Hmph, your analysis seems on point, I would like to only sharpen its razor precision. On an overview note, PJ is both a personal "right" & a territorial "limit" on the State. (duh!)
Shoe's test is based on the idea of "prescence" (from Pennoyer), & its idea of minumum contacts is free-flowing, I find it to be too unfocused to help.
In my class, we broke it PJ roughly in two: general & specific juris..
(note helicopteros is right smack-dab in the middle, just in case u read that case)
(1) mega-contacts (usu. Business retailers, for short-hand, ask if State can tax them)
(2) HQ/Inc. reside/domicile
(3) Present in state (Burnham consent) or property in state (In rem/Quasi In rem)
Policy: State sovereingty/territorial limits
(1) Minimum Contact: (basically a "legal" cause w/ intent)
INTENTIONAL targetting of forum state, two parts:
(a) purposeful avail (usu. per contract/retailers), not just placing X in
stream of commerce w/ knowledge + forseeability it will reach forum state,
BUT specific: e.g.,I wanna profit from those rude New Yorkers by selling
them fake cocaine. has to be DIRECT! (This why unilateral acts dun count)
----OR-----(not mutually exclusive)
(b) Calder's effects test: (usu. for torts) INTENTIONAL tort Expressly
targetting X forum state, & forseeable dmg will occur there.
Note: GJ mega-contacts assumes this SJ "minimum intent," they apply to both, though for SJ you can have just one contact, though for GJ it needs to be huge (to use a metaphor: has to leave a "footprint" on the society via economics, clothing, social ways etc.)
-->basically: same mens-rea, & mega-contacts = can be sued there all the time for anything, but minimal contacts = can be sued for this specific contact.)
(2) Nexus, Lawsuit wouldn't have happened but-for the SPECIFIC contact
(3) Asahi factors (can only destroy a suit, can never supply you with personal jursidiction--unless the person waived their right; these factors seem identical to forum non-conveniens--don't they?)
Policy: Its "fair" to hale this guy into Ct, cuz waived in personam right by doing (1)+(2)
Special note (may be confusing, just gloss over it):
(a)Chain-disribution (e.g. Mike sells Cigarrettes to Joe even though Joe clearly never smoked, cuz he knows Joe's brother is a nicotine fiend).
(b)there seems to be minimum contact (like Asahi's chain distribution per valves)
(c) Can we distinguish this from stream of commerce in WW Volks? One way to do this, as you suggested, is via Burger King's (see also McGee/Hanson v. denckla) "substantial relation & reach out" test. The Key here is INTENT.
In BK, he signed a forum clause, made mad payments to fla. signed ongoing contract there, so technically waived his in personam juris. "right" not to be haled into Ct. in Fla. (Also, in BK, "Effects test" used to infer intent, since forseeable dmg will occur in Fla., intent inferred doubly) In Asahi, there was chain-distribution, (selling the valves), however, afterwards it fell into the "stream." So, Asahi had SPECIFIC INTENT to benefit from valve guy, but had only knowledge + forseeability it'd reach Cali.
Why did I write this?
Well, just take care cuz INTENT & Knowldge are very thinly separated, the way I do it, is to remember that one always must INTENT to TARGET SPECIFIC forum state, can't be "random or coicindental" ("benefit of the laws/tax" is a good test, but is rather broad), & Asahi really has it all, intent/knowledge/factors/(forum-non-coneveniens)
Hope this helps!!--M.
p.s. just in case why ur wondering why I know all this nonsense, its cuz I got a civ. pro. final after 2maro!
Hey I have a hypo for you:
(1)Diablo has no stores or employees in NY, but sells clothing there though catalogues & website. 6% of national revenue comes from NY., Maximus buys a sweater from diablo that quickly unravels, he wishes to sue them in NY, may he do so?
(2) Maxine, who used to work for Diablo in Texas, got layed off even though Diablo promised her they wouldn't lay her off. She moves to NY, may she sue them there?
* * *
(3) Jack was born & owns a house in Chicago; he then defrauds 100 students into thinking he is a professor in NY (takes all their tuition), after, he hides out in FLA, where he owns shop that sells orange juice & bikinis. As he is driving back-north, A Marshall nails him w/ service in North Carolina (a student resides there). Pissed, he starts driving back south, another Marshall nails him wit another Summons in South Carolina. Finally, really angry, he gets on a plane to Cali., while he is over Pennsylvania, he gets another service of process.
Where can he be sued? assuming they are in fed. court for diversity, Where would a motion to transfer to succeed, & where is appropiate venue?