Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Personal Jurisdiction Question re: Civil Procedure  (Read 2578 times)

jwaxjwax

  • Guest
Personal Jurisdiction Question re: Civil Procedure
« on: November 25, 2005, 03:43:38 AM »
Hi, I'm a little confused and am hoping someone can help.

I have been using "Acing Civil Procedure," which is a nice, concise supplement, but-

It says that under the International Shoe minimum contacts test, you must determine whether you have a situation possibly permitting "general" or "specific" jurisdiction. I understand the definition of both (Continuous and systematic BUT unrelated = possibly general; Single & isolated AND related = possibly specific)

For general jurisdiction problems, it says to determine whether the contacts are "substantial" (and gives a couple of cases to aid in this determination). Substantial = jurisdiction. Not substantial= no jurisdiction

For specific jurisdiction problems, it brings in subpoints about purposeful availment, purposeful direction, contractual consent, stream of commerce cases, and internet cases.  It then applies a reasonableness/fairness test (from Asahi).

My question is: does purposeful availment, etc. or the reasonableness test ever come into play re: general jurisdiction problems? The books makes it seem like the answer is no, but I'm not sure why not.

Thanks for any help!!

T. Durden

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Jurisdiction Question re: Civil Procedure
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2005, 11:19:08 AM »
you have two "tests" to use with regards to general jurisdiction: perkins and helicopteros

be familiar with those cases. they define what you have to know in terms of establishing general juris.

jimmyjohn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Jurisdiction Question re: Civil Procedure
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2005, 11:52:49 AM »
Hmmm...the Courts have done a bad job defining general jurisdiction in my opinion.  Presumably because there haven't been many cases that implicate it.

I would say you have to consider both, if only to make sure that there is jurisdiction at all.  There may or may not be a question as to purposeful availment if general jurisdiction is being brought up, but look at it anyway.  The Court in Helicopteros looked at it as a factor, and I think it's fundamental to any exercise of jurisdiction.

As far as reasonableness you need to make sure that the long-arm stautes authorize general jurisdiction.  You also need to look at whether it would be fair for the defendant to litigate in that particular court.  The answer is likely to be yes to both of these, but just go through the analysis anyway.

Most importantly, you need to look for contacts that are more than incidental.  The activities must be continuous and systematic and probably the company would need to derive substantial revenue from its actions within the forum.  An individual that is domiciled in a forum is subject to GJ, and I think that serving someone process in a state also subjects them to GJ, but don't quote me on that.

CoxlessPair

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Jurisdiction Question re: Civil Procedure
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2005, 04:13:13 PM »
Milliken reaffirmed Pennoyer in establishing domicile as a traditional basis of personal jurisdiction.
A person may be sued for all claims in the state of his domicile, even if he is absent at the time.

The previous post did a nice job of flushing out some of the general in personam jurisdictional quirks.
If personal jurisdiction is found to be general, it covers all the minimum contacts tests (Calder, Volkswagen, Asahi, etc) already. The contacts must be so systematic and continuous that the defendant can expect to be hailed into court for ANYTHING in that forum state. Think a corporation like Nike, GM, Microsoft, etc.

If this is concerning you in regard to being able to spot it in an exam, I would be surprised if a prof based an entire question on general personal jurisdiction. There is simply nothing to really talk about if that is found. Specific personal jurisdiction however opens up all the minimum contacts tests and is a much more testable question.
The prof would likely make it clear that the contacts don't establish general and you could note that in one sentence and then move on to specific jurisdiction analysis.
Air Force JAG Corps

CoxlessPair

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Jurisdiction Question re: Civil Procedure
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2005, 04:25:35 PM »
I forgot to add re: domicile as a basis of jurisdiction, that Shaffer added a condition that there must be minimum contacts in the domicile state.
I don't see this coming up a lot but if A has his domicile in Illinois but has moved his residence to Ohio but is not now domiciled in Ohio, it would be unfair to hold jurisdiction over him in Illinois.
Air Force JAG Corps

jwaxjwax

  • Guest
Re: Personal Jurisdiction Question re: Civil Procedure
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2005, 10:41:15 PM »
Thanks for the replies!

On a similar note to your the last post, I have contradictory info. re: whether a corporation is subject to general jurisdiction in the place where it incorporates. The Emanuel law outline says YES, but I have notes from class that say, "Corporation gets some benefit from the state where it incorporates, but that alone isn't enough to satisfy minimum contacts"

I'm thinking my notes could have been from a dissenting opinion??

jimmyjohn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Jurisdiction Question re: Civil Procedure
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2005, 12:53:46 AM »
A corporation is usually not subject to general jurisdiction in the place where it is incorporated.  This is true because in most cases the place of incorporation has nothing to do with where the corporation carries out their business.  For example, most corporations are incorporated in Delaware but do no business whatever within Delaware.  They simply incorporate there b/c of favorable laws. 

Shaffer v. Heitner showed us that you still have to do the analysis when you're talking about the site of incorporation.  If you sue the corporation where it is incorporated it has to at least have some contacts to justify even specific, much less general jurisdiction.


CoxlessPair

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Jurisdiction Question re: Civil Procedure
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2005, 01:15:45 PM »
I disagree.

Shaffer did hold that you must apply to Int. Shoe test to everything, however:
I believe you would automatically have specific personal jurisdiction in the state the corp. was incorporated b/c the corp will be benefiting themselves of the state's protection. Choosing to incorporate in a state is a voluntary act that purposefully avails itself of the protection of the forum state's laws.

In establishing diversity subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC 1332(c)(1) a corporation is considered domiciled in the state of it's incorporation. With that rationale, you could argue for general personal jurisdiction based on the Milliken holding, supra.
Air Force JAG Corps

najniran

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • AOL Instant Messenger - najniran
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Personal Jurisdiction Question re: Civil Procedure
« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2005, 01:16:47 PM »
I disagree.

Shaffer did hold that you must apply to Int. Shoe test to everything, however:
I believe you would automatically have specific personal jurisdiction in the state the corp. was incorporated b/c the corp will be benefiting themselves of the state's protection. Choosing to incorporate in a state is a voluntary act that purposefully avails itself of the protection of the forum state's laws.

In establishing diversity subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC 1332(c)(1) a corporation is considered domiciled in the state of it's incorporation. With that rationale, you could argue for general personal jurisdiction based on the Milliken holding, supra.



agreed. They are utilizing the protections of the forum state's laws in which they are incorporated.

dft

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
    • View Profile
Re: Personal Jurisdiction Question re: Civil Procedure
« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2005, 05:15:20 PM »
My prof says you guys are right.

Funny thing -- in class yesterday, my prof posed the issue as to whether a corporation will be subject to general (personal) jurisdiction in the state in which they are incorporated. Not knowing the answer (but having read this thread a couple days before), I said the first thing that came to mind: "No. For example, a corporation could be incorporated in Delaware, but not have any significant contacts there."

I sounded pretty sure of myself, though I didn't know where I had got that proposition from. (Now I know it was from this board.)

She said that's a good argument, but she disagreed.

I think it is a good argument though.

I disagree.

Shaffer did hold that you must apply to Int. Shoe test to everything, however:
I believe you would automatically have specific personal jurisdiction in the state the corp. was incorporated b/c the corp will be benefiting themselves of the state's protection. Choosing to incorporate in a state is a voluntary act that purposefully avails itself of the protection of the forum state's laws.

In establishing diversity subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC 1332(c)(1) a corporation is considered domiciled in the state of it's incorporation. With that rationale, you could argue for general personal jurisdiction based on the Milliken holding, supra.



agreed. They are utilizing the protections of the forum state's laws in which they are incorporated.