CIV PRO: JURISDICTION - PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Why does a court have personal jurisdiction over a plaintiff?

A court has personal jurisdiction over a plaintiff because, by filing the case, the plaintiff consents to personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is a matter of individual rights under the United States Constitution. Thus, the plaintiff, like the defendant, may consent to personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff manifests this consent by filing the case.

In the context of personal jurisdiction, what is the difference between a general appearance and a special appearance by a defendant?

A defendant makes a general appearance by failing to object to the court's lack of personal jurisdiction before contesting the merits of the case. A defendant who makes a general appearance in the forum court voluntarily submits to the forum state's jurisdiction. By contrast, a defendant can make a special appearance for the sole purpose of contesting jurisdiction. A special appearance does not constitute consent to jurisdiction.

What is a forum-selection clause?

A forum-selection clause is a provision in a contract or other document by which the parties agree to litigate their disputes in a designated court or a designated location. The agreed-upon forum can be one within a state or one within the federal judicial system.

What is a long-arm statute?

A long-arm statute is a state statute extending jurisdiction over nonresidents who have contacts with the state. A court's exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to a state long-arm statute must nevertheless satisfy the requirements of constitutional due process.

What is the relationship between a state long-arm statute and personal jurisdiction?

A state long-arm statute defines the conditions under which the state will assert personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Personal jurisdiction will exist if the long-arm statute, as applied to the defendant, is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

What effect does a valid forum-selection clause have on personal jurisdiction in the selected forum?

A valid forum-selection clause is a form of consent to personal jurisdiction in the designated forum state.

What is the relationship between the personal jurisdiction of the federal courts and the personal jurisdiction of the state courts?

Among other sources of personal jurisdiction, a federal court has personal jurisdiction to the same extent as the courts of the state in which the federal court is located.

What is general jurisdiction?

General jurisdiction is the court's ability to hear cases related to a party, regardless of whether the harm has any connection to the forum. General jurisdiction exists only if the defendant has continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state, such that the defendant is at home there.

What is in rem jurisdiction?

In rem jurisdiction is a court's jurisdiction over property, as opposed to its jurisdiction over individuals. In an in rem case, the court determines the rights of all persons to the property involved. In rem jurisdiction is normally based on a state's sovereign power over property within its borders.

May a court assert personal jurisdiction based on a defendant's unintentional contacts with the forum state?

No. A court may not assert personal jurisdiction based on a defendant's unintentional contacts with the forum state. Personal jurisdiction requires deliberate, purposeful, or intentional contact by the defendant with the forum state. In one common formulation, the defendant must purposely avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of that state's laws.

Can a defendant challenge personal jurisdiction for the first time on appeal?

No. Objections to personal jurisdiction are waived if they are not raised early in the litigation, either in a pre-answer motion or in the answer itself. Subject-matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, but personal jurisdiction cannot.

A retailer was incorporated in State A, had its principal place of business in State A, and sold appliances at stores in State A and State B. The retailer conducted no business outside States A and B. A plaintiff bought a toaster from the retailer in one of its State B stores. One month later, the plaintiff moved to State C, where the toaster malfunctioned and set the plaintiff's house on fire. The plaintiff sued the retailer in State C. The State C long-arm statute extended to the limits of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Does the State C court have personal jurisdiction over the retailer?

No. The court does not have personal jurisdiction over the retailer. A state's long-arm statute, which governs personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, may extend to the limits of the Due Process Clause. However, due process personal jurisdiction does not extend to defendants who have not purposely availed themselves of the benefits of conducting activities in the forum state. Here, the retailer had never availed itself of the benefits of State C, because it did business only in States A and B. The plaintiff's act of transporting the toaster to State C had nothing to do with the retailer and did not constitute deliberate activity by the retailer. Thus, the fact that the plaintiff moved to State C did not by itself establish sufficient contacts between the retailer and State C. The State C court therefore lacks personal jurisdiction over the retailer.

What is quasi in rem jurisdiction?

Quasi in rem jurisdiction is jurisdiction based on the defendant's ownership of property within the forum state. In so-called type I quasi-in-rem jurisdiction, the court adjudicates the parties' rights to property situated within the state. In so-called type II quasi-in-rem jurisdiction, the plaintiff's claim is unrelated to the property. The court seizes the defendant's property and uses the defendant's ownership as a basis for personal jurisdiction to decide the plaintiff's claim. The defendant's liability in this type of case is limited to the value of the seized property. Nevertheless, the relationship among the defendant, forum state, and litigation must satisfy the due-process requirements for personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Because this standard is much like that for in personam jurisdiction, quasi in rem jurisdiction is little used today.

To establish specific jurisdiction, what relationship must exist between the cause of action and the defendant's contacts with the forum state?

Specific jurisdiction is a form of personal jurisdiction under a long-arm statute; it exists if the cause of action arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum state. The counterpart to specific jurisdiction is general jurisdiction, which is personal jurisdiction that exists even if the cause of action does not arise out of the defendant's contacts with the forum.

What is specific jurisdiction?

Specific jurisdiction is personal jurisdiction over a defendant that is derived from the defendant's activities in a state, giving the court power to adjudicate claims arising out of those activities. Specific jurisdiction exists only if the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due process.

Which provision of the United States Constitution is most important for purposes of analyzing personal jurisdiction?

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the most important constitutional provision for purposes of analyzing personal jurisdiction. The Due Process Clause is used to decide whether a state's assertion of personal jurisdiction is fundamentally fair to a defendant who is made to appear in the state's courts.

What role do traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice play in analyzing personal jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court has held that personal jurisdiction over a defendant requires minimum contacts with the forum state, such that jurisdiction over the defendant will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Which four factors has the Supreme Court identified as important in analyzing traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice in the law of personal jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court has identified the following factors as important in analyzing traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice in the law of personal jurisdiction: (1) the forum state's interest in regulating the activity involved or in providing a forum, (2) the relative convenience to the parties in terms of the locations of witnesses and evidence, (3) whether an alternative forum exists, and (4) the avoidance of multiple lawsuits if a single suit would be sufficient to resolve the dispute. A court's reliance on minimum contacts to support personal jurisdiction must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

For purposes of personal jurisdiction, what is the federal 100-mile bulge rule?

The federal courts have personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is joined as a third-party defendant and served within 100 miles from where the summons is issued, i.e., from the federal courthouse. This is sometimes called the federal bulge rule, because it authorizes service outside the borders of the forum state, independent of the state long-arm statutes that normally govern personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.

What are the three main traditional grounds for personal jurisdiction, not including state long-arm jurisdiction?

The main traditional grounds for personal jurisdiction are: (1) domicile within the state, (2) service of process while voluntarily present within the state, and (3) consent (including waiver). A state has personal jurisdiction over anyone who is domiciled in that state: effectively, any individual or organization who is a citizen of that state. A state also has personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is served with process while voluntarily present in the state, although some courts make an exception for defendants who have entered the state to attend unrelated legal proceedings. Finally, a defendant may consent to personal jurisdiction, whether that consent is express, implied, or under a waiver. These grounds for jurisdiction are alternatives to state long-arm jurisdiction in appropriate cases.

What is the sliding-scale test, also called the Zippo test, for Internet-based minimum contacts?

The sliding-scale test is a test courts use to evaluate websites on a scale of interactivity to determine purposeful availment and minimum contacts in analyzing personal jurisdiction. At one end are websites through which a company and customers exchange information and transact business. These sites are highly interactive and likely provide minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction between the site owner and the state where the consumer accesses the site. At the other end are so-called passive websites. These are not specifically directed at the forum state. These sites merely provide information and do not allow business transactions. Passive websites usually do not provide the minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction. Between the extremes, other evidence of purposeful availment may be relevant in assessing personal jurisdiction.

To establish general jurisdiction, what relationship must exist between the defendant and the forum state?

To establish general jurisdiction, the defendant must have continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state, such that the defendant is at home in that state. Examples of continuous and systematic contacts for corporations include, but are not limited to, incorporation in the forum state or the presence of the corporate headquarters in the forum state. For individuals, domicile in the forum state is an example of continuous and systematic contacts. Under general jurisdiction, the defendant can be sued in the forum state on any cause of action, no matter where the case arose. This distinguishes general jurisdiction from specific jurisdiction, under which the cause of action must arise out of the defendant's contacts with the forum state.

What is the role of purposeful availment in analyzing personal jurisdiction?

To meet the minimum-contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction, the defendant's contacts with the forum state must be deliberate. That is, the defendant must have purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting some kind of activity in the state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of that state's laws. A defendant's minimum contacts must be such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum state.

What is transient jurisdiction?

Transient jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction if the defendant is served with process while physically and voluntarily present in the state.

May a federal statute authorize personal jurisdiction over a defendant, without reference to state law?

Yes. A federal statute may authorize personal jurisdiction over the defendant, without reference to state law. Though a federal court's personal jurisdiction often parallels the personal jurisdiction of the state courts where the federal court is located, some federal statutes confer federal personal jurisdiction independently of state law.

If a claim arises under federal law, and the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in any U.S. state, can a federal court exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant?

Yes. If a claim arises under federal law, and the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in any U.S. state, a federal court can exercise personal jurisdiction if doing so is consistent with the laws and the Constitution of the United States. The analysis of personal jurisdiction in those cases considers minimum contacts and due process, much like the analysis of personal jurisdiction within a state. However, the defendant's contacts are evaluated with respect to the United States as a whole, rather than with a single forum state.

A plaintiff sued a defendant in a State A court for breach of contract. The defendant lived in State B, where the contract was negotiated, executed, and performed. Assume that the defendant had no contacts with State A. Within the time required for service of process, the defendant attended a wedding in State A. At the reception, a process server served the summons and complaint on the defendant. Does the State A court have personal jurisdiction?

Yes. The State A court has personal jurisdiction. A state may constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction if the defendant is served with process while physically and voluntarily present in the state. This is sometimes called transient jurisdiction, and it is independent of long-arm jurisdiction. Some courts recognize an exception if the defendant is present in connection with an unrelated legal proceeding. The defendant here was served while physically and voluntarily present in State A to attend a wedding. Therefore, the State A court has personal jurisdiction.

A corporation was incorporated in State A and had a factory in State B. Assume that the corporation was not a citizen of State B. The plaintiff sued the corporation in a state court in State B, alleging personal injury from an accident at one of the corporation's warehouses in State C. The accident had no relationship to the corporation's State B activities. The State B long-arm statute allowed personal jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Assuming that the corporation can legally be considered at home in State B, does the State B court have personal jurisdiction over the corporation?

Yes. The State B court has general personal jurisdiction over the corporation. General jurisdiction exists if the defendant's contacts with the forum state are so systematic and continuous that the defendant is considered at home in that state. Consequently, the defendant can be sued in that state on any cause of action, including those that arise in other states. Among other places, a corporation is considered at home in both the state in which it is incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of business. Here, the facts indicate that the corporation is legally at home in State B, based on the corporation's factory in that state. These continuous and systematic contacts mean that the corporation is subject to general personal jurisdiction in State B. Thus, State B has personal jurisdiction, even though the cause of action arose in state C.

A State A statute provided, "Any person who drives on the public highways of this state consents to this state's jurisdiction in cases arising therefrom." The defendant, a citizen of State B, was involved in a car accident while driving in State A. The defendant had no other connections to State A. The other driver sued the defendant for personal injury in a State A federal court. Does the court have personal jurisdiction over the defendant?

Yes. The court has personal jurisdiction based on implied consent. A federal court has personal jurisdiction to the same extent as the courts of the state in which the federal court sits. A defendant can expressly or implicitly consent to personal jurisdiction. Implied consent may arise from a statute that imputes consent as a condition of activity within the state. The Supreme Court has upheld implied-consent statutes relating to driving, because each state has a sovereign interest in its highways. Here, the State A statute imputes consent as a condition of driving on the State A highways, and the defendant did in fact drive on those highways. Thus, the defendant implicitly consented to State A jurisdiction in a case arising from that activity. Because the State A courts have personal jurisdiction, the State A federal court has personal jurisdiction as well.

The plaintiff sued the defendant in the federal district court in State A. The defendant was properly joined and served. The defendant brought in, or impleaded, a third-party defendant, alleging that the third-party defendant should indemnify the defendant against the plaintiff's claim. The third-party defendant lived in State B, and his house was 75 miles from the federal courthouse where the plaintiff filed suit. Assume that the third-party defendant does not fall within the State A long-arm statute. A process server served the summons and complaint on the third-party defendant personally at the third-party defendant's house. Does the court have personal jurisdiction over the third-party defendant?

Yes. The court has personal jurisdiction under the 100-mile bulge rule. The federal courts have personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is joined as a third-party defendant and served within 100 miles from where the summons is issued, i.e., from the federal courthouse. This is sometimes called the federal bulge rule, because it authorizes service outside the borders of the forum state, independent of the state long-arm statutes that normally govern personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants. Here, the third-party defendant was served 75 miles from the federal courthouse. This falls within the 100-mile radius of the bulge rule. Thus, even though the State A long-arm statute does not reach the third-party defendant, the bulge rule provides an independent basis for personal jurisdiction.

Must a forum-selection clause be fundamentally fair to be valid?

Yes. To be valid, a forum-selection clause must be fundamentally fair. This does not mean that the parties must expressly negotiate the forum-selection clause; for example, it can be included on the back of a travel ticket or in a software-licensing agreement. However, a forum-selection clause might be unfair if it is the product of fraud or excessively one-sided bargaining power. A clause might also be unfair if it discourages litigation by specifying an alien or inconvenient forum. On the other hand, a clause that benefits consumers by lowering costs may be more likely to be considered fair.