pj ppt.pdf

8/18/2019 PJ PPT.pdf

1/12

Personal JurisdictionMargaret Hahn-DuPont

Civil Procedure

June 16, 2015


2/12

TWO PRONG TEST

1) Sufficiency of contacts

2) Fairness


3/12

Specific Jurisdiction

!

For claims arising out of contacts

with forum state

! Need sufficient minimum contacts

! Single, directed act or continuous and

systematic activities with the forumstate


4/12

General Jurisdiction

!

For claims unrelated to contacts with

forum state

! Need substantial and pervasive

contacts with forum state


5/12

Sufficiency of Contacts Standards (1)

!

Test not mechanical; depends on “qualityand quantity” of contacts with forumstate

!

Must not violate traditional notions offair play and substantial justice

!

D must be able to “foresee” possibility ofbeing haled into court

!

Fair warning for D that particularactivity may subject D to jurisdiction offorum state


6/12

Sufficiency of Contacts Standards (1I)

!

Purposeful availment of benefits and

protections of forum state’s law (Hanson

v. Deckla)

!

Some act by which the D purposefully availsitself of the privilege of conducting activities

within the forum state

! Ensures D will not be haled into jurisdiction

as result of random, fortuitous or attenuated

contacts


7/12

Definition of Purposeful Availment

! Deliberate engagement in significant

activities in the forum state or

continuing obligations between D andresidents means D availed himself of

privilege of conducting business in the

forum state


8/12

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

– Sufficiency of contacts and Purposeful

Availment

! Issue:! Whether D had sufficient minimum contacts with

forum state, such that D would be subject to jurisdiction of forum state’s courts, when solecontact was that D’s product was brought intoforum state by P.

! Holding:! No. Although foreseeable that product would

end up in forum state, D conducted no“directed activities” in the forum state to justify jurisdiction – no advertising, no sales, nocultivation of market in forum state.


9/12

WW Volkswagen

!

Rule: “[I]f the sale of a product of a

manufacturer or distributor . . . is not simply

an isolated occurrence, but arises from the

efforts of the manufacturer or distributor toserve, directly or indirectly, the market for

its product in other States, it is not

unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of

those States if its allegedly defectivemerchandise has there been the source of

injury to its owners or to others.”


10/12

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz –Purposeful Availment and Long-arm Statutes

!

Issue: Whether PJ could be exercised over

D for acts outside of the forum state that

caused injury in the forum state where D

never entered or transacted business in theforum state.

! Holding: Yes. D had “substantial and

continuing” relationship with citizens of

forum state through contract dealings and

fair notice about possibility of suit, DP is not

violated by exercise of PJ.


11/12

Long-Arm Statutes

!

Federal courts must look to state’s long-arm

statute, which sets parameters for state’s

exercise of its power to govern conduct

by non-citizens. !

Vary widely from state to state.

! FRCP 4(k)

!

Uses a state’s long-arm statute to provide jurisdiction over a D “who is subject to the

jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in

the state where the district court is located.”


12/12

Fairness Factors

!

Burden on D

! Forum state’s interest

! P’s interest in obtaining convenient and

effective relief

! Interstate judicial system’s interest in

obtaining most efficient resolution

!

Shared interest of states in furthering

fundamental substantive social policies

pj ppt.pdf

Documents