1
CHART: MINIMUM CONTACTS PERSONAL JURISDICTION: MINIMUM CONTACTS ANALYSIS 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. Were the contacts the result of “unilateral activity” of the π? WWVW 2. 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) 3. Did ∆ “deliberately engage in significant activities” within the FS or has she created “continuing obligations” between herself and FS? (business relationship) Burger King NO PJ. Stream of Commerce placing product in stream Single Contact “seek to serve” “Effects” Test tortious act 1961 GRAY v. RADIATOR (IL case) 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 1980 WWVW NO IPJ 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 1981 MCGOWAN (NY case) NO PJ NY brings fondue pot to Canada, sues JP mfr; NYCPLR 302(a)(1) = “arise from transacting business, contractual activity”; single shipment not enough 1950 TRAVELER’S HEALTH YES PJ 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. 1957 MCGEE YES PJ 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 KULKO 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 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 1985 BURT v. BOARD OF REGENTS YES PJ Medical recommendation letter from NE to CO included defamatory statement, π suffer economic harm in CO, sending the letter was targeted and purposeful 2014 WALDEN v. FIORE NO PJ 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 1987 ASAHI (foreign) 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 2011 JMM v. NICASTRO (foreign) NO PJ (basically changes nothing) 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 singlesale 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 Jurisdictional G! Result: no jdx ............................. specific jdx ................. general jdx Contacts? none ............ casual/isolated ....... single ....... continuous but limited ............ substantial Decreasing contacts Increasing contacts 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 YES NO

Personal Jurisdiction - Minimum Contacts Analysis FlowChart

  • Upload
    laura-c

  • View
    17

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

for civpro

Citation preview

Page 1: Personal Jurisdiction - Minimum Contacts Analysis FlowChart

6

CHART:MINIMUMCONTACTS PERSONALJURISDICTION:MINIMUMCONTACTSANALYSIS

WastherePURPOSEFULAVAILMENT?(VoluntaryAffiliation)Denckla: NOPJ badkidscase,∆DEtrustco.didnotdopurposefulact,unilateralactofπtomovetoFL;∆mustpurposefullyavailherself of theprivilegeof conducting activitieswithintheFS,thusinvokingthebenefitandprotectionoftheFS’slaws.

1. Werethecontactstheresult of“unilateral activity” oftheπ?WWVW

2. FORESEEABILITY Is∆’sconductandconnection withFSsuchthatsheshould“reasonably anticipate being haledintocourt” there?Int’lShoe,WWVW(indissent)

3. Did∆“deliberately engageinsignificant activities”within theFSorhasshecreated “continuing obligations” between

herselfandFS?(businessrelationship) Burger King

NOPJ.

StreamofCommerceplacing product instream

SingleContact“seektoserve”

“Effects”Testtortious act

1961 GRAYv.RADIATOR (ILcase)YESPJIll.Accident,PAboilermfr.impleadOHvalve

component co; Ill.LA§ compliantwithDPC,

transactionhassubstantialconnectionwithFS;

injuryoccurred,mostconvenient forum

1980 WWVWNOIPJπbuyaudiinNY,accidentOK;sues cardealer,

importer,Audi,VW;unilateralactivityofπs;no

purposeful availmentprimaryfocusistoprevent

∆sfromdefending toofarfromhome, prevent

statesfromreachingoutbeyondsovereignty

• Dissent: carsareuniquelymobile,shouldbeforeseeableconsequence

1981 MCGOWAN(NYcase)NOPJNYbringsfondue pottoCanada,suesJPmfr;

NYCPLR 302(a)(1) =“arisefromtransacting

business, contractualactivity”;singleshipment

notenough

1950TRAVELER’SHEALTHYESPJHealthinsuranceco.solicit/”reached out”toVA

residents,VAasksthemtostopunderBlueSky

laws.Found“systematicandwide”solicitation

created“continuing obligations”withVA.

1957MCGEEYESPJπsuesfor deadson’sinsurance policy.CALA§

covers(regulatoryinterestinadjudicating

matter).∆solicitedπforre-insurance

agreementandpurposefullymailedpolicytoCA.

1981 KULKONOPJEst."effects”test:statehaspowertoexercisePJoverapartywhocauseseffectsinastatebyan

actdoneelsewherew.r.t.anycauseofaction

arisingfromtheseeffects;NOPJ fordomesticrelationsdisputes(onlycommercial transaction)

1984CALDERYESPJLibel,πceleb suedauthor/editorofarticle;∆s

storyaboutCAπ,CAsources,forCAreaders,

knewharmwouldoccurinCA=FSasfocalpoint.

NOPJ justbasedon“effects” feltinCA,alsofound “purposefully availed.”(c.f. WWVW

whereharmwasfeltinFS,butinsufficientforPJ)

1984KEETONv.HUSTLERYESPJLibel,∆deliberatelysoldmagazinesinFS,state

hasinterestincitizens’accesstotruthfulinfo.=

“nottoosmallatailtowagout-of-statedog”;

relationshipbtwn∆,forum,andlitigation;look

@volumeof activityandnexusofsuit

1985 BURTv.BOARDOFREGENTSYESPJMedicalrecommendation letterfromNEtoCO

included defamatorystatement,πsuffer

economic harminCO,sendingtheletterwas

targetedandpurposeful

2014WALDENv.FIORE NOPJDEApoliceofficer inATLseize$fromNVπ’sin

ATLairport;πcannotbeonlycontactbtwn∆

andFS(NV);DPCrequires∆cannotbehaledinto

FSdueto“random,fortuitous,orattenuated”

contacts(contraCalder hadotherFScontacts)=foreseeabilityaloneisnotenough,needrelation

1987 ASAHI(foreign)NOPJSPLITCOURTDECISION!CAmotorcycleinjury,∆TWimpleadJPcomponent;CAsettle,TWv.JP

4votes:nomincontacts,4votes:contacts,3votes:meetseither,8votes:unreasonable

• O’Connor: “awarenessnotenough”needto“seektoserve”à streamofcommerceplus• Brennan:yesmin.contacts,awareness/foreseeabilitysuffices; reasonableness requirementof

BurgerKingwillgetridofunfaircases

2011 JMMv.NICASTRO(foreign)NOPJ(basicallychangesnothing)6-3NOPLURALITY! scrapmetalrecycling,attempttofixAsahiimprecisionproblem;NJ(Nicastro,acc,

FS),JMMUKco.,McIntryeUSAdistributorisgone/bankrupt

• Breyer/Alito: narrowestgroundsholdingofmajority(wantsbetterfactsforaruling),undereitherviewofstreamofcommerce/plusthereisnoPJà onlyasinglesale

• Wouldn’taffect theEtsy-ers oftheworld,becausewouldn’tpassREASONABLENESSTEST• Kennedy: likesO’Connor“seektoserve”,bringsupPennoyerSOVEREIGNTY =consent,presence,

domicile; consentisestablishedbypurposefullyavailingselftoFS(“submission tosovereign”)• RBG: NJispartoftheUSmarket,canuseFRCP4(k)(2) toadjudicate,scrapmetalrecyclingisniche

andcould’ve foreseenproduct inNJ,NJhasstronginterestinprovidingvenue;unfair

Jurisdictional G!Result: nojdx .............................specificjdx.................generaljdx

Contacts? none............casual/isolated.......single.......continuousbutlimited ............substantial

Decreasingcontacts Increasingcontacts

OtherMethods?1. Directcontacts– gobacktogeneral jurisdiction2. Contractualobligation– KwitharesidentofthestateMcGee,BurgerKing

3. Internet/Website – non-passivewebsite(active,notinformational)viewed

withintheFS,PJdependsoncommercialnatureofwebsite,level of

consumeruseddoesn’tmatterZippo

YES

NO