Personal Jurisdiction

Voluntary presence

If a defendant is voluntarily present in the forum state and is served with process while there, then the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990). However, most courts today have two exceptions to this rule. If a plaintiff fraudulently brings a defendant into the state for the purpose of serving process on him, then the service will most likely be invalid. A defendant is also immune if he is merely passing through the state to attend other judiciary proceedings.

Domicile

If authorized by statute, a court can have jurisdiction over a person who is domiciled in the state in which the court is located, even if the person is temporarily absent from that state. Domicile is established when a person with capacity resides in a state and intends to make that state his home. The same rules of domicile discussed in § I.C.3. Citizenship of Parties, supra, are applicable here. Statutory authorization can be enacted retroactively to apply to a cause of action arising before the enactment of the statute. McGee v. Int'l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 (1957). Note that the United States has authority to subpoena a citizen of the United States living abroad to appear in court to testify.

Generally

In addition to having subject matter jurisdiction, a court must be able to exercise judicial power over the persons or property involved in the cases or controversies before it. This authority is broadly referred to as "personal jurisdiction" and is governed by state statutes regarding jurisdiction and the due process requirements of the U.S. Constitution

Due process requirements

In general, due process requirements are satisfied if the nonresident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the action does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

In personam jurisdiction

In personam jurisdiction is the power that a court has over an individual party. It is required whenever a judgment is sought that would impose an obligation on a defendant personally. When such personal jurisdiction exists, the court has the authority to issue a judgment against the party personally, which can be satisfied by seizure of all the party's assets. Such a judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in other states (see § IX.C. Full Faith and Credit, infra).

Fair play and substantial justice

Once minimum contacts are established, a court must still examine the facts to determine if maintenance of the action would "offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." International Shoe, supra. Courts consider a variety of factors when making this determination, including: i) The interest of the forum state in adjudicating the matter; ii) The burden on the defendant of appearing in the case; iii) The interest of the judicial system in the efficient resolution of controversies; and iv) The shared interests of the states in promoting common social policies.

Consent

Personal jurisdiction can be established by a party's consent. Under Rule 12(b), the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction must be asserted in a responsive pleading or by motion before a responsive pleading is submitted. The failure to timely object to a court's assertion of personal jurisdiction waives the objection. Rule 12(h). 1) Plaintiffs Plaintiffs are said to have consented to personal jurisdiction by filing the lawsuit. 2) Defendants a) Express consent A defendant may agree in advance by contract to submit to the jurisdiction of the court if a lawsuit is brought by the plaintiff. Such contractual consent will not be effective if the court determines that the contract was a contract of adhesion. A defendant may also stipulate to personal jurisdiction once an action is brought. Petrowski v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co., 350 U.S. 495 (1956). Consent is given when a person authorizes an agent to accept service of process. Usually, a state will require nonresidents doing business in a heavily regulated industry to appoint an agent. b) Implied consent A defendant may be deemed to have consented through its conduct, such as filing a counterclaim or driving a vehicle within a state. c) Voluntary appearance Voluntary appearance of the defendant in court automatically subjects the defendant to personal jurisdiction, unless he is present to object to personal jurisdiction.

Due process requirements for personal jurisdiction

The Due Process Clause also limits a court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the parties. A court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has "minimum contacts" with the state in which the court sits (the forum state), and the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable. A court is also required to notify a party of the commencement of an action in which his interests are at stake and provide an opportunity for the party to be heard.

Specific and general jurisdiction

The scope of the contacts necessary for the assertion of personal jurisdiction depends on the relationship that the cause of action has with the forum state. When a cause of action arises out of or closely relates to a defendant's contact with the forum state, jurisdiction may be warranted even if that contact is the defendant's only contact with the forum state. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984). This type of jurisdiction is often referred to as "specific jurisdiction." When a cause of action does not arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum, jurisdiction is warranted only when the defendant is "at home" in the forum state. A corporation is "at home" in the state of its incorporation and the state where its principal place of business, usually the executive offices or "nerve center," is located. Daimler Chrysler v. Bauman, 571 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). This type of jurisdiction is known as "general jurisdiction."

Types

There are three general types of personal jurisdiction: (i) in personam jurisdiction, (ii) in rem jurisdiction, and (iii) quasi-in-rem jurisdiction.

Purposeful Availment

To warrant the assertion of in personam jurisdiction, a defendant's contacts with the forum state must be purposeful and substantial, such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate (foresee) being taken to court there. Foreseeability depends on whether a defendant recognizes or anticipates that by running his business, he runs the risk of being party to a suit in a particular state. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980). This is the "purposeful availment" requirement. There are situations, however, in which it is difficult to discern whether purposeful availment is present. Such is the case when a product is put into the stream of commerce, not necessarily by the manufacturer, but by a party who purchased the product from the manufacturer to use in his product. The manufacturer's product is then put into the stream of commerce. The question remains, did the manufacturer avail himself of the jurisdiction's benefits and laws? The Court is split on this issue and has not been able to reach a cohesive answer. While four justices find sufficiency with the mere knowledge that the product being sold would end up in the stream of commerce, four other justices believe that the manufacturer needed to take an additional step to have availed itself of the forum. Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102 (1987).

Effect of State Jurisdictional Statutes On Personal Jurisdiction in federal court

Under Rule 4(k)(1)(A), the service of a summons in a federal action establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant "who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located." A federal court must generally determine personal jurisdiction as if it were a court of the state in which it is situated. Thus, a federal court will look to state jurisdictional statutes (see §II.B.2.d. Long-arm statutes, infra) to determine if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties before it.

Objection to personal jurisdiction

Unlike with subject matter jurisdiction, a party may consent to personal jurisdiction. The consent may be express, implied, or made by a voluntary appearance. An objection to a court's exercise of jurisdiction over persons and things may also be waived by a party. Under Rule 12(b), the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction over the person, insufficiency of process, and insufficiency of service of process must be asserted in a responsive pleading or by motion before a responsive pleading is submitted. A failure to object in accordance with Rule 12 waives the objection. Rule12(h).

Bases for in personam jurisdiction

Voluntary presence, domicile, consent, long-arm statutes

Minimum Contacts

While before Shaffer it was possible to gain jurisdiction over a person merely on the basis of the presence within the state of property of the person, after Shaffer such an attempt to gain in personam jurisdiction is subject to the International Shoe requirement of minimum contacts.

In personam jurisdiction over corporations

a. Resident corporations For in personam jurisdiction purposes, a corporation is a resident corporation only if it is incorporated in the forum state. Any action may be brought against a corporation that is incorporated in the forum state. If the corporation is not incorporated in the state, then for the purposes of in personam jurisdiction it will constitute a foreign corporation. b. Foreign corporations The rules of minimum contacts and substantial fairness apply to a foreign corporation. Absent "exceptional" circumstances, a plaintiff may sue a corporation in only three places: (i) the forum that has specific jurisdiction because the lawsuit stems from the defendant's contacts with that forum; (ii) the defendant's place of incorporation; or (iii) the defendant's principal place of business. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 746(2014).

Long-arm statute

d. Long-arm statutes Most states have enacted statutes that authorize personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who engage in some activity in the state or cause some action to occur within the state. In many states, the long-arm statute either directly authorizes or has been interpreted as authorizing jurisdiction to the extent permissible under the Due Process Clause. Thus, a federal court in those states need only determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process. In some states, the long-arm statute only confers jurisdiction over specific activities undertaken in the state (e.g., owning property, committing a tort, or entering into a contract to supply goods or services in the state). In these states, the federal court must first determine whether the statutory requirements have been met, before determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause.