Civil Procedure Outline

Part III: Personal Jurisdiction

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction:

Personal jurisdiction governs what geographic area a lawsuit can be filed. Courts use personal
jurisdiction to serve two policy purposes: (1) courts want to protect defendants from the burden of litigating in
distant or inconvenient forums; and (2) courts want to ensure that states maintain their status as equal
sovereigns and do not reach beyond their limits. There are three types of personal jurisdiction: in personam,
in rem, and quasi in rem. Quasi in rem now falls under the in personam standard. In personam jurisdiction
describes the court’s authority to exercise jurisdiction over an individual or a corporation. There are two types
of in personam jurisdiction: specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction.

Specific Jurisdiction:

Specific jurisdiction, a type of in personam jurisdiction, requires that the claim against the defendant
arises out of the defendant’s actions within the forum state. Essentially, the claim must relate to the forum. For a
court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have such minimum contacts with
the state that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant does not offend the traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice.
(Part A of flow chart) EASY WAY: A state can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if the
defendant is a domicile within the state, is personally served within the state, waives personal jurisdiction, or
consents to being sued within the state. Service by publication is not sufficient for a court exercise personal
jurisdiction over an out of state defendant (Pennoyer).
(Part B of flow chart) If none of the above provisions are satisfied, and the defendant is not physically
located within the state, a state can exercise jurisdiction based on the long-arm statute of the state. A long-arm
statute is “a statute that allows for a state court to obtain personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant on
the basis of certain acts committed by an out-of-state defendant, provided that the defendant has a sufficient
connection with the state.” If the long-arm statute of the state is not satisfied, and none of the above provisions
are satisfied, a state cannot exercise personal jurisdiction.
(Part C of flow chart) If the long-arm statute is satisfied, a court must analyze whether due process is
satisfied. Due Process is a constitutional right provided for in Amendment 14, §1: “nor shall any state deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Due process requires that the defendant be
given adequate notice of the suit and that the defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court. Due
process requires an analysis of three components, though all do not have to be satisfied to achieve personal
jurisdiction: (1) minimal contacts; (2) purposeful availment; and (3) traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.
A state court has personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if the defendant has “minimum
contacts” with that state, such that the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with the “traditional notions of fair
play and substantial justice.” (International Shoe). To establish whether a defendant has sufficient minimal
contacts with the forum state to permit the state to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant, we must
analyze three factors: (1) if there is a relevant contact between the non-resident defendant and the forum; and
(2) if the defendant has more than a single, random, fortuitous, or attenuated contact with the forum (World
Wide Volkswagen). A single contact may be sufficient to establish minimal contacts if the contact is relevant to
the claim itself (McGee).
A state court may have personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if the defendant
“purposefully availed” itself of the privileges of conducting business in that state (Hanson) such that being
haled into court is foreseeable (World Wide Volkswagen). When determining whether a defendant purposefully
availed herself, a court will look at the following factors: (1) has the defendant deliberately engaged in
significant activities of the forum state? OR (2) has the defendant created continuing obligations such that her
activities are shielded by the laws and protections of the forum state and therefore foreseeable to be haled for
litigation in the forum state? (Burger King). To purposefully avail oneself, the defendant must have targeted the
state and emails may constitute targeting (Rilley). According to the plurality decision of McIntyre, placing
products into the stream of commerce is not enough to satisfy personal jurisdiction.
Finally, a court will analyze whether the exercise of a state’s personal jurisdiction over a non-resident
defendant comports with the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. To analyze the
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, a court will analyze: (1) the forum’s states interest in
adjudicating the claim, enforcing its laws, and providing redress for its citizens; (2) a plaintiff’s interest in
getting convenient and effective relief; (3) the judicial system’s interest in obtaining an efficient resolution to
conflicts; and (4) the burden on the defendant. Based on precedent, however, the factors of traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice are not sufficient to sustain personal jurisdiction on their own (World-Wide
Volkswagen).

General Jurisdiction:
General jurisdiction, a type of in personam jurisdiction, does not require that the claim relate to the
forum state. Rather, general jurisdiction is concerned with whether the defendant is “at home” in the forum state
to justify bringing suit for any cause of action, related to the forum state or not.
To determine whether general jurisdiction applies to a defendant, a court will determine the defendant’s
domicile. A person can always be sued in her state of residence. A corporation can be sued in either its state of
incorporation, OR its principal place of business.
Secondly, a person or corporation may have such systematic and continuous contacts that they are
subject to the court’s general jurisdiction. However, the general trend is that systematic and continuous contacts
are not sufficient to establish general jurisdiction (Goodyear).
 Personal Jurisdiction Flow Chart:
No
Specific Jurisdiction: does claim relate to the forum? Check for General
Jurisdiction.
 Yes

Yes
A. Is there an easy way to get PJX? Waived, domicile, tag/transient, consent?
PJX

No

B. Does the non-resident D fall within the Long-Arm Statute?

1. If no, then no PJX exists.
2. If yes, proceed to B.

C. Does the exercise of PJX over the D comport with the Constitution’s Due Process (Amend. 14, §1)
1. Notice: Due Process requires that D have adequate notice of the suit
2. Personal Jurisdiction: Due Process requires that D be subject to PJX of Court

D. Due Process Components of PJX:

1. Minimal Contacts (International Shoe)
A. Is there a relevant contact between the nonresident D and the forum?
B. Requires more than a single, fortuitous contact (WWVW)
C. One contact may be enough when non-resident D solicited business from the state (McGee)

2. Purposeful Availment
A. Non-resident purposefully avails itself of the privileges of conducting business in that state
(Hanson) such that being haled into court is foreseeable (WWVW)
 Has the defendant deliberately engaged in significant activities OR
 Has the defendant created continuing obligations such that their activities are
 Shielded by the laws and protections of the forum state AND
 Therefore foreseeable to be haled into litigation in forum state (BK)
B. Non-resident must have targeted state. Putting products into stream of commerce is not
sufficient. (McIntyre)

3. Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice

A. This is not enough on its own (WWVW)
 Forum state’s interest in
 Adjudicating the claim;
 Enforcing its laws; or
 Providing redress for its citizens
 Plaintiff’s interest in getting convenient and effective relief
 Judicial system’s interest in obtaining an efficient resolution to conflicts
 Burden on the defendant
General Jurisdiction: Not necessary to have connection between forum and controversy.

1. Determine domicile:
A. May always sue someone in the person’s state of residence
B. May always sue a corporation in
i. Its state of incorporation; OR
ii. Its principal place of business

2. Determine whether contacts are systematic and continuous

A. Sporadic sales of a good within a state are not sufficient to establish general jurisdiction (Goodyear)
B. Trend is that this is not sufficient.
 III. Personal Jurisdiction: Geographic area where lawsuit can be filed.

Constitution, Amendment 14, §1: Due Process Clause

o “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”

A. Components of Personal Jurisdiction (came to be in 14th amendment):

1. Notice: Absent consent, there must be appropriate process to give the defendant notice
2. Basis: Absent consent, there must be a constitutionally appropriate reason for court to exercise
power over defendant.

B. Specific Jurisdiction v. General Jurisdiction:

1. Specific Jurisdiction – you are seeking to sue the defendant for claims arising out of its acts within
the forum or that are reasonably foreseeable as a result of purposeful availment of the forum.
2. General jurisdiction – the defendant may be sued in the state for any claim, even one that is not
related to its activities within the state.

C. Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Court:

FRCP 4(k)(1)(a)
o “(1) 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”

FRCP 4(k)(2)
o “(2) Federal Claim Outside State-Court Jurisdiction. For a claim that arises under federal law, serving
a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if:
 (A) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction; and
 (B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws.”

1. You have PJX in federal court if you have PJX in that state’s state court. FRCP 4(k)(1)(A).
2. Exceptions:
a. “Bulge” jurisdiction: won’t be tested on
b. PJX with FRCP 4(k)(2):
i. Defendants who have sufficient minimum contacts w/ US, but not individual state; AND
ii. The claim arises under federal law
D. Case Law:

1. Pennoyer v. Neff (1877): A state court does not have jurisdiction over a nonresident D, unless
(1) D is found and personally served within the state; or (2) D voluntarily appears in court; or
(3) D is a resident of the state; or (4) D has property within the state at the time suit is filed.
o Facts: P (Neff) hired Mitchell and failed to pay. P resided in CA. Mitchell posted notice of
summons in local OR newspaper. Default judgement against P. Later, P purchased property in
OR. Mitchell had sheriff seize property, Mitchell purchased property, and Mitchell sold property
to D (Pennoyer). P sued D to recover property.
o Issue: Can service by publication give the court personal jurisdiction over a defendant?
o Holdings:
 “Every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property
within its territory.”
 In personam: binds the defendant personally; asking court to hear dispute between
parties without attachment of property.
 In rem: used to determine the rights of all persons who claim an interest in
property; adjudication of the status or ownership of property.
 Quasi in rem (no longer used): judgment against person, but judgment is limited
to person’s rights to property within the state; property not related to claim.
 “No state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without
its territory.”
 Personal jurisdiction over the defendant must be present at the initiation of the lawsuit. (P
consents to jurisdiction by filing suit in the state).

2. International Shoe Company v. Washington (1945): Due process requires only that in order to
subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the
forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does
not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
o Facts: Int’l Shoe (D) employed salesmen in WA, but the company was not located in WA (P). P
sued D for unpaid employment taxes. P served D by mail. D was not present within the state.
o Issue:
o Holdings: Modification of Pennoyer, does not overrule.
 Presence within a state is still sufficient for personal jurisdiction (Pennoyer).
 Defendant must have “certain minimum contacts” with a state such that the suit does not
offend TNFPSJ.
 Contacts between defendant and the forum state MUST be assessed by:
 Quality and nature of the activity
 In relation to "fair and orderly" administration of the laws
 Exercising the privilege of conducting activities within a state
 Gives rise to obligations, which may give rise to a law suit
 Single or isolated activities in a state are not enough if the activities are not connected
with the suit.
3. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. (1957): UPPER LIMIT FOR PERSONAL
JURISDICTION. One contract is sufficient to establish minimum contacts with a state if the
contact is relevant to the claim itself, and therefore sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
o Facts: Beneficiary of insurance policy (P and CA resident), sued Texas insurance company (D)
in CA for refusing to pay out policy after death of policy-holder. D’s only contact with CA was
this policy-holder.
o Issue: Is one contract sufficient for state to exercise personal jurisdiction over D?
o Holdings:
 A single contract is enough for a state to uphold personal jurisdiction over the defendant
because the contact was relevant to the claim itself (specific jurisdiction).
 TNFPSJ concerns:
 Forum state’s ability to protect its citizens from outside businesses
 Availability of witnesses
 Substantial inconvenience for litigation for one party
 This case marks the UPPER LIMIT for personal jurisdiction.

4. Hanson v. Denckla (1958): Nonresident D must “purposefully avail” itself of the privilege of
conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of the
state’s laws for that state to exercise personal jurisdiction. This must accompany minimum
contacts.
o Facts: Donner established a trust in DE, which provided money to both her children and
grandchildren. Donner died. Money was appointed to children and grandchildren. Children argue
appointment was not “witnessed” as a will, which was required by FL law.
o Issue: Does Florida have personal jurisdiction over the Delaware trust?
o Holding: The unilateral activity of Donner regarding the DE trust was insufficient to establish
personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction cannot be accomplished by the unilateral activity of a
party that claims to have a relation to the forum state. DE had not availed itself to FL. Rather,
Donner had a random contact with DE, which is insufficient for personal jurisdiction.

5. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson (1980): A party’s single, fortuitous contact with a
state, which was neither initiated nor intended by that party, does not establish either
minimum contacts with or purposeful availment to the forum state. Therefore, no PJX.
o Facts: Family moving to AZ purchased a car from D, who was in New York. While passing
through Oklahoma, family was rear-ended by drunk driver. Family had severe injuries and
couldn’t leave Oklahoma. P (family) filed product liabilities suit against D in OK. Other than P
driving through OK< D had no contacts with OK.
o Issue: Does Oklahoma have personal jurisdiction over New York company when the only
connection company has with Oklahoma is a single, fortuitous contact?
o Holding: Adds a few things to personal jurisdiction analysis:
 Purposeful availment: Is it foreseeable that non-resident Ds actions would result in
being haled into court?
 Need more than a single, fortuitous contact with a state to assert PJX.
  Long-arm statute: A statute that allows for a state court to obtain personal jurisdiction
over an out-of-state defendant on the basis of certain acts committed by an out-of-state
defendant, provided that the defendant has a sufficient connection with the state.
 TNFPSJ: on its own is not enough to satisfy personal jurisdiction
 Forum state’s interest in
 Adjudicating the claim;
 Enforcing its laws; or
 Providing redress for its citizens
 Plaintiff’s interest in getting convenient and effective relief
 Judicial system’s interest in obtaining an efficient resolution to conflicts
 Burden on the defendant

6. Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz (1985): Purposeful availment requires that the defendant has
(1) deliberately engaged in significant activities with the forum state; OR (2) created
continuing obligations such that the defendant’s activities are shielded by the laws and
protections of the forum state AND therefore foreseeable to be haled into court in forum state
o Facts: Burger King (P; headquarters in Florida) and defendant (resident of Michigan) entered
into agreement whereby D would operate P’s franchise in Michigan. Agreement contained a
“choice of law” provision choosing FLA law, and a “forum selection” clause that waived the
right to dispute PJX. D couldn’t pay so P sought to terminate K in Florida court.
o Issue: Does Florida have personal jurisdiction over a Michigan plaintiff due to a choice of law
provision, and a business relationship with a corporation headquartered in Florida?
o Holding: Defendant purposefully availed himself of the privileges of Florida Law. Added to PJX
analysis:
 When looking at purposeful availment, now consider:
 Has D deliberately engaged in significant activities OR
 Created continuing obligations such that the D’s activities are: (1) shielded by the
laws and protections of the forum state AND (2) therefore foreseeable to be haled
into litigation in forum state

7. J. McIntyre Machinery, LTD. v. Nicastro (2011): Placing goods into the market with the
expectation that those goods will move, “stream of commerce,” is not sufficient to establish
purposeful availment. There must be targeting of a forum state.
o Facts: Nicastro (P, resident of New Jersey) injured his hand while operating machine
manufactured by McIntyre (D). Machine was manufactured in England. D was incorporated and
operated in England. D consigned machines to distributor in US, who sold machines. “No more
than 4 machines ended up in New Jersey.”
o Issue: Can D, who never acted to intentionally place their product in the forum state be subject to
the PJX of that state?
o Holding: Overall: actions, not the expectations of the party are considered in purposeful
availment. Standard is raised for establishing purposeful availment. SoC not enough.
o Several points contested by plurality decision:
 Stream of Commerce:
 Plurality: SoC alone is not sufficient
 Concurrence: SoC alone may be enough
  Dissent: due process is satisfied by SoC
 National v. Local Jurisdiction:
 Dissent: targeting the US makes D available to the exercise of PJX by any state
 Intent v. Awareness (quality v. quantity)
 Plurality: purposeful awareness means that D must seek to serve a market and
intend to submit to the power of the sovereign
 Dissent: D’s efforts to create a national market make it fair and reasonable to hold
it accountable in any state where its product ends up.
 Policy concerns: foreign companies are held to a lesser standard than US companies for
being under PJX of state courts. Federal courts may not have subject matter jurisdiction
to adjudicate all the foreign claims.

8. Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC. (2016):

o Facts: P (a resident of Minn.) used D’s website to get a payday short-term loan. After an online
application process, D sent P emails advertising loan options that were illegal in Minn. P notified
D through the application process of where he lived. D claimed Minn. courts had lack of PJX.
o Issue: Do emails constitute sufficient contacts to establish personal jurisdiction?
o Holding: Emails, when you know they’re being sent to, and received in, a forum state count as
minimum contacts. Emails here were targeting residents of the forum state.
 Three approaches to email contacts:
 Reject any consideration
 Emails are secondary contacts
 Emails are sufficient given contacts (court goes with this approach)
 Emails were targeted; D knew, or had reason to know, of P’s location, and that it was
advertising illegal loans for Minnesota.
 GoogleAds indicated purposeful availment (D’s website would pop up if google searched
“payday loans Minnesota” for example)

9. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011): General jurisdiction is not established
in this case because (1) the defendant does not have systematic and continuous contacts with
the forum state, and (2) the defendant is not “at home” in the forum state.
o Facts: Bus accident in Paris, France killed 2 teenage boys from North Carolina. Accident caused
by faulty Goodyear tires. Goodyear was incorporated in Ohio. USA Goodyear consented to
North Carolina’s jurisdiction, other international subsidiaries did not. Ps sued in North Carolina.
o Issue: Are foreign subsidiaries subject to PJX of state court based on claims unrelated to US
parent corporation?
o Holdings: Establishing General Jurisdiction:
 Are contacts continuous and systematic between defendant and forum state?
 Is this “home” for the D?
 Individual: place of residence
 Corporation: (1) state of incorporation or (2) principal place of business
 “Threshold requirement” for entering realm of general jurisdiction is placing product into
the stream of commerce.