This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Where can π bring suit: Personal Jurisdiction, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and Venue I. Personal Jurisdiction A. Domicile B. Consent C. Physical presence-service of process D. Minimum contacts-jurisdiction is permissible depending on the quality and nature of contacts with the state. (International Shoe) 1. Test applies to individuals as well as corporate defendants 2. Focuses on when the individual acted, not the time of the lawsuit 3. The limitations on personal jurisdiction found in long arm statutes are distinct from the constitutional limit imposed by the minimum contacts test 4. ∆ can have sufficient contacts with a state even though she does not act within the state (Calder v. Jones) 5. Spectrum of minimum contacts a. Specific jurisdiction-single acts will support in personam jurisdiction for claims arising out of that act (McGee) b. Continuous but limited activity will also support jurisdiction for claims arising out of that activity (Burger King Corp.) c. General jurisdiction-contacts with the state are so substantial that the ∆ is subject to all claims regardless of connection between litigation and its activities. (Helicopteros) 6. Purposeful availment-∆ must have purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws. (Hanson v. Deckla, WW-VW, Keeton v. Hustler) a. Stream of commerce-Mere awareness that products will reach the forum state may be enough (Asahi) 7. Other factors that enter analysis after minimum contacts are found to determine if exercising jurisdiction would comport with notions of fair play and substantial justice. a. Plaintiff’s interest b. Forum state’s interest c. Fairness issues (Ashai) E. Long Arm-statutes 1. Legislature of each state grants the power to its court to exercise personal jurisdiction 2. These statutes may, like CA, grant the state all of the jurisdictional power it would have under the Constitution (reached by minimum contacts) 3. These statutes may be more specific and thus only jurisdictional power in certain instances. These instances must fall within the constitutional analysis. F. Challenging personal jurisdiction 1. Direct Attack-some courts allow ∆ to file a special appearance to litigate the issue of whether jurisdiction is proper. a. ∆ must be careful not to raise any other issues or she will be determined to have waived jurisdictional objection (except under FRCP 12(b)(2)) b. In most states, when you lose the jurisdictional claim and proceed to defend on the merits, you reserve the right to appeal on the jurisdictional matter. 2. Collateral attack- a. ∆ can ignore the suit entirely, which poses a risk because if ∆ loses on the merits a default judgment will be entered against him, b. but he can challenge the jurisdiction once the π seeks to enforce the judgment in the ∆’s state court....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/12/2008 for the course LAW 5303 taught by Professor Krakoff during the Spring '05 term at Colorado.
- Spring '05