Personal jurisdiction civil procedure exam questions can be a beast. I am here to help! To hear and try a case, a federal civil court needs three things. First, subject matter jurisdiction over the type of case brought before it. Second, personal jurisdiction over the defendant and lastly, proper venue. I will focus on the second element for this post but on an exam, be sure to think through the other elements as well.
Personal jurisdiction is defendant-centric so work through the below analysis from their point of view. Take the melodramatic approach and think, what did the defendant ever do to deserve the plaintiff's lawsuit?
1. Does General Jurisdiction Exist?
If any of the following conditions exist, the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant and the claim need not relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum.
a. Domicile:
- For individuals, this is where one resides and intends to remain indefinitely. Indications of domicile include where one has registered to vote or obtained a driver's license.
- For corporations, this is typically their headquarters (PPOB) or state of incorporation. The Supreme Court considers corporations "at home" in both of these locations. The idea is that a company is on notice of possible litigation in the forum state if it is "at home" there. Through the “continuous, systematic and substantial” analysis, there is some room for general jurisdiction to exist elsewhere for a corporation, but you are going to have to come up with a strong argument for it (think Perkins).
b. Physical Presence (tag jurisdiction): Was the defendant served with process in the forum state? PJ can exist even if the defendant is in the state only for a short period of time (Burnham). Under Pennoyer (and Scalia's plurality in Burnham), presence in the forum state is sufficient. On the other hand, Brennan's plurality in Burnham said that in-state presence and the history of allowing transient jurisdiction do not alone ensure personal jurisdiction; the analysis must satisfy fairness and due process. Plaintiffs cannot use deceit or force to lure the defendant into the forum state. Finally, tag jurisdiction is inapplicable to corporations.
c. Consent: Consent could be express such as through a forum selection clause/appointing an agent or implied like with a non-resident motorist statute.
d. Waiver: Did the defendant make an appearance before contesting personal jurisdiction? Defendants can waive their right to object to the court's personal jurisdiction by failing to raise it at the appropriate time (Rule 12(b)(2)). Note subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived in the same way.
e. Property Located in the Forum State: Generally, a forum will have jurisdiction over in-state property. However to ensure maximum points, according to Shaffer, you should also conduct the minimum contacts analysis under International Shoe (discussed below).
2. State’s long arm statute and Specific Jurisdiction: If none of the above bases are satisfied, the court can still rely on a state’s long arm statute to hear and try the claim. To state the obvious, you need to first make sure the question's prompt mentions a statute that would grant personal jurisdiction. Then, to ensure due process, you should determine whether there are minimum contacts with the forum such that bringing the defendant into court will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (International Shoe). To answer this question, you need to analyze whether the defendant has purposefully availed themselves of the forum such that being sued there is foreseeable. I will further break this down below.
Unlike general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction only applies if the claim arises out of or is related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. Make sure you take a second to properly determine if this necessary nexus exists. Say that a train for a widget company (neither headquartered nor incorporated in Texas) runs out of coal and strays from its normal course to obtain the necessary fuel in Texas. If while in Texas, the conductor is negligent, forgets to pull the breaks in time and smashes into a fence, the owner of the fence would need to rely on specific jurisdiction to sue for that damage in Texas. The Texas stop is not within the ordinary course of the route and Company is not otherwise "at home" there. General jurisdiction is therefore unavailable on these facts. First step of the specific jurisdiction analysis is to ask, did this negligence claim arise out of the defendant’s contact with the state of Texas? Yes, the accident occurred because the Company was driving through Texas to refuel.
Next, we need to consider the following two factors to determine if the requisite minimum contacts exist: purposeful availment and foreseeability. In the purposeful availment analysis, we need to ask whether the defendant purposefully availed themselves of the laws and benefits of the forum state (Texas)? The defendant’s actions must be intentionally directed to the forum state, as opposed to inadvertent. Here, the defendant stopped for fuel in Texas, so the answer is yes. As for the second prong, was it foreseeable that the defendant’s activities in the forum state could result in the defendant being haled into court there? Yes, when driving huge trains cross country, it is foreseeable that accidents could happen and that the Company would be sued in the state in which the accident occurred. Therefore, sufficient minimum contacts exist.
Finally, ensure that the court’s exercise of its personal jurisdiction would not violate “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." This last prong is slightly more abstract. Does something seem off? Is the defendant doing something to avoid being subject to jurisdiction in the forum state? Also consider the factors set forth in the Asahi case: the burden on the defendant, the interest of the forum state in the litigation, the interest of the plaintiff litigating that matter in the forum state.
Comments