Mkm Personal Jurisdiction

Front 1

In personam jurisdiction

Back 1

permits a court to enter a judgment that is personally binding on defendant. Courts in other states must give full faith and credit to the judgment.

Front 2

In rem jurisdiction

Back 2

permits a court to adjudicate the rights of all possible claimants in a specific piece of property.

Front 3

Quasi in Rem type 1

Back 3

permits a court to determine rights of particular parties in property under its control.

Front 4

Quasi in Rem type II

Back 4

permits a court having jurisdiction over defendant’s property, but not over defendant personally, to use the property to satisfy plaintiff’s personal claim against defendant.

Use of this type as a basis for jurisdiction over nonresident defendants has been severely limited.

Front 5

Pennoyer v. Neff

Back 5

a state's jurisdiction was generally limited to persons or property served with process or seized in the state

Front 6

Shift to Minimum Contacts- International Shoe

Back 6

Court shifted from an emphasis on in-state service requirement to a requirement of minimum contacts with the forum state "such that the maintenance of the of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

Front 7

Contacts with the forum- International Shoe

Back 7

Intl Shoe generated a two stage approach to jurisdiction problems, looking first to whether the def purposely availed himself to the privilege of conducting activities in the forum and then at the reasonableness of permitting jurisdiction.

Front 8

Minimum contacts- Purposeful availment

Back 8

inquiry focuses solely on the activities of the defendant, looking for some voluntary action by defendant establishing a beneficial relationship w the forum state

Front 9

Min Contacts- Purp Avail- Foreseeability

Back 9

Mere foreseeability of contact with the forum is important but
insufficient; defendant’s conduct with respect to the forum state must be such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there (e.g., long-term relationship with forum or seeking to serve forum market).

Front 10

Min Contacts- Purp Avail- Relationship btwn contacts w forum and claim asserted

Back 10

The Court assumes “specific” jurisdiction is proper with regard to claims that are related to forum contacts that satisfy the purposeful availment requirement, but jurisdiction may also be proper where the claim arises from contacts that do not satisfy the purposeful availment requirement, but is of the same type as claims that do. This might be rationalized by focusing on foreseeability of facing claims of this type in this state.

Front 11

Min Contacts- Purp Avail- Commercial v. noncommercial

Back 11

Purposeful availment is more easily found with regard to defendant’s commercial activity.

Front 12

Min Contacts- Purp Avail- Choice of law distinguished

Back 12

The fact that a particular state's law may apply under choice-of-law "center of gravity" principles does not alone satisfy the purposeful availment requirement as to that state

Front 13

Min Contacts- Purp Avail- Reasonableness insufficient to satisfy purposeful availment requirement

Back 13

Factors such as a lack of inconvenience to the defendant cannot outweigh the requirement of purposeful availment

Front 14

Fair play and substantial justice- Reasonableness factors

Back 14

1. Def's burden in defending the suit in the forum
2. the forum state's interest in adjudication
3. Plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
4. Furtherance of fundamental substantive social policies.

Front 15

Presence of defendant's personal property in forum

Back 15

presence of defendant's property in the forum will often establish a constitutionally sufficient contact between the defendant and the forum, ordinarily bc it establishes relevant contact btwn def and forum.

Front 16

Location of property- tangible

Back 16

tangible property is located a state if it is physically present there.

Front 17

location of property- intangible

Back 17

intangible property may be considered located in a jurisdiction if some transaction related to the property occurred there, but if embodied in an instrument, it is usually said to be located where the instrument is. This is usually governed by state law.

Front 18

Presence of property supports jurisdiction

Back 18

may support jurisdiction by providing contacts among the forum, defendant, and litigation.

Front 19

True in rem

Back 19

States have power to exercise true in rem jurisdiction as in condemnation proceedings

Front 20

Claim related to rights and duties arising from ownership

Back 20

property provides sufficient contact if the claim is related to rights or duties related to the property (e.g., absentee owner might be sued for injuries sustained on property located in the forum)

Front 21

General jurisdiction

Back 21

subjects defendants to suit in any claim in the forum

Front 22

Specific jurisdiction

Back 22

confers jurisdiction only for claims related to the defendant's contact with the forum.

Front 23

General jurisdiction- Natural persons

Back 23

General jurisdiction is available in the state of a natural person's DOMICILE

Front 24

General Jurisdiction- Corporations

Back 24

Subject to general jurisdiction in:
1. the state of incorporation
2. the state in which its headquarters are located if different from state of incorporation, and
3. State in which it conducts "substantial activity"

Front 25

Consent

Back 25

def may consent to jurisdiction in a forum

Front 26

Express consent

Back 26

def may expressly consent to jurisdiction, either before or after suit is filed

Front 27

implied consent

Back 27

by filing suit in a forum, plaintiff consent to jurisdiction as to any related counterclaim by def

Front 28

Appearance

Back 28

depending on prevailing rules, jurisdiction may be supported by a party's voluntary appearance in court to contest issues other than jurisdiction

Front 29

Service within jurisdiction

Back 29

Traditionally, service within the jurisdiction was presumptively sufficient to support jurisdiction.

Front 30

Service within jurisdiction- possible minimum contacts requirement

Back 30

After Shaffer v. Heitner, many thought that transient jurisdiction (jurisdiction obtained solely on the basis of service in the forum) was invalid absent minimum contacts, but the Supreme Court has since upheld transient jurisdiction. Note: The Court has left open the question whether service would be sufficient if defendant is not present voluntarily.

Front 31

Fraudulent inducement

Back 31

if defendant is served with process after being fraudulently induced to enter state, the court WILL NOT exercise jurisdiction.

Front 32

Territorial jurisdiction of federal Courts

Back 32

In most cases, the territorial jurisdiction of a federal court is no broader than that of the state where it is located

Front 33

Long arm statutes

Back 33

It is not enough that an exercise of jurisdiction is constitutionally authorized; there must also be a statute authorizing jurisdiction. After International Shoe, state legislatures began to enact long arm statutes extending the reach of their courts’ jurisdiction. Some long arm statutes authorize jurisdiction whenever it would not violate the Constitution, but most long arm statutes list specific acts
that warrant the exercise of jurisdiction.

Front 34

Federal Court jurisdiction

Back 34

Federal court exercise jurisdiction no broader than that authorized by the long arm statute of the state where the court is located

Front 35

Litigating jurisdiction- Default

Back 35

If a party believes the court lacks personal jurisdiction she may default and later argue that the judgment should not be given full faith and credit bc the court did not have jurisdiction

Front 36

Litigating jurisdiction- Appearance to litigate

Back 36

defendant may raise lack of personal jurisdiction along w other defenses in her answer of preanswer motions. A few states require personal appearance

Front 37

Binding effect

Back 37

once the defendant has appeared and litigated jurisdiction, she cannot relitigate the issue in another court, but she can appeal after a final decision is rendered.

Front 38

Personal jurisdiction

Back 38

refers to a state's power to hear a case and enforce its judgment over the particular parties or property involved.

Front 39

Personal jurisdiction- 3 types

Back 39

1. In personam
2. In rem
3. Quasi in rem

Front 40

Personal jurisdiction- In Personam

Back 40

Permits court to enter a judgment that is personally binding to the defendant, either ordering her to do or refrain from doing a certain act (equitable or injunctive relief) or decreeing that the plaintiff may collect a certain amount of damages from the defendant (legal relief).

Courts in other states must enforce such a judgment bc the Constitution requires them to give full faith and credit to the judgment.

Front 41

Personal jurisdiction- In Rem

Back 41

permits courts to adjudicate the rights of all possible claimants to a specific piece of property, as in a condemnation proceedings.

Front 42

Personal jurisdiction- Quasi In Rem Type 1

Back 42

cases convolving individual disputes related to property under the court's control (such as actions for specific performance of a contract to purchase land.

Front 43

Personal jurisdiction- Quasi In Rem Type 2

Back 43

Personal disputes where the court could not assert personal jurisdiction over the defendants, but had jurisdiction, over property belonging to the defendant. That property would be seized by the plaintiff and used to satisfy the claim if the plaintiff prevailed.

The use of quasi in rem type 2 for a basis to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant has been severely limited o constitutional grounds.

Front 44

Pennoyer v. Neff (1878)

Back 44

The court found that for the state to exercise power individuals or property there must be valid process of service in the individual (in in personam cases) or attachment of property (in in rem actions). The methods by which jurisdiction can be obtained have broadened since Pennoyer.

Because the 14th amendment did not become effective until 1868 (after Mitchell had Neff's property sold), the 14 amendment due clause process was not involved in the case. However, the court made it clear in dictum that in the future, due process would apply the same limitations on exercise of jurisdiction

Front 45

Territorial limits on process

Back 45

the court in Pennoyer determined that a state cannot serve an individual domiciled in another state with process and summon that person to respond to a lawsuit against him. This basic limitation on the power of state courts to exercise in personam jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants has been weakened by the modern shift to a minimum contacts analysis.

Front 46

Service within state sufficient

Back 46

Under Pennoyer, service of process on a defendant within the state is sufficient for jurisdiction. This conclusion is implicit in Pennoyer's reasoning, and is the basis for what has come to be known as transient jurisdiction, i.e., a court may obtain jurisdiction over a defendant by serving him when he is temporarily physically present in the state.

Front 47

Quasi in rem type 2

Back 47

Pennoyer indicated in dictum that prejudgment seizure of a defendant's property was sufficient to permit a state to dispose of that property to satisfy claims not related to the property. Where such seizure was accomplished, the court had power to control disposition of the property, even absent service of process within the jurisdiction.

Front 48

Quasi in rem not available in Pennoyer

Back 48

in the first action, plaintiff did not attach the defendant's property before entry of judgment. The court held that seizure after judgment was insufficient to support jurisdiction.

Front 49

Exceptions to the in-state service or prejudgment seizure requirement

Back 49

1. Status
2. Consent

Front 50

Status

Back 50

Even absent service within the state, the Pennoyer court acknowledged that a state court could determine the status of one of its citizens toward a non-resident.

Front 51

Divisble divorce

Back 51

the marital status was treated as a res that could be the subject of adjudication by the state in which either spouse resided, but alimony, child support, and other financial matters were viewed as in personam and beyond the authority of a state that had not obtained jurisdiction by person service.

Front 52

Consent

Back 52

Implied consent- a defendant's in state activities are sufficient to justify for suits related to the activities, despite doubts about the power to forbid them.

Front 53

Notice not sufficient to establish jurisdiction

Back 53

The court proceeded from the notion that a state’s power over individuals ends at its borders, so that process from a state’s courts cannot run into another state and force persons domiciled there to appear in a legal proceeding. Therefore, notice to Neff in California of the suit filed by
Mitchell in Oregon would not have any effect on the power of the Oregon court to enter a binding judgment.

Front 54

Notice not required to establish jurisdiction

Back 54

Pennoyer similarly did not indicate that notice was required for entry of a valid judgment. Instead, it indicated that prejudgment seizure of the defendant’s property would be sufficient. Rationale: the law presumes that property is always in the possession of its owner, and therefore its
seizure will inform the owner “that he must look to any proceedings authorized by law upon such seizure for its condemnation and sale.”

Front 55

Shift to Minimum Contacts

Back 55

In International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), the Court shifted away from Pennoyer’s insistence on service within the state to support in personam jurisdiction. Instead, it held that to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, due process requires only that “he have certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional no-
tions of fair play and substantial justice.’”

Front 56

Min contacts- Foreseeability- Unilateral act of plaintiff—insufficient (purposeful availment)

Back 56

It is said that the unilateral act of the plaintiff in bringing a product to the forum or relocating in the forum is insufficient to establish the requisite connection.

Front 57

Min contacts- Foreseeability- Entering into a long-term relationship with a forum resident (purposeful availment)

Back 57

Where the defendant has established a long-term relationship with a forum resident, that may suffice to establish minimum contacts.

Front 58

Min contacts- Foreseeability- Seeking to serve (purposeful availment)

Back 58

(c) Seeking to serve [§32]
In World-Wide Volkswagen, supra, the Court indicated that Oklahoma contacts would have been sufficient to support jurisdiction if it were shown that the defendants “regularly sell cars at wholesale or retail to Oklahoma customers or residents or that they indirectly, through others, serve or seek to serve the Oklahoma market.”

Single act [§33]
A single act seeking to serve the forum market has been held sufficient to support jurisdiction in an action asserting a claim growing out of that act- McGee v. Intl Life Ins

Front 59

Min contacts- Foreseeability- Stream of commerce (purposeful availment)

Back 59

The Court has also said that a forum state may assert personal jurisdiction over a corporation that “delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State.” [World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra]

Retail seller [§35]
In World-Wide Volkswagen, the Court held that the stream of
commerce ends with the retail sale of the product, even if it is foreseeable that the purchaser will take the product to another state. (Note that a retail seller who regularly serves customers from a given state would be said to “seek to serve” that state’s market even if located in another state.)

Manufacturer or component supplier [§36]
In World-Wide Volkswagen, the Court cited with seeming ap-
proval Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.,
176 N.E.2d 761 (Ill. 1961), which upheld jurisdiction over a
component supplier whose product was sent into the forum state as part of a product manufactured by its customer. However, the Court later failed to resolve a similar issue involving a Japanese component manufacturer and a Taiwanese tire manufacturer whose product failed in California. [Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987)] Justice O’Connor’s opinion in Asahi (not for a majority of the Court) indicated that placing a product in the stream of commerce is not sufficient, and that some “additional conduct” by which the defendant indicates “an intent or purpose to serve the forum state” is essential. The circumstances under which a manufacturer will be found subject to jurisdiction in a state because its product is
sold there remain unclear.

Front 60

Min contacts- Foreseeability- Targeting or intending effects in forum (purposeful availment)

Back 60

The Court has indicated that, at least for intentional torts, jurisdiction can be obtained over a nonresident defendant in a forum if the defendant intended that his actions could have an effect in that forum. [Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)—Court indicated that the editor and author of an allegedly libelous story about a California plaintiff were subject to jurisdiction in California because “California is the focal point, both of the story and of the harm suffered”]

Generally focused on wrongful or commercial activity [§38]
The Court has stated that the effects test (above) “was in-
tended to reach wrongful activity outside of the State causing
injury within the State or commercial activity affecting State
residents.”

Not applicable to all intentional torts [§39]
The effects test may not apply to all intentional torts. [See
IMO Industries, Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir.
1998)—for jurisdiction to be upheld, plaintiff must have felt
brunt of harm of intentional tort in forum, and defendant
must have expressly aimed its conduct at the forum]

Front 61

Min contacts-Relationship between contacts with forum and claim asserted (purposeful availment)

Back 61

The Supreme Court has assumed that jurisdiction is proper for claims related to the forum contacts that satisfy the purposeful availment requirement. This involves what has been called specific jurisdiction.

Front 62

Commercial vs. noncommercial (purposeful availment)

Back 62

A court is less likely to find minimum contacts when the defendant has not sought any commercial benefits from contacts with the forum.

Front 63

Reasonableness insufficient to satisfy purposeful availment requirement

Back 63

The Court has rejected the idea that other factors can outweigh the importance of the purposeful availment requirement: “Even if the defendant would suffer minimal or no inconvenience from being forced to litigate before the tribunals of another State; even if the forum State has
a strong interest in applying its law to the controversy; even if the forum State is the most convenient location for litigation, the Due Process Clause . . . may sometimes act to divest the State of its power to render a valid judgment.”

Front 64

Contacts with Forum

Back 64

International Shoe’s approach has generated a two-stage analysis for determining whether the exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is proper. The first stage looks to the purposeful availment requirement introduced in Hanson, supra, which is usually the harder requirement to satisfy. If that is satisfied, the analysis turns to questions of reasonableness.

Front 65

Min Contacts- Fair play and substantial justice—reasonableness

Back 65

Besides focusing on the defendant’s contacts with the forum, the jurisdictional inquiry takes account of a number of other factors that bear together on whether the exercise of jurisdiction in the state is reasonable. On this question, consideration of the plaintiff’s interests is proper.

Front 66

Fair play and substantial justice—reasonableness- Factors

Back 66

(a) The burden on the defendant to defend the litigation in the forum;
(b) The forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute;
(c) The plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief;
(d) The interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of the dispute; and
(e) The shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.

Front 67

Fair play and substantial justice—reasonableness- Factors

Back 67

the fact that the defendant has conducted only one piece of business in the state does not by itself defeat jurisdiction over a claim arising out of that business. [McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., supra, §33

Front 68

Fair play and substantial justice—reasonableness- Easy to satisfy

Back 68

“[W]here a defendant who purposefully has directed his activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, he must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” [Burger King v. Rudzewicz, supra, §43]

Front 69

Fair play and substantial justice—reasonableness- Greater concern with burden on foreign defendants

Back 69

The Court has indicated that it may be relevant that the defendant is a foreigner, recognizing the “unique burdens placed upon one who must defend oneself in a foreign legal system.” [Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court, supra, §36]

Front 70

Application—Internet activities

Back 70

Same general analysis applied [§54]
The same minimum contacts analysis that is used for other litigation applies to suits arising from Internet activities as well (see supra, §22).

Front 71

Contracts via Internet [§55]

Back 71

As in Burger King (supra, §28), entering into an ongoing contract via Internet communications usually will suffice to support jurisdiction at the forum of either party for an action alleging breach of contract against the other.

Front 72

Relation to state long arm statute requirements [§57]

Back 72

Courts apply their usual long arm analysis when determining personal jurisdiction in Internet cases. A state has long arm jurisdiction when the defendant commits an act enumerated in the long arm statute and thereby submits to the state’s personal jurisdiction for any cause of action arising out of that act.

Front 73

Ability of forum residents to access Internet site usually not sufficient

Back 73

Most courts hold that the ability of forum residents to access a Web page does not, standing alone, support forum jurisdiction.

Front 74

Level of interaction and nature of Web page relevant [§59]

Back 74

Courts often look to the level of interaction of a Web page to determine whether or not the purposeful availment requirement has been met. If the Web page is passive (e.g., merely provides information), jurisdiction will usually not be found. Even a Web page that permits interaction may not support jurisdiction if it is essentially “local” in nature.

Front 75

Presence of Defendant’s Property in Forum

Back 75

the presence of the defendant’s property in the jurisdiction
often may suffice to make jurisdiction constitutional, but ordinarily only because it establishes a relevant contact between the defendant and the forum.

Front 76

Location of property

Back 76

Tangible property (e.g., real estate, chattels) is located in a state if it is physically present therein.

Front 77

Intangible property

Back 77

Generally, states may declare that intangible property is located within their jurisdiction if some transaction related to the property occurred within the state. When intangible property is embodied in an instrument (e.g., negotiable paper), however, it is usually said to be located in the
state where the instrument is located.

Front 78

Contacts test

Back 78

Shaffer held that the minimum contacts analysis of International Shoe should be applied to jurisdiction over property, reasoning that jurisdiction over a thing is an “elliptical way of referring to jurisdiction over the interests of persons in a thing” and should therefore be viewed as analogous to personal jurisdiction in terms of protection of those interests.

Front 79

Presence of property supports jurisdiction

Back 79

In Shaffer, the Court recognized that “the presence of property in a State may bear on the existence of jurisdiction by providing contacts among the forum State, the defendant, and the litigation.”

Front 80

True in rem cases

Back 80

The Court appeared to leave untouched the state’s power to exercise true in rem jurisdiction, which “affects the interests of all persons in designated property.” Therefore, the state would have jurisdiction based on the presence of the property in true in rem cases

Must be claim to specific property [§69]
Note that the legal right asserted must be to recover the specific property located in the forum state, such as in a replevin action. Property attached as security for an eventual money judgment would not suffice.

Front 81

Absence of another forum

Back 81

Absence of another forum [§74]
In a footnote in Shaffer, the Court noted that “[t]his case does not raise, and we therefore do not consider, the question whether the presence of a defendant’s property in a State is a sufficient basis for jurisdiction when no other forum is available to the plaintiff.” This may sanction jurisdiction by necessity.

Front 82

Presence of unrelated property insufficient for jurisdiction

Back 82

Shaffer holds that when property is “completely unrelated to the plaintiff’s cause of action” its presence alone will not suffice to support jurisdiction.

Front 83

General jurisdiction

Back 83

The Supreme Court distinguishes between specific and general personal jurisdiction. If general jurisdiction is justified, the defendant is subject to suit on any claim in the forum. Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, gives rise to
jurisdiction only for claims related to the jurisdictional contact with the state

Front 84

GJ- Relation to the claim

Back 84

The general jurisdiction analysis usually becomes important when the relation between the defendant’s contacts with the jurisdiction and the claim sued upon is not sufficient for specific jurisdiction

Front 85

GJ- Rationale

Back 85

The general idea is to provide a “safe harbor” where the plaintiff may bring suit without the worry that a court might later question the existence of sufficient contacts under International Shoe.

Front 86

GJ- Natural persons

Back 86

General jurisdiction is available in the state of a person’s domicile. One acquires a domicile by being present in a
state with the intent to make it one’s home for an indefinite period.

Front 87

GJ- Corporations

Back 87

A corporation is subject to general jurisdiction in its state of incorporation and in the state in which its headquarters are located, if different from its state of incorporation.

Substantial contacts [§84]
Corporations have been held subject to suits on unrelated claims in states in which they conduct “substantial activity.” The level of activity that is sufficient for this purpose is ambiguous. Although one could argue that only a very large volume of activity should suffice, some courts have seemingly lowered the threshold.

Front 88

Consent

Back 88

A defendant may consent to jurisdiction in the forum. This consent may be express, implied, or due to the making of a general appearance in the minority of states that do not follow federal practice.

Front 89

Express consent

Back 89

Express consent can be made either before or after suit is filed, and suffices to support jurisdiction without reference to other contacts with the forum.

Front 90

Registration by corporation

Back 90

In many states, foreign corporations that engage in business in the state are required to register and appoint an agent for service of process in the state, thereby consenting to suit there.

Front 91

Implied consent

Back 91

As an adjunct to the registration requirements, states often treat conduct of business in the state to be impliedly appointing a state official, often the secretary of state, as agent for service of process. This is not based on a true consent theory, but on the constitutionality of exercise of state jurisdiction over claims arising from the corporation’s activities in the state.

Front 92

Implied consent- plaintiff

Back 92

By filing suit, the plaintiff is deemed to have consented to the jurisdiction of the forum for the purpose of a counterclaim by the defendant. However, this implied consent does not extend to a counterclaim unrelated to the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant.

Front 93

Consent in class actions

Back 93

In class actions, the failure of unnamed plaintiff class members to opt out of the class action constitutes consent to adjudication of their claims in the forum. The Supreme Court has not resolved the question of whether the same reasoning would apply to a defendant class.

Front 94

Appearance

Back 94

A party’s voluntary appearance in an action is sufficient by itself to support jurisdiction.

Front 95

What constitutes an appearance?

Back 95

In general, an appearance occurs when the defendant defends litigation on the merits. Depending on the prevailing rules in the jurisdiction, the issue turns on the extent to which the defendant raises issues other than jurisdiction.

Front 96

State courts

Back 96

In many states, a defendant who wishes to preserve objections to personal jurisdiction must make a special appearance raising only jurisdictional issues. Raising any other matter subjects the defendant to the risk of having made a general appearance and thereby consenting to jurisdiction. In some states requiring a special appearance, however, the defendant may simultaneously raise other
defenses so long as it immediately challenges personal jurisdiction.

Front 97

Federal courts

Back 97

In federal courts and in most state courts, a defendant need not make a special appearance; all grounds of defense, including lack of personal jurisdiction, can be asserted in a motion or answer.

Front 98

Waiver

Back 98

However, if the defendant fails to raise personal jurisdiction in her initial motion or answer, that objection is waived.

Front 99

Consent to jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction

Back 99

By moving to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the de-
fendant consents to the power of the court to decide that question, including the power to order discovery pertinent to the jurisdictional question.

Front 100

Binding effect

Back 100

A defendant who appears and litigates jurisdiction may
not later raise jurisdiction as a bar to full faith and credit.
To preserve the jurisdictional objection as a ground for resisting full faith and credit, defendant must default.

Front 101

Alternative of Default

Back 101

A defendant who believes that jurisdiction in the forum is improper may disregard the suit and permit a default judgment to be taken against him. When the plaintiff later attempts to enforce the default judgment in another jurisdiction under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the defendant can then challenge on the ground that the rendering court lacked jurisdiction. If the enforcing court finds
jurisdiction was proper, however, there will be no further opportunity to defend on the merits.

Front 102

Service within the jurisdiction

Back 102

Under Pennoyer, supra, §6, service of process within the jurisdiction was presumptively sufficient to support jurisdiction.This ground for jurisdiction may not suffice, according to some Justices’ opinions, if the defendant’s presence in the state was not intentional or voluntary.

Front 103

Fraudulent inducement

Back 103

Where the defendant is personally served in the forum state, the court will not exercise jurisdiction on that ground if the defendant was lured into the jurisdiction by the plaintiff’s false statements.

However, using trickery to effect service on a defendant already in the jurisdiction generally does not interfere with the effectiveness of service.

Front 104

In rem cases

Back 104

When the plaintiff relies on seizure of the defendant’s movable property to establish jurisdiction, the seizure should be disregarded if the property is moved to the forum as the result of some trickery by the plaintiff.

Front 105

Territorial Jurisdiction of Federal Courts

Back 105

Except in a few situations where such powers are conferred by rule or statute, the territorial jurisdiction of a federal court is usually no broader than that of the state in which the federal court is located.

Front 106

Statutory authorization for jurisdiction

Back 106

For a court to assert jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, there must be a statute or rule that gives the court the authority to exercise jurisdiction. In state court, such authority is usually in the form of a long arm statute, which operates as enabling legislation.

Front 107

Full power statutes

Back 107

Long arm statutes in a few states explicitly authorize exercise of jurisdiction whenever it would not violate the Constitution.

Front 108

Specific acts

Back 108

Most long arm statutes designate specific acts as warranting the exercise of jurisdiction. Common examples include:
(i) The transaction of any business within the state;
(ii) The commission of a tortious act within the state;
(iii) Ownership, use, or possession of real property within the state;
(iv) Contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located in the state at the time of contracting; and
(v) The maintenance of a marital domicile in the state in an action for divorce.

Front 109

Federal Court jurisdiction

Back 109

In general, federal courts exercise jurisdiction no broader than that authorized by state long arm statutes.

Front 110

Subject to jurisdiction of state court

Back 110

Process from a federal court will confer jurisdiction over a defendant if the defendant would be subject to jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state in which the federal court is located. In other words, if the defendant could be served in a suit in the state where the federal court is located, the defendant can also be served in a federal court suit.

Front 111

Constitutionality

Back 111

Where this is the ground for exercise of personal jurisdiction, the constitutionality of that exercise is the same as if the case were in state court.

Front 112

Claims arising under federal law

Back 112

For claims arising under federal law, federal courts can exercise jurisdiction even though the defendant is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of general jurisdiction in any state, if this would be consistent with the Constitution. This situation usually involves a foreign defendant.

This provision could apply if the defendant’s national contacts permit exercise of jurisdiction although no state has sufficient contacts to support it.

Front 113

In rem jurisdiction- federal

Back 113

The federal court may assert jurisdiction by seizing a defendant’s assets found within the district only if defendant cannot be served by an otherwise authorized means, and then only in the manner provided by the law of the state in
which the district court is located.

Front 114

Default

Back 114

A party served with summons who believes that the court lacks personal jurisdiction or authority to serve process on her may disregard the process and allow her default to be taken. If an effort is later made to enforce the resulting default judgment, she can argue that full faith and credit should not be given to the judgment because it was entered by a court without jurisdiction. However, if this argument
is rejected, the defendant may not then defend on the merits

Front 115

Appearance to Litigate Jurisdiction

Back 115

The defendant can appear in the action and litigate jurisdiction in the court in which the suit was filed. In federal court and in most state courts, the jurisdictional objection can be raised along with other defenses, but in a few
states, the defendant would have to enter a special appearance, which raises only the jurisdictional issue.

Front 116

Default

Back 116

Once the defendant has appeared and litigated jurisdiction, she may not re-raise the issue collaterally to resist full faith and credit; she is estopped from re-litigating the issue.