pj ppt.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/18/2019 PJ PPT.pdf
1/12
Personal JurisdictionMargaret Hahn-DuPont
Civil Procedure
June 16, 2015
-
8/18/2019 PJ PPT.pdf
2/12
TWO PRONG TEST
1) Sufficiency of contacts
2) Fairness
-
8/18/2019 PJ PPT.pdf
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
-
8/18/2019 PJ PPT.pdf
4/12
General Jurisdiction
!
For claims unrelated to contacts with
forum state
! Need substantial and pervasive
contacts with forum state
-
8/18/2019 PJ PPT.pdf
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
-
8/18/2019 PJ PPT.pdf
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
-
8/18/2019 PJ PPT.pdf
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
-
8/18/2019 PJ PPT.pdf
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.
-
8/18/2019 PJ PPT.pdf
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.”
-
8/18/2019 PJ PPT.pdf
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.
-
8/18/2019 PJ PPT.pdf
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.”
-
8/18/2019 PJ PPT.pdf
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