Start with rule 4 when in federal court 1 in general

This preview shows page 21 - 24 out of 68 pages.

Start with Rule 4 when in federal court
(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; [when the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction of state courts (use statutory/state long-arm statute analysis that you would use in state judicial forum in same location)] (B) who is a party joined under Rule 14 or Rule 19 and is served within a judicial district of the United States and not more than 100 miles from where the summons was issued; or [Rule 14 (3PDs) and Rule 19 (required) parties are subject to personal jurisdiction of a district court if they are served within 100 miles of issuing court] (C) when authorized by federal statute. [when a federal statute establishes personal jurisdiction] (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 court of general jurisdiction; and (B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws. [if defendant isn’t subject to personal jurisdiction in any state, but personal jurisdiction is reasonable in the U.S. (aggregate U.S. contacts)] iv. McGee v. Int’l Life Ins. Co. Facts : Company/insurer was in Arizona. Insurer had one contractual relationship with one resident of CA. Insurer initiated contract with the CA resident and had repeated communications with the resident. Holding/Reasoning : Specific jurisdiction available in CA over the Arizona insurer. Insurer was knowingly doing business with a CA resident. Having one contact intentionally established in a state is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. In second step of analysis, is assertion of personal jurisdiction over EACH defendant constitutional? Case law about purposeful availment and looking at defendant’s contacts with the forum:
Takeaway: Specific jurisdiction available in CA over TX reinsurer who initiated contract with CA resident. Reaching out by mail was sufficient. v. Hanson v. Denckla Facts : Pennsylvania resident established a trust fund. She named a Delaware resident as a trustee. The Pennsylvania resident then moved to Florida. The move was unilateral – all on the part of the Pennsylvania resident. Holding/Reasoning: No specific jurisdiction available in FL over the Delaware trustee. The Delaware trustee did not negotiate the move to FL, was not a FL resident, and didn’t invoke protection of FL laws. Defendant must intentionally direct contact at forum (purposeful availment) Takeaway: No specific jurisdiction available in FL over DE trustee named by PA settlor before she moved to FL. The unilateral activity of moving to FL didn’t make the Defendant purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities with the forum state (and this did

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture