Determining Personal Jurisdiction
Was D present in the forum state when process was served on him? No Does the forum state’s long arm statue provide for jurisdiction over D? Gray, VW No 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 At least some of D’s contacts with the forum state voluntarily? Yes Does the cause of action arise out of or relate to D’s contact with forum state Yes specific No general Are D’s contacts with the forum state “systematic and continuous”? Helic Yes No D lacks minimum contacts with the forum and the forum therefore can’t exercise p.j. over him No Contacts not minimum and no p.j. No D lacks minimum contacts with the forum and no p.j. – need purposeful availment - Hanson Yes There is VALID p.j. No The forum state cannot exercise p.j. over D Yes There is VALID personal jurisdiction. - Burnham
Are D’s 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 Yes Jurisdiction reasonable, comport with traditional notions of fair play?
Burden of D (inconvenient litigation) Forum state interest Interstate judicial efficiency Substantive social policies (e) P’s interest (a) (b) (c) (d)
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!!
Yes 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? Mas §1332(a)(2) Yes
§1332 – permanent aliens citizens of domicile
Does at least one side consist solely of foreign countries or citizens of foreign countries? No Is a corporation a party? Yes For diversity purposes, a corp. is deemed to be a citizen of: 1. State of Incorporation 2. Principal Place of Business Randazzo, Olson §1332(c)
No
i.e. only foreigners
No
Is an unincorporated entity a party? No Is diversity complete? No P is a citizen of the same state as any D. Strawbridge, Mas Yes
Yes
The is NO diversity jurisdiction
For diversity purposes, an unincorporated entity is deemed to be a citizen of every state where members are citizens. Continue analysis
No
Does the amount in controversy exceed $75,000 as made in good faith by P? Mas §1332(a) Yes There IS diversity jurisdiction. No There is NO diversity jurisdiction
There is NO diversity jurisdiction No
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
Removal -P’s choice where to file, but D remove state to fed -D can’t remove if case filed in D’s 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) -diversity cases in D’s home state can’t remove 2. all D’s agree - §1446(b) 3. within 30 days from time case become removable - §1446(b) – Noble -absolute limit 1 yr if under §1332 (diversity, alien)