Personal Jurisdiction

International Shoe- Plaintiff is subject to personal jurisdiction only when he has sufficient minimum
contacts with the forum state so that “maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair
play and substantial justice.”

A. Personal Jurisdiction
1. General jurisdiction
(1) Systematic and Continuous Presence
 “if the defendant has a systematic and continuous presence in the
forum state, provided exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions
of fair play and substantial justice” (International Shoe)
 Requires a significant quantum of contacts within forum state
 A corporation that has incorporated in the forum state, systematic and
continuous presence is assumed (Perkins v Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.)
 A corporation’s physical presence in a state may be acceptable if
actions are continuous and systematic
 Without constant physical presence, the defendant might be doing
business continuously and systematically (Helicopteros Nacionales de
Colombia v Hall)
(2) Fair Play and Substantial Justice
(1) Burden on the defendant
(2) Interests of the forum state
(3) Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief
(4) Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most
efficient resolution of controversies
(5) The shared interest of the several States in furthering
fundamental social policies
 Can be considered to only apply to corporations (Burnham)
2. Specific Jurisdiction
(1) Plaintiff’s claim arises out of defendant’s forum conduct
 “a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction if that defendant has
only isolated or limited contacts with the forum state, provided the cause of
action arises out of the contacts, a long-arm statute authorizes the exercise of
jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant, can’t violate fair and reasonable”
(International Shoe)
 Cause of action “relates to” the defendant’s contacts with the forum
state
(2) State Long-arm statues
  FRCP 4(k)(1)(A) – federal courts have personal jurisdiction over
defendants who would be subject to personal jurisdiction in the state courts of
the state where the district court is located
 Long arm statutes provide authority to exercise jurisdiction over out-of-
state defendants
 Narrow form=inter alia:
(1) Transaction of business within state
(2) A contract to supply services or things within state
(3) Tortious injury by an act or omission in state
(4) Tortious injury by act outside the state if the defendant does or
solicits business in state, etc.
(3) Minimum Contacts
 International Shoe - Defendant has purposefully availed himself to the
benefits of the forum state, sufficiency may exist
(1) Intentionally direct some activity toward forum state
(2) World Wide Volkswagon- must be reasonably foreseeable that
the defendants would be hauled into court
(3) Shaffer v Heinter- presence of property in forum state is a
contact to be considered. Holds that for the constitutional test, you
must assess the defendant by International Shoe Test (it is not enough
that property is present in forum state)
(4) McGee v International Life Ins- successful solicitation by a life
insurance co. of a single customer in the forum state and the receipt of
premiums was sufficient
(5) Hanson v Deckla- purposeful availment not found when the
defendant’s contact with the forum state is created by the plaintiff’s
unilateral activity
(6) Pavlovich v Superior Court-
(a) sliding scale test used to determine if the defendant
purposefully availed himself (used in internet cases

Sliding Scale Test (for specific jurisidiction): Zippo Case is best example

Defendant is clearly doing business Interactive Website Merely Provides information

----------^----------------------------------------------^-----------------------------------------^------------------

Jurisdiction No Jurisdiction
(Passive Website)
(b) Effects Test used to see if the defendant expressly
aimed their conduct towards the forum state
(i) Keeton:
 (ii) Calder: Court found that there was personal
jurisdiction over out of state defendants who engaged
in intentional tortious conduct with an effect that was
targeted at the forum state
(7) Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v Superior Court-Stream of Commerce
(a) Brennan- If you put product in stream of commerce it
should be reasonably seen that it will get to other states that
you don’t ship directly to
(b) Connors (Concurrence)- Need that plus in the intent of
the purpose to serve those particular states (customer service
or advertisement)
(4) Fair Play and Substantial Justice
(1) The burden on the defendant
(2) The interests of the forum state
(3) The plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief
(4) The interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most
efficient resolution of controversies
(5) The shared interest of the several State in furthering
fundamental substantive social policies
 Burger Kind Corp. v Rudzewicz- You can have contact with the forum
even though you don’t enter it. Fair and reasonable used with lesser showing of
minimal contacts
 Asahi- unique burdens placed upon one who must defend oneself in a
foreign legal system, should have significant weigh in assessing the
reasonableness of personal jurisdiction.
3. Consent
 Personal jurisdiction exists if defendant has executed a forum selection
clause that submits jurisdiction of the courts to forum state
 Exclusive forum selection clause will divest all other courts of personal
jurisdiction
 Carnival Cruise Lines v Shute- judicial scrutiny of fundamental fairness
of forum selection clause.
(1) Survives clause if there is no bad faith motive or some other
indication of fraud or overreaching
4. Waiver- a defendant waives a challenge to personal jurisdiction by failing to
raise it.
 Defense may be raised in pre-answer motion to dismiss or the answer
 FRCP 12(g)- requires a consolidation of defenses into on prepleading
motion (failure to consolidate may lead to waiver of any defense or objection
not included)
  If defendant never makes appearance, defendant can collaterally attack
judgment in plaintiff’s enforcement action. If the defendant loses in that action
on the issue of personal jurisdiction, the default judgment stands.
5. Personal Service within the Forum
 Burnham v Superior Court
(1) Scalia- service in state does give general jurisdiction because its
always been that way (don’t have to apply fair and reasonable)
(2) Brennan- in-state service satisfies test for specific jurisdiction
(minimum contacts) (fair and reasonable should be applied)
 If the defendant is in the forum state because of force or fraud or to
participate in another judicial proceeding, service under these circumstances
may not establish personal jurisdiction
6. Federal Statute
(1) Some federal statutes give courts much broader authority than
the long-arm
 28 USC s. 1335, 1397, 2361
7. 100-Mile Bulge Rule
(1) FRCP 4(k)(1)(B) authorized personal jurisdiction over defendant
who:
 Is joined under Rule 14 or 19
 Is served within 100 miles of the courthouse
 Is still within a judicial district of the US
8. FRCP 4(k)(2)
(1) Authorizes federal courts to exercise jurisdiction in cases where:
 The plaintiff has invoked federal question jurisdiction
 The defendant is not otherwise subject to personal jurisdiction in the
courts of any state; and
 The defendant has minimum contacts with the aggregated US
(1) If personal jurisdiction over foreign defendant can be
established in some other forum pursuant to FRCP 4(k)(1)(A) then the
litigation must proceed there