PERFECT PERSONAL JURISDICTION FORMULA

Science Lab Student

Robotic Lab Assistant

Science

Test Tubes

Let me give you the blue print for understanding Personal Jurisdiction or PJ. With this framework you’ll have all of the key points for analyzing a case in your case book or a fact pattern on an exam.

Big Picture

Here’s the big picture for PJ. The plaintiff sues the defendant in a state that the defendant does not live in. In response, the defendant argues that the judge should kick the case out because the court does not have proper PJ. In Civ Pro we call this a 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

When analyzing personal jurisdiction our role is to make arguments on both sides of how it is or is not fair or reasonable that a defendant be subject to the authority or jurisdiction of an out of state court, the forum court. The plaintiff wants the case heard in the forum court she filed the lawsuit in. The defendant, on the other hand, would rather the case be dismissed from the forum court.

Step 1

The first step is to consider what’s called the Constitutional Framework of Personal Jurisdiction. You see, when a plaintiff files a case in a federal court, that court is considered the forum court. If the forum state is going to have jurisdiction over a defendant that lives in a different state then the forum court is going to have to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Constitution. I call this the Constitutional framework.

The specific Constitutional standard that must be met is the Due Process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Due Process clause essentially requires that the court be fair and reasonable when it reaches out of state to hear a case involving an out of state party.

Step 2

Now, on to the second step. In this step we consider what’s called the statutory framework for Personal Jurisdiction. Statutes are laws made by states. Each state has their own long arm statute that allows its courts to reach into other states and bring out-of-state defendants’ into the forum state to have a dispute litigate. However, the statutory Framework must still meet the requirements of the Constitution’s Due Process clause. I like to picture an imaginary arm stretching from one state and into another to grab a defendant and bring her into the Plaintiff’s forum state. Pay close attention in class because some professors like for students to be able to analyze whether the specific language of a state’s long arm statute is in fact Constitutional or falls short.

Step 3

In step three, once you’ve spotted the issue of the long arm statute now you have to apply what is called the “International Shoe Test”. The elements of the International Shoe Test are the Supreme Court’s way of giving us guidance on how to argue or determine whether a long arm statute meets the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment’s standard of being fair and reasonable.

International Shoe Factors: Minimum Contacts

The first step in the test is establishing minimum contacts. Under the minimum contacts test, you are analyzing whether the out-of-state-defendant has had sufficient contacts or involvement with the forum state to justify bringing the out-of-state defendant into the forum state’s courtroom.

The minimum contacts test considers arguments such as purposeful availment. That’s a big word for whether the out-of-state defendant benefited from the laws of the forum state. Maybe they used the local roads or highways. Perhaps they entered into contracts or received payments from forum state residents. If they did then the forum state may have proper jurisdiction.

Another way to establish minimum contacts is by what’s called stream of commerce. The idea here is that if an out-of-state defendant put its goods or products into the forum state’s local economy then maybe personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable.

Remember that the heart of minimum contacts is this question: were the defendant’s contacts with the forum state continuous and systematic or were the contacts with the forum merely irregular, casual or a one time deal.

International Shoe Factors: Fairness

If there were sufficient minimum contacts, the next factor to consider is fairness. The fairness factor examines whether litigating the suit in the forum court would offend “fair play and substantial justice.” This is more of a balancing test.

On one hand is the burden of litigation on the defendant. Things like cost of travel and whether the forum state is inconvenient for witnesses are considered.

On the other hand is the interest of the forum state and other important policy considerations. For example, a forum state has an interest in protecting its local citizens. Also, the case could be really important to the forum state because its outcome could impact a major engine inside of the state’s local economy.

General vs. Specific Jurisdiction

Ultimately, the reason minimum contacts and fairness is so important is because they determine whether the forum court will have general jurisdiction or whether the forum may only assert specific jurisdiction.

The difference between general and specific jurisdiction is simple. If a defendant had a lot of contact with the forum state then a plaintiff can sue an out-of-state defendant in the forum state even on a claim that is unrelated to the things that a defendant did or contacts a defendant made while in the forum state. But with specific jurisdiction, since a defendant had so few contacts with the forum state, the plaintiff is limited to suing the defendant only on matters directly related to the defendants conduct in the forum.

Essentially a Plaintiff’s lawsuit can be a lot broader if there is general jurisdiction because the contacts are continuous and systematic. However, the scope of a Plaintiff’s suit is a lot more narrow if the circumstances only allow for specific jurisdiction because the contacts are too irregular and casual.

Summary

So here’s the PJ formula. (1) Give the Constitutional Framework relating to Due Process. (2) Identify the state’s Long Arm Statute, which falls under the Statutory Framework. (3) Walk through the International Shoe test of minimum contacts and determine whether contacts with the forum were systematic and continuous or merely irregular and casual. (4) Apply the balancing test for fairness. Lastly, (5) use the analysis from the minimum contacts discussion to help determine whether the jurisdiction should be general or specific.

So that’s Personal Jurisdiction! Now that you’ve got the big picture, read your cases, listen in lecture and get practice analyzing personal jurisdiction with practice problems.