Civil Procedure: Personal Jurisdiction

Front 1

Certain Minimum Contacts: Specific Personal Juridiction

Back 1

A forum state may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has certain minimum contacts such that the maintenance of a suit does not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Front 2

Effect of Minimum Contacts

Back 2

Establishing that the defendant's minimum contacts justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the forum state is presumptively fair and reasonable.

Front 3

Defendant's Burden

Back 3

The defendant may rebut the presumption that the exercise of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair by proving a compelling case that requiring him to litigate the action in the forum state would be unreasonable and unjust.

Front 4

Fair Play and Substantial Justice: Asahi Factors

Back 4

1. Defendant's Burden
2. Plaintinff's Interest Obtaining Relief
3. Forum State's Interest in Adjudicating Dispute
4. Interstate Judiciary's Interest in Efficient Proceeding
5. Common Fundamental Interest in Substantial Justice

Front 5

So Continuous & Systematic Substantial Activities: General Personal Jurisdiction

Back 5

If a defendant's continuous and systematic activities within the forum state are so substantial as to approximate being domiciled in the state, then general personal jurisdiction for claims unrelated to the defendant's activities are proper.

Front 6

Stream of Commerce: O'Connor Test

Back 6

Mere awareness that placement of goods into the stream of commerce is not enough to show purposeful availment by a defendant who places goods into the stream of commerce. Plaintiff must make an additional showing that the defendant directed activities at the forum state.

Front 7

Stream of Commerce: Brennan Test

Back 7

If the flow of defendant's products into the forum state is regular and anticipated from the placement of goods into the stream of commerce, then the defendant has purposefully availed themselves of the forum state.
Personal jurisdiction is justified because reasonable certain knowledge of the likelihood of goods entering the forum state is enough to make possible litigation foreseeable.

Front 8

Stream of Commerce; Stevens Test

Back 8

If the benefits derived from sales in the forum state which result from the defendant's placement of goods into the stream of commerce, then depending on the severity of the harm resulting from the defendant's goods in the forum state in light of the total volume entering and the profits, placement is enough to establish purposeful availment.
Deriving benefits implies an obligation to respond to law suits related to the basis of the derived benefit.