Personal Jurisdiction - Minimum Contacts Analysis FlowChart

Published on June 2016 | Categories: Types, School Work | Downloads: 778 | Comments: 0 | Views: 2139
of 1
Download PDF   Embed   Report

for civpro

Comments

Content

CHART: MINIMUM CONTACTS
PERSONAL JURISDICTION: MINIMUM CONTACTS ANALYSIS




Contacts?

none . . . . . . . . . . . . casual/isolated . . . . . . . single . . . . . . . continuous but limited . . . . . . . . . . . . substantial

Jurisdictional
G!
Result: no jdx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . specific jdx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . general jdx
Decreasing contacts

Increasing contacts

Was there PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT? (Voluntary Affiliation)

Denckla: NO PJ bad kids case, ∆ DE trust co. did not do purposeful act, unilateral act of π to move to FL; ∆ must purposefully avail herself of the privilege
of conducting activities within the FS, thus invoking the benefit and protection of the FS’s laws.

1.
2.
3.

Were the contacts the result of “unilateral activity” of the π? WWVW
FORESEEABILITY Is ∆’s conduct and connection with FS such that she should “reasonably anticipate being haled into
court” there? Int’l Shoe, WWVW (in dissent)
Did ∆ “deliberately engage in significant activities” within the FS or has she created “continuing obligations” between
herself and FS? (business relationship) Burger King

NO
YES
NO PJ.

Other Methods?
1. Direct contacts – go back to general jurisdiction
2. Contractual obligation – K with a resident of the state McGee, Burger King
3. Internet/Website – non-passive website (active, not informational) viewed
within the FS, PJ depends on commercial nature of website, level of
consumer used doesn’t matter Zippo

Stream of Commerce

Single Contact

“Effects” Test

placing product in stream

“seek to serve”

tortious act

1961 GRAY v. RADIATOR (IL case) YES PJ

1950 TRAVELER’S HEALTH YES PJ

1980 WWVW NO IPJ

1957 MCGEE YES PJ

Ill. Accident, PA boiler mfr. implead OH valve
component co; Ill. LA§ compliant with DPC,
transaction has substantial connection with FS;
injury occurred, most convenient forum

π buy audi in NY, accident OK; sues car dealer,
importer, Audi, VW; unilateral activity of πs; no
purposeful availment primary focus is to prevent
∆s from defending too far from home, prevent
states from reaching out beyond sovereignty

Dissent: cars are uniquely mobile, should be
foreseeable consequence

Health insurance co. solicit/”reached out” to VA
residents, VA asks them to stop under Blue Sky
laws. Found “systematic and wide” solicitation
created “continuing obligations” with VA.

π sues for dead son’s insurance policy. CA LA§
covers (regulatory interest in adjudicating
matter). ∆ solicited π for re-insurance
agreement and purposefully mailed policy to CA.

1981 MCGOWAN (NY case) NO PJ

Est. "effects” test: state has power to exercise PJ
over a party who causes effects in a state by an
act done elsewhere w.r.t. any cause of action
arising from these effects; NO PJ for domestic
relations disputes (only commercial transaction)

1984 CALDER YES PJ

Libel, π celeb sued author/editor of article; ∆s
story about CA π, CA sources, for CA readers,
knew harm would occur in CA = FS as focal point.
NO PJ just based on “effects” felt in CA, also
found “purposefully availed.” (c.f. WWVW
where harm was felt in FS, but insufficient for PJ)

1984 KEETON v. HUSTLER YES PJ

NY brings fondue pot to Canada, sues JP mfr;
NYCPLR 302(a)(1) = “arise from transacting
business, contractual activity”; single shipment
not enough

Libel, ∆ deliberately sold magazines in FS, state
has interest in citizens’ access to truthful info. =
“not too small a tail to wag out-of-state dog”;
relationship btwn ∆, forum, and litigation; look
@ volume of activity and nexus of suit

1987 ASAHI (foreign) NO PJ



1981 KULKO NO PJ

SPLIT COURT DECISION! CA motorcycle injury, ∆ TW implead JP component; CA settle, TW v. JP
4 votes: no min contacts, 4 votes: contacts, 3 votes: meets either, 8 votes: unreasonable

O’Connor: “awareness not enough” need to “seek to serve” à stream of commerce plus

Brennan: yes min. contacts, awareness/foreseeability suffices; reasonableness requirement of
Burger King will get rid of unfair cases

1985 BURT v. BOARD OF REGENTS YES PJ

2011 JMM v. NICASTRO (foreign) NO PJ (basically changes nothing)

2014 WALDEN v. FIORE NO PJ

6-3 NO PLURALITY! scrap metal recycling, attempt to fix Asahi imprecision problem; NJ (Nicastro, acc,
FS), JMM UK co., McIntrye USA distributor is gone/bankrupt

Breyer/Alito: narrowest grounds holding of majority (wants better facts for a ruling), under either
view of stream of commerce/plus there is no PJ à only a single sale

Wouldn’t affect the Etsy-ers of the world, because wouldn’t pass REASONABLENESS TEST

Kennedy: likes O’Connor “seek to serve”, brings up Pennoyer SOVEREIGNTY = consent, presence,
domicile; consent is established by purposefully availing self to FS (“submission to sovereign”)

RBG: NJ is part of the US market, can use FRCP 4(k)(2) to adjudicate, scrap metal recycling is niche
and could’ve foreseen product in NJ, NJ has strong interest in providing venue; unfair

6

Medical recommendation letter from NE to CO
included defamatory statement, π suffer
economic harm in CO, sending the letter was
targeted and purposeful

DEA police officer in ATL seize $ from NV π’s in
ATL airport; π cannot be only contact btwn ∆
and FS (NV); DPC requires ∆ cannot be haled into
FS due to “random, fortuitous, or attenuated”
contacts (contra Calder had other FS contacts) =
foreseeability alone is not enough, need relation

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close