Civ Pro Personal Jurisdiction Essay A+ Outline

Nevada and California long arm statute.

Case is set up in Federal court
If you are going to make assumptions, be assertive and confident in them.
Don’t spend more than an hour on this essay Question
4-5 pages

Long arm statute

– Demonstrate why a federal district court apply a state’s long statute?
[FR 4(K)(1)(A)] In General. Serving a summons or filing a waiver of
service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant: (A) who is
subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state
where the district court is located;]
○ The purpose of rule 4K1A the federal district court is to apply the

same analysis in determining whether it has personal jurisdiction over

a defendant than a court of that state would.
– In general, a federal district court’s personal jurisdiction is the same as
that of the state courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the
federal court sits. A state court’s personal jurisdiction over a non-
resident defendant is derived from the state’s long-arm statute, subject
to the limits imposed by the Due Process Clause of the United States
Constitution. [FR 4(K)(1)(A)]

Service of Process
– Voluntarily appeared? Consented to personal jurisdiction through a forum
selection clause? Waived the right to object to personal jurisdiction
because the objection was not made in a timely manner either in the
motion to dismiss or in the answer that no motion to dismiss was field.
– Work through these to show why or why not they would not apply?
– If voluntarily appearing a defendant would not file a motion to dismiss.

Specific and General jurisdiction

– personal jurisdiction can be divided into two types: specific jurisdiction
and general jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction applies where the cause of
action arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.
 – General jurisdiction applies where the defendant’s contacts with the
forum state are so continuous and systematic that it can be sued their on
any cause of action, even those that are unconnected to the forum.
Domicile
– If a corporation pay attention to domicile because *mention
1332(c)(1)*
– Examples of states with general jurisdiction include the state
where the defendant is incorporated, and the state where the
defendant has its principal place of business.

Minimum Contacts
– to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, must have certain
minimum contact within the forum state such that maintenance of the
suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice”. International Shoe Co. v. Washington
– “systematic and continuous” … irregular and casual activity alone is not
sufficient International Shoe Co. v. Washington
– Courts consider many factors to determine whether exercising personal
jurisdiction is consistent with these notions, including: the burden on the
defendant, the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, and the
efficient operation of the interstate judicial system.
– *The stream of commerce metaphor has been invoked frequently in lower
court decisions permitting jurisdiction in products liability cases in which
the product has traveled through an extensive chain of distribution
before reaching the ultimate consumer*

PJ Practice Question and Answer (California Bar)

. Does the superior court of California in Sand Diego have personal
jurisdiction over: Meyer Corp.

Meyer

The superior court does not have personal jurisdiction over Meyer Corp.

Long arm statute

In general, a federal district court’s personal jurisdiction is the same as that
of the California courts of general jurisdiction in California where the federal
court sits. A state court’s personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant
is derived from California’s long-arm statute, subject to the limits imposed by
the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. [FR 4(K)(1)(A)]

Service of process
If a defendant voluntarily appears then that the defendant would not file a
motion to dismiss. Here, Meyer Corp. has not waived the right to object to
personal jurisdiction because the objection was made in a timely manner in a
motion to dismiss. Paul sent a summons and copy of the complaint to Meyer
Corp. by ordinary mail to the company in Germany.

Specific and General Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction can be divided into two types: specific jurisdiction and
general jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction applies where the cause of action
arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. Specific
jurisdiction depends on an “affiliation between the forum and the underlying
controversy,” principally, activity or an occurrence that takes place in the
forum state and is therefore subject to the state’s regulation. Goodyear
Dunlop Tires operations, S.A. v. Brown

Here, the chips that Paul ate had been manufactured by Meyer Corp. in
Germany, which is Meyer Corps. sole place of business. Paul purchased the
chips in San Francisco while he he was attending a music festival. Therefore,
the superior court of California in San Diego would likely find that the
affiliation between the forum and and the underlying controversy is not
subject to California’s regulation because Meyer Corp. could not have
foreseeable seen Paul’s cause of action arising from their snack being sold
by Valerie.

General jurisdiction applies where the defendant’s contacts with the forum
state are so continuous and systematic that it can be sued there on any
cause of action, even those that are unconnected to the forum. A state court
may not exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign subsidiary of a United
States based corporation unless it engages in such continuous and
systematic activities as to render it essential at home in the forum state.
Goodyear Dunlop Tires operations, S.A. v. Brown

Here, Meyer Corp. does not have continuous and systematic contacts with
the forum state, which means that it can not be sued there on any cause of
action including those that are unconnected to the forum. Thus, the superior
court of California in San Diego would most likely not have general
jurisdiction over Meyer Corp.

Minimum Contacts
To exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, a court must have certain
minimum contact within the forum state such that maintenance of the suit
does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington

In the present case, Meyer Corp. does not have certain minimum contacts
within the California to be subject to suit within that state. Irregular and
casual activity alone is not sufficient to create minimum contacts. Therefore,
the superior court of California in San Diego would likely find that, Meyer
Corp.’s chips being sold by Valerie is not sufficient.

Also, courts consider many factors to determine whether exercising personal

jurisdiction is consistent with these notions, including: the burden on the
defendant, the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, and the
efficient operation of the interstate judicial system.

Here, the burden on Meyer Corp. is severe due to Germany being their sole
place of business. Meyer Corp. would have to traverse the distance between
their sole place of business to the Superior Court of California in San Diego.
The unique burdens placed upon a defendant who must defend oneself in a
foreign legal system should have significant weight in assessing the
reasonableness of stretching the long arm of personal jurisdiction over
national borders. Forum state’s and plaintiff’s interest in adjudicating this
cause of action in California’s assertion of jurisdiction over Meyer Corp is
slight. The plaintiff is a citizen of Mexico, and attends college in San Diego on
a student visa, but the incident occurred in San Francisco. The superior court
of California in San Diego’s interest in the dispute also diminishes. Therefore,
a court would possibly find that that exercising personal jurisdiction over
Meyer Corp. is not consistent with the “traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.”

In conclusion, the Superior Court of California does not have personal

jurisdiction over Meyer Corp.