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 state’s long arm statue provide for jurisdiction over D? Gray, VW
No
The forum state cannot exercise p.j. over D
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
Yes
There is VALID p.j.
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 No No D lacks minimum contacts with the forum and no p.j. – need purposeful availment - Hanson
Are D’s contacts Contacts not No with the forum minimum and no general state “systematic p.j. and continuous”? specific Yes Helic Are D’s contacts with the state sufficiently great D lacks minimum No that they should be deemed “minimum contacts”? contacts with the - reasonably anticipate be haled into court (VW) forum and the forum McGee – p.j. – obligation, premiums from CA residents, witness therefore can’t Hanson – no p.j. b/c lack office in FL, business, creation of trust in PA exercise p.j. over Gray – p.j. - product “w/ contemplation of use in state” – tort in state him 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 Yes Helic – no p.j. – negotiated, purchased, training, checks Shaffer – no p.j. – owned stock statute considered in state The court may Jurisdiction reasonable, comport Even though D has No constitutionally with traditional notions of fair minimum contacts with exercise p.j. play? due process prevents over D (a) Burden of D (inconvenient litigation) the exercise of p.j. (b) Forum state interest Asahi – not reasonable even (c) Interstate judicial efficiency
(d) Substantive social policies (e) P’s interest Yes
for Brennan
Determining Diversity
Cannot be waived!!
Does at least one side consist solely of foreign countries or citizens of foreign countries? Yes 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 Mas §1332(a)(2)– permanent §1332
aliens citizens of domicile
Is a corporation a party? No
Yes
N o i.e. only
foreigners
Is an unincorporated Yes 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
For diversity purposes, a corp. is deemed to be a citizen of: 1. State of Incorporation 2. Principal Place of Business For diversity purposes, an Randazzo, Olson §1332(c) unincorporated entity is deemed to be a citizen of every state where members are citizens. Continue analysis
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 diversity No jurisdiction No There is NO diversity jurisdiction
Other way to get Subject Matter Jurisdiction Federal Question Jurisdiction
Removal
-§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
-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)