I.

Due Process
A. Defined: The exercise of jurisdiction must be consistent with the requirements of the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A state may not assert jurisdiction
over a person or property when it would offend “traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice”
II. Traditional Bases Personal Jurisdiction *Pennoyer v. Neff
A. Defined: Under the traditional bases, Personal Jurisdiction is the authority of the courts
of a certain state to exert power over parties proposed to be defendants and it is only
permissible under the Due Process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution if it does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
justice.
1. The traditional bases of jurisdiction as defined in Pennoyer v. Neff are in personam,
consent, in rem, or quasi in rem. In personam jurisdiction applies to persons who are
present within the state.
a) In Personam Jurisdiction: applies to persons who are present within the state.
(1) If present within the state, then that is sufficient for the forum state to bestow
personal jurisdiction over the defendant
b) Consent
c) In Rem Jurisdiction: applies to persons who have property within the state
when the property is related to the cause of action
d) Quasi In Rem: applies when property is attached to a suit where the issues do
not arise out of the property. Used to get jurisdiction over the defendant.
e) Modernly, no more law suits that include in rem jurisdiction with law suits that do
not have a cause of action from the property. Burnham
f) Dissent of Burnham would also prefer for minimum contacts to be established
for transient parties within a state in order to establish personal jurisdiction (those
who do not live in the state). If they are a resident of the state, they are not
transient.
(1) Knowing and voluntary presence in a state satisfy traditional basis for
jurisdiction
III. Modern Bases of Personal Jurisdiction *International Shoe
A. Specific Jurisdiction Defined: The modern bases of jurisdiction as defined in
International Shoe is the courts of a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over non-
consenting out of state defendants when the defendants have minimum contacts with
the state, when the cause of action arises from or relates to the contacts, and when the
exercise of jurisdiction would be otherwise reasonable.
1. Single Contacts: Claims arising out of a single contact in the forum state may hold
specific jurisdiction over the defendant depending on the “quality and nature” of the
contact. *McGee
2. Continuous but Limited: Claims arising out of a business relationship that has
continuous but limited activity in the forum state will support specific jurisdiction
arising out of continuous activity. *Burger King
B. General Jurisdiction Defined: Courts can exercise jurisdictions over out of state
defendants in causes of actions unrelated to the contacts, if there are extensive contacts
that are present.
1. General Jurisdiction is appropriate when the defendant’s activities in the state are so
substantial and continuous that she would expect to be subject to suit there on any
claim and would suffer no inconvenience from defending there.

1
 a) Contacts must be so extensive that they are considered to be “at-home” there
and, therefore, subject to the burden of submitting jurisdiction there.

C. Contacts (Direct v Indirect:*Asahi*)

1. Must be intentional
a) Defendants must purposefully avail themselves of “the benefits and protections
of the forum state’s law.”
(1) * World-Wide Volkswagen: Although the dealership could foresee that its
buyers might take its cars there, the dealer had not sold cars there,
advertised there, cultivated Oklahoma customers, or deliberately focused on
Oklahoma as a market. Foreseeability is relevant, but by itself does not
create a contact with the forum state.
(2) *Keeton: Defendant had purposefully availed itself by distributing magazines
within the state.
2. The contacts must make it foreseeable to the defendant that he may be subject to
jurisdiction in the forum state
3. Even a single contact may be sufficient ti justify the exercise of jurisdiction *McGee
4. Unilateral activity on the part of the plaintiff does not create a contact for the
defendant
5. Stream of Commerce: Indirect contacts that arrive in the state through the stream of
commerce are sufficient if the defendant benefits from the business and targeted the
state (Split of Authority)
a) *Asahi: Justice Brennan View- sending goods into the stream of commerce in
substantial quantities, constitutes “pure purposeful availment” whether or not the
original maker knows that the goods will be sold in a particular state or cultivates
customers there.

2
 b) *Asahi: Justice O’Connor View-rejects the premise that “mere awareness” that
the stream of commerce may sweep goods into the state after they leave the
defendants hands suffices to satisfy purposeful availment. There needs to be
“purposeful direction”-known as stream of commerce plus
(1) would require clearer evidence that defendant seeks to serve the market in
the forum state.
c) Defendant has to target the forum state in the stream of commerce to establish a
contact *Keeton v. Hustler
6. The Effects Test: *Coddler knowingly causing injury in the state is sufficient to create
a contact
7. Internet: Active websites can create contact. Passive websites cannot.
a) Active Website: if an order can be made and completed on the website without
having to talk to anyone on the phone, then it is considered a contact (amazon)—
called a frictionless transaction
(1) A highly active website is more likely to make a contact than a less active
website.
b) Passive Website: if an order cannot be made and completed on the website, and
a customer has to call the company and place the order, it is NOT a contact
8. Examples of Contacts
a) Single Contacts: Claims arising out of a single contact in the forum state may
hold specific jurisdiction over the defendant depending on the “quality and
nature” of the contact. *McGee
b) Continuous but Limited: Claims arising out of a business relationship that has
continuous but limited activity in the forum state will support specific jurisdiction
arising out of continuous activity. *Burger King
c) Awareness: Awareness of product entering state through stream of commerce
and benefiting from business done in state creates a contact. *Gray
d) Foreign Defendant: No contact when foreign defendant does not target specific
state. *McIntyre
D. Relatedness
1. Cause of action must arise from or relate to contacts
a) Lawsuit arises directly from contacts
b) Lawsuit does not arise directly, but relates in some way: must be substantial
relation *Goodyear
c) If lawsuit does not arise from or relate to contacts, test for general jurisdiction
E. Reasonableness
1. In terms of reasonableness, there are factors such as: the interest of the forum state
in providing redress to its citizens, the interest of the plaintiff in obtaining relief in a
convenient forum, the interest of the states in enforcing their substantive law or
policy, and the extent of the inconvenience to the defendant if she is forced to defend
away from home.
a) Burden on defendant
b) State’s Interest
c) Convenience to plaintiff
d) Judicial efficiency—considers most efficient place to have lawsuit
e) Social Policy
F. Long-Arm Statutes
1. Defined: authorizes courts to exercise jurisdiction over defendants based on specific
types of contacts with the forum state.

3
 a) Examples of state long-arm statutes to authorize their courts to hear cases
arising out of such contacts:
(1) Tortious acts within the state
(2) Transacting business within the state
(3) Owning property within the state
(4) If the cause of action does not fall within the state long-arm statute then the
state may not exercise jurisdiction over the defendant
b) If there is not a state long-arm statute present (ex. CA), then exercise jurisdiction
to the full extent that is not inconsistent with the United State’s constitution
i) Most likely will use this on the exam

2. primary purpose is to reach out of the state to call non-resident defendants back into
the state to defend lawsuits. Even though the defendant has left to forum state
before being sued (or in some cases has never been in the state at all), he may be
required to defend a suit there.
IV. Challenges to Personal Jurisdiction
A. Forum Selection Clause
1. Consenting to jurisdiction in the forum state usually by signing a contract or
purchasing something
2. Is enforceable, but reviewed for fairness
a) Defendant can get out of a forum selection clause if it is unfair
B. Special Appearance
1. The defendant is allowed to appear before the court at the beginning of the action for
the sole purpose of challenging its power to exercise personal jurisdiction over her. If
the defendant makes a special appearance, they may litigate the jurisdictional
question without submitting to jurisdiction by the very act of appearing before court
C. Collateral Attack
1. Waiting until the second lawsuit, which is the enforcement lawsuit.
a) Ex: Plaintiff from AL tries to sue defendant, from CA, in AL and the defendant
does not show up. Defendant defaults judgement. When the plaintiff goes to CA

4
 to try to enforce the default judgement, the defendant will then show up and say
this suit should be thrown out because there should not have been jurisdiction
over him in AL.
V. Exam Flowchart
A. Traditional Bases
1. Presence
2. Consent
3. In Rem
a) Quasi In Rem
B. Out of State, Non-Consenting Defendants
1. Apply State Long Arm Statute
a) If 14th Amendment, follow international show: If there is not a state long-arm
statute present (ex. CA), then exercise jurisdiction to the full extent that is not
inconsistent with the United State’s constitution
2. Modern Rule: Contacts, Relatedness, Reasonableness
a) Specific Jurisdiction
(1) Analyze Contacts
(2) Analyze Relatedness
(3) Reasonableness Factors
(4) If these factors do not apply, then test for *General Jurisdiction
b) General Jurisdiction
VI. Service of Process *Rule 4
A. Notice: must be reasonably calculated under all circumstances, to apprise interested
parties of the pendency of the action
a) effort must meet the same genuine standards of a person who wanted to give
notice.
2. Individuals receiving notice
a) personally delivering the summons and complaint to the defendant
b) leaving copies of the summons and the complaint at his dwelling or usual place
of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein,
c) delivering the papers to an agent appointed by the defendant to receive service
of process on his behalf
d) serve individuals under the provisions governing service on individuals in the
courts of the state where the federal court sits in
(1) If A is suing out of state defendant B, A can use any method for service that
is authorized in A’s state.
e) individuals who are served outside of the state authorizes service pursuant to the
law of the state where the defendant is actually being served in
(1) If A is suing out of state defendant B, A can use any method for service that
is authorized in B’s state.
3. Corporations (if served in USA)
a) personally delivering the summons and complaint to the defendant
b) leaving copies of the summons and the complaint at usual place of business with
a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein,
c) delivering the papers to an agent appointed by the defendant to receive service
of process on his behalf
d) serve individuals under the provisions governing service on individuals in the
courts of the state where the federal court sits in

5
 (1) If A is suing out of state defendant B, A can use any method for service that
is authorized in A’s state.
e) individuals who are served outside of the state authorizes service pursuant to the
law of the state where the defendant is actually being served in
(1) If A is suing out of state defendant B, A can use any method for service that
is authorized in B’s state.
B. Waiver of Notice
1. Authorizes the plaintiff to solicit a waiver of all service technicalities by sending the
defendant a request that the defendant waive formal service of the summons and
complaint upon him. The defendant is given incentives to waive:
a) creates a duty to avoid “unnecessary expenses of serving the summons” by
agreeing to waive
b) The court imposes the cost of service on a defendant who refuses to waive
service without good cause
c) It gives 60 days to respond to the complaint vs. 20 days if service is not waived.
VII. Supplemental Jurisdiction
A. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the competency of a court to hear and render
judgement on cases pertaining to certain controversies or issues. It is a structural matter
determined by the U.S. Constitution and statutes and is a right that is never waived by
the parties involved.
1. The State courts are courts of general jurisdiction, meaning they can hear all manner
of cases, except for those that are determined to be of the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Federal courts (i.e. copyright infringement).
2. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction that applies only to controversies that are
matters arising under a Federal Question (FQ), involving either a case created by
federal law or a state law claim with substantial overlap with a federal law, or when
there is Diversity between the parties involved (Div).
B. 4 ways to get to Federal Court
1. Federal Question
2. Diversity Jurisdiction
3. Supplemental Jurisdiction
4. Removal
C. Federal Question *Rule 1331
1. Involving either a case created by federal law or a state law claim with substantial
overlap with a federal law,
a) claims that arise under federal law
b) state law claims that raise substantial and disputed federal issue
(1) One of the parties has to rely on federal law to establish either a claim or a
defense in the lawsuit, or at least raise a federal issue in proving the case.
(2) Copyright Infringement: cannot go to state court for copyright issues because
it involves construction and application of federal law
c) Pg 70?
2. Creation Test *use but is not determinative to prove federal question
a) a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action
b) the test finds jurisdiction if the source of the plaintiff’s enforceable legal right
against the defendant is federal law.
c) if there is a state law claim that cannot be proven without establishing the
propositions of federal law, it is deemed to arise-under federal question.

6
D. Diversity Jurisdiction *1332
1. *State Law Claims Only* but follow federal procedure
2. In order for a case to be considered diverse, there must be complete diversity
between the plaintiffs and the defendants, meaning that no plaintiff is of the same
state as any defendant.
a) There must also be an amount in controversy that exceeds $75000.
b) Citizenship is determined by where a party is domiciled with an intent to remain
indefinitely.
(1) Citizenship determined at the time of filing
(2) Person must be residing in the state, intent to remain is not good enough
(a) A person from State A is moving to State B. In State B, the person has
purchased a condo, has secured a job. In State A, the person has put his
house up for sale. Person is still a citizen of State A because he is still
residing there.
(3) Facts that show a person is residing in a state,
(a) job
(b) paying tax
(c) voting
(d) car registration
3. Corporations *1332(c)(1)
a) corporations are citizens for diversity purposes of both the state where their
principal place of business is located and every state in which they are
incorporated
(1) Principal Place of Business: Where it employs the most people, conducts the
most activities and has the most interactions with the public.
(2) With large corporations, look for the nerve center (corporate headquarters,
or home office from which its activities are coordinated)
4. Amount in Controversy exceeding $75,000
a) It is determined by the plaintiff’s good faith claim unless their is legal certainty
that the claim is really for less
b) Heavily weighted toward the plaintiff
5. Examples:
(1) Single plaintiff asserts two or more claims against a single defendant that are
both less than $75K, the amounts may be added together to reach the
required amount
(2) Single plaintiff cannot assert two or more claims against multiple defendants
that are both less than $75K .
(3) Multiple plaintiffs may not add their claims together against a single
defendant to meet the amount requirement in cases where neither party
meets the the amount requirement
(4) Single plaintiff cannot assert two or more claims against multiple defendants
even if one claim is more than $75K, and the second is less. Both claims
against each defendant must be more than $75k.
(5) As long as one plaintiff satisfies the amount requirement, others may join as
co-plaintiffs even though they are seeking less as long as their is only a
single defendant
6. Do all plaintiffs need to be diverse?

7
8
E. Supplemental Jurisdiction *1367
1. All supplemental claims are state law and non-diverse. If they were diverse, then
they would use a diversity claim.
2. Supplemental jurisdiction is meant to cover claims that are not federal question or
diversity claims but are so related to one of those claims that it can also be heard in
federal court in order to resolve all the claims at one time in the name of judicial
efficiency.
a) §1367(a) requires that a supplemental claim must be related to the claim of
original federal jurisdiction by having a common nucleus of operative facts.
Meaning that the same events and facts have substantial overlap in fulfilling the
elements of the different causes of action. *If Federal Question, go straight to (c).
b) §1367(b) applies to supplemental claims that are related to diversity claims and it
holds that claims by plaintiffs against persons joined under R 14,19,20, or 24 are
not permitted as supplemental claims if they do not satisfy 1332 requirements,
and also that claims by persons proposed to be plaintiffs under R 19 or 24 are
also prohibited if they fail 1332.
c) §1367(c) After the judge decides it has the power to hear the related claims
under supplemental jurisdiction, the court has the discretionary decision to
determine whether it makes sense to exercise jurisdiction. Factors include:
(1) whether the state law claim predominates
(2) whether it would require the court to decide sensitive or novel issues of state
law
(3) whether hearing the claims together might confuse the jury
(4) whether the federal issues are resolved early in the case, leaving only a state
law claim for decision
3. Gaping Hole *Exon
a) Allows a second diverse plaintiff to be joined to a diversity case under Rule 20 or
23 under 1367(b). *second plaintiff must also be diverse from defendant
4. Examples
a) 1367(a)
(1) If the initial suit is federal question and the supplemental claim arises from the
same nucleus of operative fact, then the supplemental claim may get added
on. The judge still needs to determine whether it makes sense to exercise
jurisdiction

9
 b) 1367(b)
(1) If the initial suit is diverse and a second plaintiff joins, then they must join
under rule 20 or 23 and also be diverse from the defendant—Gaping Hole

Rule 20

c) If Plaintiff has a diversity claim against defendant 1 and defendant 2 is joined to

the suit under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, the suit is not allowed

10
 5. Compulsory Counterclaim
a) When a Plaintiff has a successful suit in federal court against the defendant, and
the defendant then brings a counterclaim against the defendant that is state law,
it may still be heard in federal court as long as the counterclaim arises from the
same occurrence.

F. Removal *1441
1. Removal only applied to cases that could have been brought originally in federal
court.
2. 1441(a) Authorizes state court actions of which the district courts of the United States
have original jurisdiction.
a) If the plaintiff could not have chosen to bring the action in federal court initially,
the defendant cannot remove it.
3. 1441(b) A diversity case is only removable if “none of the defendants are citizens of
the State in which the action is brought.”
a) An out of state defendant may suffer prejudice from litigating in the state court of
the plaintiff
b) plaintiff from CA. defendant from NY. If the defendant is sued in NY state court,
he cannot remove to federal court.
4. A state court case can only be removed to the federal court in the same state and
same district. (There is only one court that a case can be removed to).
a) Cannot remove a state court case to another state court. You can only transfer
venues
b) Cannot remove to a federal court in a different state. Only remove to the federal
court in the same state.
5. A case that is removable must be removed to the district and division where such
action is initiated and pending even if that federal district would not have been a
proper venue if the case had been brought in federal court initially.
a) Instead of bringing a claim in state court, if the plaintiff were to have initially
brought a the claim in federal court, even if that technically would have not been
the proper venue for the plaintiff, the defendant can still only remove to that
venue because that’s where the suit was initiated.
6. After removal, a case proceeds in federal court under Federal Rules.

11
VIII. Venue *1391
A. Venue is determined under §1391 to be proper in three ways:
1. Any district where the defendant resides if all defendants reside within the same
state
a) An individual resides where they are domicile(only in the district where she lives)
b) If D1 is from the north district of CA and D2 is from the south district of CA, suit
would only be proper in the north district and south district and not any other
district in CA under (rule 1).
2. Any district where a substantial part of the cause of action or omissions occurred, or
a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated
a) “substantial part” requires analysis. It does authorize venue in several districts
if the cause of action occurred in multiple districts.
3. If a venue cannot be determined by the first two ways, then anywhere a defendant is
subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.
a) Applied usually when defendants are from different states the the cause of action
arose in a different country
B. Corporations
1. A defendant that is a corporation resides in any district which:
a) it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced
i) (contacts, place incorporated, & principal place of business)
b) In a state with multiple districts, a corporation will be deemed to reside in any
district in that state which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal
jurisdiction.
c) If no such district exist, then the corporation will be deemed to reside in the
district where they have the most significant contacts.
C. Transferring Venues *1404 & 1406
1. under rule1404 courts have the discretionary authority to transfer a case to another
federal district for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of
justice.
a) The state law where the case is originally in will transfer along with the case to
the other district
(1) ex. if a case gets transferred from CA to NV, CA state law will still transfer
with the case and be applied in NV, which prevents forum shopping of the
defendant. (ex. with the wrongful death statute)
b) concerned with convenience
2. under rule 1406
a) premise is that the venue where the case currently sits is improper
b) remedy is to either transfer the case to proper venue or dismiss
c) not concerned with convenience, but is concerned with the interest of justice
d) interest of justice is used in situations where the statute of limitations has expired
and transfer would allow them to continue the case.
3. Forum non-convenience?
IX. Erie Doctrine
A. Guided Erie
1. The determine the answer to this question, the court in the Hanna case held if there
is a Federal Rule directly on point, that the federal court can apply that rule as long
as it is valid, meaning that it does not violate the Rules Enabling Act, which required
that any Federal Procedural Rule cannot infringe on State substantive law.
a) Is there a Federal Rule directly on point?

12
 b) There are two ways that a federal rule can be directly on point, either it
(1) directly conflicts with a State law, (direct collision) or;
(2) the federal rule was meant to "occupy the field" and not allow for any State
laws to expand upon the federal laws governing that issue.
2. Is the Federal Rule Valid?
a) The question of whether the federal rule is valid is mainly asking whether the
federal rule is purely procedural and doesn't become substantive. In order to
determine this, the court must go through the Unguided Erie analysis.
B. Unguided Erie
1. Outcome Determinative Test
a) The outcome determinative test comes mainly from the Guaranty Trust v. York
case which held that the outcome of the case in federal court should not be
drastically different than if it were heard in state court, and if it was then it is more
likely that the rule involves substantive law.
b) The York case decided this issue when it came down to state statute of
limitations versus federal statutes of limitations because following the federal rule
would permit a case to be heard in federal court when it would have been
dismissed in state court, and therefore statutes of limitations are matters of
substantive law.
2. Byrd-Balancing Test
a) The court in Byrd held that in instances where it is unclear which rule should
prevail from the outcome determinative test, a useful way to decide which rule
holds is to weigh the interest the state has behind its rule against the federal
interest in applying their rule.
(1) The federal interest is usually pretty high in upholding the rules that they
created themselves.
3. Gasperini Test
a) The Gasperini case involved a state court rule that allowed appellate courts to
limit excessive jury awards but that conflicted with the federal rules regarding
appellate procedure.
b) The court held that if there is a substantial state policy or interest behind their
state rule, the federal court can try to accommodate that state policy within the
federal procedural law.
4. Twin Aims of Erie
a) The twin aims of Erie were to deter discriminatory forum-shoppng and
b) avoid inequitable administration of the law.
(1) Forum-shopping was a big problem in the wake of Swift because it led to out-
of-state parties trying to get their claims in federal court to have more
favorable outcomes than they would receive in state court.
c) *look to see where defendants may have a more favorable verdict
d) *There is also equitable administration of the laws because the trial is still to be
determined on the merits of the case rather than on which law applies.

13
14