PJ Framework

Question 1

Step 1: Statutory Analysis

Answer 1

Federal Power (4k) source of courts federal power (jurisdiction of a federal court is usually the same as that of a state court in the state in which federal court is located)

State Power: Long Arm provisions. Provisions that permit the exercise of jurisdiction over those outside the state. Allows jurisdiction over nonresident under specific jurisdiction. The constitutional limit is the 14th ammendment due process clause.

*If no state statute, no PJ. *

-CAlifornia type (full extend of const)
-Laundry list type (lists specific activities)

Question 2

Step 2: Constitutional Analysis (broad)

Answer 2

Int Shoe established minimum contacts + fairness test. Due process standard for PJ.

3 step analytical framework
1) Relevant contact to forum (D must have contact with forum)

2) Relatedness of claim (does the* claim* arise out of or relate to D’s contact with forum)

3) Fairness/Reasonbleness (Applies only in specific PJ)

Question 3

3 step constitutional analytical framework

Step 2.1.1 (Relevant contact, purposful availment):

Answer 3

1.1 (Purposful Availment)

Hanson v. Denkla: (unilateral test)
(Florida trustee, Deleware trust)
Rule: Defendant must purposfully reach into forum

Key Point: Plaintiff’s Unilateral activity (moving, traveling, relacation) cannot create Jur.

World Wide VW (product test)
(bought audi in NY local dealer, injured in OK)
Rule: Mere foreseability that a product will end up in the forum is not enough.

Key Point: consumers unilateral act of bringing product into the state does not establish jur.

Calder Effect Test (tort test)
Jurisdiction is proper where a defendants intentional conduct is expressely aimed at the forum and causes harm the defendant knows will be felt there. D avails.

Walden v. Fiore (
Narrows Calder. Conduct against plaintiff of forum not enogh when plaintiff has knowledge the effects will be felt in that state but that is the sole contact with the forum.

Think of it like this:
* Calder: “You aimed at California, so you’re in California court.”
* Walden: “You aimed only at the plaintiffs, not Nevada itself — so Nevada can’t haul you in.”

Question 4

3 step constitutional analytical framework

Step 2.1.2 (forseeability of suit)

Answer 4

World Wide VW
mere forseeability that a product might end up in a forum is not enough. Defendant must have purposfully availed itself of the privlege of conducting activities in the forum state such SUCH THAT IT COULD REASONBLY ANTICIPATE BEING HAILED INTO COURT.

Forseeability as a check
If a defendant purposefully avails itself of a forum, foreseeability of suit there is inherent; lack of foreseeability usually means the contact wasn’t true availment.

Question 5

2.1.3 (stream of commerce)

Answer 5

Does putting goods into distribution chain count as relevant contact/purposeful availment.

Brennan (asahi concurrence)/ginsburg (nicastro dissent): awareness + regular flow of goods = purposeful availment.

Oconnor (asahi plurality)/Kennedy (nicastro plurality): anticipation PLUS intent to serve state is whats required (advertising, designing, customer service, etc).

Bryer
Agreed no PJ under nicastro but ressited adopting a broad rule and emphasized case by case analysis consider volume/value/hazard.

Question 6

Internet Contacts (Zippo Test)

Answer 6

Apply Zippo
1) website is passive advertisement. Not Purposful availment
2) Website Facilitates contractual relationships and teh knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the internet. Purposful availment.
3) Website in between 1 and 2, jurisdiction is determined by level of interactivity and *commercial nature *of exchange of information on the website.

Question 7

Relatednes

Step 2.2 (relatedness) (broad)

Answer 7

Question Presented:
is the plaintiff’s claim sufficeintly connected to the defendants contacts with the forum state.

2.2.1 (does claim arise out of or realte to D’s contact)

2.2.2 (Bristol Myeys, Causal Link)

2.2.3 (Ford Motor, arise out of and relate to)

2.2.4 (no relatedness of claim, no Sj. Must try General Jur.)

Question 8

relatedness

2.2.2 (bristol myers)

Answer 8

Bristol Myers
(cal resident sues BMS in cal for injuries caused by plavix. Out of state plaintiffs join suit. But, out of state plaintiffs bought and used plavix outside of Cal.

Rule: Specific Jur requires a causal link between the D’s forum contacts and P’s claim.

Non-resident plaintiffs injuries did not arise from BMS california activity so jurisdiction over them was improper.

Question 9

Relatedness

2.2.3

Answer 9

Ford Motor
Plaintiff’s injured in accidents in Montana and Minnesota sued Ford, but the specifc cars involved were not sold in those states.

Holding: Jur was proper. Ford’s extensive marketing, sales, and servicing of the same car models in those states meant the claims related to fords forum contacts, even if they did not strictly arise out of them.

**Rule: **
arise out of = strict causal link.

Relate to = looser connection. allows jurisdiction if the claim is sufficiently connected to defendants forum activities, even without strict causation.

Question 10

2.4 If no relatedness, PJ is only ok if general Jur applies.

Question 11

Fairness/reasonblness

Step 3. (broad)

Answer 11

1) applies only in specific jur cases.

2) 5 fairness factors

Question 12

Step 3.2 Fairness Factors

Answer 12

Fairness Factors (Burger King)

Defendants must make a good case that they will be gravely incovoinved to defend in forum state.

Choice of law/forum clause does not create jurisdiction, but is a factor weighing in favor of personal jur.

1) Burden on Defendant
2) Forum states interest (e.g. road safety and protecting residents)
3) Plaintiff’s interests (efficeint litigation at home).
4) Legal systems interest in efficiency.
5) shared substatnive policy of states (rarely used).

Question 13

Traditional Basis PJ

4 Traditional stand-alone ways to get PJ (does not require MCA analysis)

Answer 13

1) served with process in forum state (penoyer) (not for corps) (burnham tag)
-Scalia/Brennan split. Scalia: Tag valid because deeply rooted historical practice. Brennan: Valid only because it satisfies int shoe minmum contact and fairness.

2) Agent served in forum state

3) defendant is domiciled in forum state, always can be sued here (general Jur).

4) Consent to personal Jur (can be waived by failure to assert becasue it is a 12(b)defense)

Question 14

2 Traditional in personam bases that now fall under MCA

Answer 14

Shaffner v. Hietner: absorbed in rem and quasi in rem into minimum contacts analysis
1) in rem
2) Quasi in rem