To establish that personal jurisdiction is proper, one must assess the Long-Arm Statute of the State or Federal Court first, and then move to assessing Due Process under the Constitution. Remember that personal jurisdiction is a waivable right.
I will address these elements: Consent, Tag, Domicile, General Jurisdiction, Specific Jurisdiction, In rem jurisdiction for both the Long-Arm Statute and the Due Process Clause.
Use this lecture series for additional help with PJ. Remember that this libguide is created to help you find the answers yourself and to fill in the gaps. Make sure that you have created your own outline and attack plan with the steps that make sense to you. Also, make sure that you do not forget to first look at the call of the question. Knowing all of the information becomes useless if you do not apply the information to the question asked, and also if you cannot apply the information to the facts. Check the cases with your cases and case book from class and make sure to use them in the rules. Civil Procedure is one class in which both the rule book and case law have significantly developed the subject.
Constitutional Analysis:
Sources of personal Jurisdiction:
1. PRESENCE- if the defendant is served with process within the state, then jurisdiction is proper. Burnham v. Superior Court of California
2. CONSENT- there are 3 main ways to consent (if yes, then PJ)
3. DOMICILE- for a person or a corporation, PJ is proper when they are domiciled no matter the cause of action. For a coporporation: place of incorporation and principle place of business are appropriate for domicile.
IF none of these work, apply the International Shoe test, which requires "minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."
PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN FEDERAL COURTS
Rule 4 (k)(1)-federal long arm
a. Absent special litigation, a federal court has personal jurisdiction only if a state court in which the federal courts sit would have personal jurisdiction
b. The 100 mile "bulge" rule(b)-when you're within 100 miles of a federal court house, jurisdiction is proper regardless of state boundaries. Designed to simplify complete resolution of disputes.
c) when Congress permits-congress has authorized nationwide service of process in areas such as antitrust, securities, bankruptcy, and interpleader-this permits defendant to be served anywhere in the United States and provides personal jurisdiction regardless of whether there would have been jurisdiction in any state court
d) defendant's properly sued in local courts of that state,
e) 100-mile bulge joinder rule-if I sue the Defendant and the Defendant says "hey there's someone else responsible." The defendant can bring them into the lawsuit if they are within 100 miles of the courthouse.
Rule 4 (k) (2)-federal long arm
Provides for jurisdiction in any federal court for a claim that is based on federal law and where
a) there is no state which would have personal jurisdiction AND
b) jurisdiction is constitutional and lawful under US: due process
c) what is not subject to any one state's jurisdiction, but
d) has sufficient contacts with the U.S. and
e) the claim is federal
Keeton v. Hustler -Keeton was citizen of NY with little connection to NH. She sued Hustler in NH, because statute of limitations had run up everywhere else. Supreme Court upheld personal jurisdiction for injury suffered over alleged defamatory in NH and in all other states where the mag was distributed. Supreme said NH has "substantial interest in cooperating with other states…to provide a forum for efficiently litigating."
Plaintiff doesn’t have to have minimum contacts with the forum state only defendant does.
Calder v. Jones Court upheld jurisdiction in CA against editor and writer who were FL citizens over an alleged defamatory article about CA citizen. Article was drawn from CA sources and brunt of harm to plaintiff (emotional distress/professional injury) was in CA. CA is proper jurisdiction based on effects of FL conduct. Defendants knew magazine would have big impact in CA, biggest circulation and plaintiff worked in CA. Defendants "reasonably anticipated being hailed into court to answer about article. Purposeful Availment- article about a citizen of CA and her character, where she works and lives, so the defendants were reaching into the state.
Limits to the State
14th amendment due process clause-state
5th amendment due process clause -federal
Revell v. Lidov (2002)-Lidov wrote an article alleging that plaintiff Revell, a former FBI director helped perform a government cover-up about PanAm 103 flight that exploded over Scotland in 1987- article specifically pointed about Revell and was posted on Columbia University's website. Revell-resident of TX, sued in TX courts. Columbia University-principal offices in NYC and Lidov-MA resident and didn’t know Revell lived in TX so it wasn’t intentional aim at TX. Issue: Can TX have jurisdiction over a person whose only contacts with the forum are over a public website?
Rule: Not enough to use Calder
Article had no reference to TX, no reference to Revell's activities in TX, not directed at TX readers, TX was not focal point of harm suffered. Plaintiff's residence in TX not enough
Defendant knew that article would cause harm but it was not directed at TX.
Zippo Mfg. Co v. Zippos Dot Com (1997) PA trial court-sliding scale developed for Internet
"sliding scale"-one end is passive, the other end is interactive
Passive website-basically you can only look at-can't have personal jurisdiction because it's not purposefully availing itself
Interactive website- you can have an exchange and connect with people-personal jurisdiction because there is interaction and availment
Toys R Us, Inc v. Step Two, SA (2003)-Zippo is outdated by 2003. All websites are interactive under Zippo rules. There must be "something more" like "intentionality" to show that the non-resident is directing its activity to forum residents via 1) related internet contacts related to dispute or 2) non-internet contacts related to dispute (like serial business trips to forum)
In analyzing personal jurisdiction, a person may be found to be under the authority to bring a lawsuit in the state through the long-arm statute of the state.
How to Satisfy the Long-Arm Statute: (State of South Carolina):
1. Consent- (waived)
2. Tag: S.C. §36-2-805: “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any other basis authorized by law.”
3. Domicile/ Tag without Tag: S.C. §36-2-802: “A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person domiciled in, organized under the laws of, doing business, or maintaining his or its principal place of business in, this state as a cause of action.”
4. General Jurisdiction: (Coggeshall v. Reproductive Endocrine Associates of Charlotte)
Doing business in the state can constitute jurisdiction in the state. Activities and injuries do not have to specifically arise from the state under General Jurisdiction. A company that holds contacts in the state and is said to have an “enduring relationship” based on the facts of the case would have general jurisdiction. There is no formula that specifically authorizes doing business but enduring relationship requires that its contacts are continuous, systematic, and substantial. (From Helicopteros and International Shoe).
Under Coggeshall, the company was not subject to general jurisdiction because services were not rendered in South Carolina. It would be unfair to permit a lawsuit in a distant jurisdiction, where a plaintiff may carry consequences, but the act was done in another jurisdiction.
South Carolina Fairness Prong: The SC fairness prong (comparable to Justice White's 5): (1) duration of activity of non-resident in the state, (2) character and circumstances of commission of non-residents acts, (3) inconvenience resulting to the parties from conferring or not conferring jurisdiction over the nonresident, (4) state's interest in exercising jurisdiction.
Sumatra 4: (1) Embracing Stream of Commerce Theory in S.C. (2) Personal Jurisdiction follows the product and presence is not required.
5. Specific Jurisdiction: S.C. 36-2-803 where personal jurisdiction is based on conduct. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent to a cause of action arising from business transactions, tortious injury in the state, entry into contract in the state. Also, did the company intent to avail itself to the benefits and protections of the state by its actions? ALSO the 8 Categories for Specific Jurisdiction SC §803.
In South Carolina, there are eight categories for which a person can be held under specific jurisdiction. (1) by transacting business in the state, (2) by contracting supplies or service in the state, (3) by committing a tortious act in the state, (4) by causing death or tort in the state from outside of the state, (5) by contracting to insure a person in the state, (6) by becoming a party to a contract that is to be performed in the state, (7) by producing or manufacturing goods consumed in the state, (8) by using or possessing real property in the state.
6. In rem: does the defendant have property in the state?
For Federal Cases: In addition, according to the 100 Mile Bulge Rule, jurisdiction is proper if the defendant could be subject to the jurisdiction of a general court in the same state in which the district court is located.
1. Consent- Under Rule 12- defendant must waive challenge to response immediately.
- A person must appoint an agent for service of process in a state in which he or she does business. This is so that the court can give that person notice
- General appearance or just showing up can constitute consent.
- Presence Test- voluntary consent because of significant presence in the state. Tag can establish consent.
2. Tag: Burnham case: presence in the state enables that person to be tagged in the state with notice of a lawsuit.
3. Domicile/ Tag without Tag: Millican case: when your home is in the state, you can always be served at home. For a corporation, according to Hertz v. Friend a corporation can be tagged at principal place of business established by nerve center test or by place of incorporation. A corporation’s domicile is in both places. Domicile in the state is sufficient to bring an absent defendant within reach of state’s jurisdiction. The court has concluded that with modern advancements, it is reasonable to expect the defendant to travel.
4. General Jurisdiction:
- when to use: when the contacts in the state are unrelated to the cause of action.
- So continuous and systematic that it renders the defendant essentially at home. (Goodyear Case)
- Doing substantial business within the state (Perkins Case)
- It's only fair test (International Shoe and tested in Shaffer v. Heitner with stocks not qualifying as In rem). Usually if there is property in the state, then there are sufficient minimum contacts.
The court is clear that a defendant must be essentially at home. (Helicopteros case: when there are not enough continuous and systematic contacts to render a party essentially at home.)
-Why General Jurisdiction? Ensures that there is always somewhere to sue a plaintiff.
5. Specific Jurisdiction: Test for minimum contacts, reasonableness, arising under test, and purposeful availment
- A lawsuit must not offend traditional notions of fairplay or substantial justice. Use specific jurisdiction when actions give rise to the lawsuit.
- Minimum Contacts: Is there purposeful availment? Is there stream of commerce?
- Stream of Commerce test (Daimler case) If a corporation puts an item into the stream of commerce then wherever it ends up is a suitable forum. EXCEPTION: Asahi Case shows that maybe merely putting an item into the stream of commerce is not purposeful availment without intending it to go to that jurisdiction. (ie. Online cases show that the internet website must be active and intending to be in that state).
- Asahi and Nicastro Tests: awareness that the product is sold is sufficient.
- The Whizzer Five: Testing reasonableness for requiring a nonresident to submit to the forum. (1) burden on defendant (2) forum's interest in resolving the dispute, (3) plaintiff's interest in resolving the dispute, (4) efficient resolution- most efficient place, (5) furthering fundamental substantive social policy.
- Purposeful availment (It's only fair test) can be satisfied by (1) stream of commerce, (2) contractual ties, (3) presence/ actual contacts, (4) intentionally availing
6. In rem: Stake in the Ground: Types of In Rem and when a court can use the property. Property cannot be attached to create jurisdiction.
1. State possesses exclusive jurisdiction over persons and properties within its territory.
2. No state can exercise "direct" jurisdiction over persons or property outside its territory.
#1 First thing to do in any case is to find the CALL OF THE QUESTION.
State the overarching issue in the fact pattern. The issue of this case is________________. If the issue is Personal Jurisdiction for example, then you must go through the steps.
Do not forget to ANALYZE the facts according to each step and to come to a CONCLUSION.
Check the Library for additional information. The study aid section has some multiple choice question books that will help with your understanding of personal jurisdiction.
