Docstoc

Law School Outline Personal Jurisdiction - PowerPoint

Document Sample
Law School Outline Personal Jurisdiction - PowerPoint Powered By Docstoc
					Personal Jurisdiction
Footnotes: 1. All states have some kind of statute that allows for a traditional basis for asserting jurisdiction. Is there a long-arm statute providing for jurisdiction?8,9 Yes Was D present in the FSt when process was served on him? No Are any of the following true? a) Consent through FSC?2 b) Consent through appointment of an agent?3 c) Consent through conduct in litigation?4 d) Nonresident motorist statute applies?5 e) D is domiciled in FSt?6 f) State of incorporation or principal place of business?7 Yes Valid P.J. Yes Valid PJ even for transient presence and regardless of purpose. Burnham. No Must be a long-arm statute that allows for assertion of PJ over non-resident Ds.

2. A person may consent to PJ long in advance of the litigation. Sometimes parties to a contract agree to litigate only in a designated forum. Such provisions have been upheld even if it is burdensome for one party. Carnival Cruise Lines.
3. Consent to jurisdiction can be manifested by appoint of an agent for service of process within the state. National Equip. Rental Ltd. 4. Parties may also consent to jurisdiction by virtues of their conduct in litigation. The S. Ct. held that by filing a complaint, the P consent to a counterclaim filed against the P by the D. Adam. A D has a right to object to PJ that can be waived at any time. A failure to raise a timely objection constitutes a waiver 5. All states have nonresident motorist statutes similar to Hess. An example of implied consent and specific jurisdiction.

6. The intent of the individual to make a particular location a permanent home and facts indicating that the party had physically located there. Must be at the time the cause of action arose. Milliken. A state can assert jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage if either spouse is domiciled there.
7. Weigh nerve center v. place of activity. Olson. See Subject Matter Jurisdiction flowchart.

No
No Does the long-arm statute provide for these contacts?8,9 Yes Is there a purposeful availment?10 Yes Satisfies ―minimum contacts‖ analysis?10 Yes Is jurisdiction reasonable? a) Burden on the D (primary concern). b) Forum State's interest in adjudicating the dispute. c) P’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief. d) Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies. e) Shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Yes Valid P.J. No No PJ. In Asahi, the S. Ct. found unreasonableness b/c: a) Unreasonable burden to defend on foreign soil. b) Forum does not have a reasonable interest in adjudicating a dispute between two foreign companies over an claim that arose from an action that took place in Taiwan c) P was not a resident of the FSt. d) Great care must be exercised when haling a foreign company into a US court Must be a long-arm statute that allows for assertion of PJ over non-resident Ds.

No

No PJ; must be ―purposeful availment.‖ Hanson.

8. Some are enumerated acts and some are coextensive with 14th Amendment. Most LAS are not D friendly. Usually must defeat by showing LAS is unconstitutional. Most allow PJ for tortious acts committed w/in the FSt and for tortious injury in the FSt caused by an act or omission outside of the FSt. Argue both.
9. Every state has one. PJ is only proper if falls within terms of LAS and jurisdiction is constitutional (Shoe test). 10. See Minimum Contacts Framework flowchart. No

No
No PJ. Shoe.

Does the D own property in FSt?

No in rem or QIR jurisdiction. Is there an attachment statute? Yes Could get in rem or QIR jurisdiction; go to minimum contacts analysis.

No

Minimum Contacts Framework
Was there a purposeful availment? a) Were the contacts the result of the unilateral activity of the P? It is essential that there be some act by which the D purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the FSt, thus invoking the benefit and protection of its laws. b) Are the D’s conduct and connection with the FSt such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled to court there? c) Did D deliberately engage in significant activities within the FS or has he created continuing obligations between himself and resident of the FSt? Related/Arises Continuous & Systematic Activity Yes Not Related Probably no PJ = continuous and systematic activities in FSt + cause of action is not related to that activity General Jurisdiction? Contacts must be substantial or domiciled. Left up to the FSt. When would a FSt want to assert PJ in this situation? Look at LAS. Still must pass twoprong test of DPC. E.g., Helicopteros (no PJ), see list of other cases No PJ = Sporadic or casual activity of D in FSt + cause of action is not related to that activity E.g., Hanson

No No PJ

General Jurisdiction Cases
• D has 17 to 21 employees in the forum and annual sales there of $9 to $13 mm; no GJ. Nichols. • Manufacturer’s sales in products worth $250 mm over 5 years to independent Texas dealers not sufficient for GJ in Texas. Bearry. • Noting that sales in NH of 10k to 15k copies per month of a magazine ―may not be so substantial as to support jurisdiction over a cause of action unrelated to those activities.‖ Keeton. • Manufacturer sold products in Illinois through independent dealer and sponsored sales promotions in Illinois; dealer was required to perform warranty work on all of manufacturer’s products and to make records and facilities available for manufacturer’s inspection; court held manufacturer subject to GJ in Illinois. Braband. • Hong Kong Corp. sold $35 mm of products throughout U.S. and made no effort to limit distribution to particular states; courts found GJ in NC. Hayes. • Finding GJ where D leased an office and employed sales agents and clerical staff. Bankhead Enterprises, Inc. • Finding GJ over foreign airline which maintained one and a half room office and employed several people. Bryant. • Finding no GJ over Wal-Mart in Texas despite D’s operating 264 large stores. Follette.

Valid PJ = continuous and systematic activities in FSt + cause of action is related to that activity E.g., Shoe

Probably PJ = sporadic activity or single act in FSt + cause of action arises out of that activity or act Specific Jurisdiction? Usually enough but still must be purposeful availment and claim must ―arise out of‖ the contact, no just be ―related to‖ it. E.g., McGee, Helicopteros (no PJ b/c claim was ―related to‖ but do not ―arise out of‖ the contact)

Sporadic, Casual Or Single Act

Valid PJ Shoe – Retailer; Systematic and continuous acts
Summary: S. Ct. ruled contacts (salesmen based in the state) were systematic and continuous and resulted in a large volume of interstate business for the D. Also, obligation to pay unemployment taxes arose from the contacts.

No PJ Kulko – Domestic Relations; No purposeful availment
Summary: Divorced father sent children to go live w/ the mother in Calif. Subsequently, M brought in personam suit against F for child support. S. Ct. ruled no PJ b/c there was no purposeful act and no economic benefit.

McGee – Insurance K; Single act
Summary: S. Ct. sustained a state’s assertion of jurisdiction over a nonresident D whose only contacts with the state were its issuance of an insurance policy sued upon to a state resident and its receipt of policy premium payments from that resident.

WWV – Products liability; No purposeful availment
Summary: S. Ct. ruled no valid PJ over NY auto retailer and regional distributor b/c neither of those Ds had purposefully attempted to serve the OK market. It was not sufficient the Ds might derive revenue and benefit from the fact that the cars are mobile and thus could be used in OK. The unilateral activity of the P in driving to OK could not be used assert PJ—it was the D’s conduct that was crucial.

Burger King – K; Continuous obligations
Summary: S. Ct. looked at the entire contractual relationship. Must look at the prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the K and the parties’ actual course of dealings. D agreed to choice-of-law provision, which require litigation in Fla. S. Ct. cited it as a factor, but not dispositive.

Helicopteros – In-state purchase; No general jurisdiction
Summary: S. Ct. ruled that purchases and related trips standing alone, are not a sufficient basis for a FS’s assertion of PJ. Even if these purchases happened at regular intervals, they are not enough if the cause of action is not related to these transactions. The brief presence of the D’s employees in Texas for the purpose of attending the training sessions is not enough either.

Keeton – Libel; Tortious out-of-state conduct
Summary: P, citizen of NY, brought suit in NH solely b/c of long statute of limitations. S. Ct. upheld. P alleged article defamed her in NH. S. Ct. upheld b/c cause of action arose out of the contacts and the FSt had interest in cooperating w/ other states to provide forum for litigation in unitary proceedings

Shaffer – Attachment of intangible property; QIR type 2; Also not reasonable
Summary: P brought a derivative shareholders’ suit by attaching the stock of non-resident directors. The situs of the stock was deemed to be in Delaware (SOI). The company’s PPB was in Arizona. The D argued that this assertion of QIR jurisdiction violated their DPC rights b/c they had no other contacts with Delaware. The S. Ct. struck down jurisdiction and ruled that all actions, including in-rem and QIR ones, adjudicated interests in people. Therefore, the same test used for in personam jurisdiction must be used for in rem or QIR jurisdiction, which is the minimum contacts test of Shoe and its progeny.

Calder – Libel; [Intentional] Tortious out-of-state conduct
Summary: P brought suit against a writer and editor, both citizens of Fla., claiming they wrote a defamatory article about her. The Ds had never visited Calif. in connection w/ the article and it was produced in Fla. Article was published nationwide. S. Ct. upheld jurisdiction b/c the harm was suffered in FSt. Jurisdiction is based on the ―effects‖ of their Florida conduct in California. The Ds should anticipate being haled into court there. Actions from outside the state that has foreseeable tortious effects inside the state can be a basis for asserting jurisdiction.

Burnham – Divorce; Transient presence
Summary: A husband filed for divorce in New Jersey; she subsequently filed for divorce in California. During a three-day stay in California while on business, he swung by Ms. Burnham's residence to visit his children. Even though these were his only contacts, notions of tradition and b/c he was not an absentee D, persuaded the Court to rule that ―tag‖ jurisdiction was permissible. No precedential value. Make sure to argue concurring opinions.

Asahi – Sales into FSt; Not reasonable
Summary: Majority of S. Ct. felt there were minimum contacts. D put goods into the stream of commerce with the knowledge that they were regularly sold in the FSt. D benefited economically from such acts. However, there was no additional conduct such as designing the product for the market in the FS, advertising in the FS, establishing channels for providing regular advice in the FS, marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the FSt. No precedential value. Argue other opinions.

Hess – Non-resident motorist statute; Implied consent

Hanson – Trust; No purposeful availment


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:7979
posted:2/5/2008
language:English
pages:2