity purposes, an unincorporated entity is deemed to be a citizen of every state where members are citizens. Continue analysis

Is a corporation a No Yes

No
i.e. only foreigners

Is an unincorporated entity a party? No Is diversity complete? No P is a citizen of the same state as any D. Strawbridge, Mas

The is NO diversity jurisdiction

Yes

No

Yes There IS diversity jurisdiction.

Does the amount in controversy exceed $75,000 as made in good faith by P? Mas 1332(a)

There is NO No diversity jurisdiction No There is NO diversity jurisdiction

Removal

Other way to get Subject Matter Jurisdiction Federal Question Jurisdiction

-1331 actions arising under the Constitution, [federal] laws -no amount in controversy requirement -Mottley - must be Well pleaded complaint -must be a federal claim by P not a defense by D

-Ps choice where to file, but D remove state to fed -D cant remove if case filed in Ds state of residence -removal statute narrower than diversity statute 1. P could file in fed court - but filed in state 1441(a) -exception: 1441(b)