Personal Jurisdiction

Front 1

What is true with respect to in personam and in rem jurisdiction?

Back 1

Each provides a method by which the court may obtain power over the defendant

Front 2

A is a citizen of Minnesota and B is a citizen of North Dakota. B owns some land in Minnesota. A and B are in a car accident in Iowa. A files a lawsuit against B in a Minnesota federal court, seeking damages for injuries sustained in the Iowa accident. A has B served with the lawsuit at his home in North Dakota. If B files a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction, how should the court rule on B's motion?

Back 2

The court will probably grant the motion because neither personal service in North Dakota nor ownership of property in Minnesota is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in Minnesota on claims that arose in Iowa.

Front 3

Husband and Wife are married. They have joint ownership of the house they lived in for the last six years of their marriage, which is located in Minnesota. Husband still resides in that house, but Wife has moved to North Dakota and intends to stay there indefinitely. Husband files a lawsuit against Wife in a Minnesota state court, seeking divorce and alimony. Husband has a process server deliver the pertinent service papers to Wife at her residence in North Dakota. Under the law as it existed prior to International Shoe, does the Minnesota court have personal jurisdiction over Wife?

Back 3

No. Personal service in North Dakota does not suffice to establish in personam jurisdiction in Minnesota, and the property was not attached at the outset so the court cannot exercise in rem jurisdiction, either.

Front 4

Husband and Wife are married. They have joint ownership of the house they lived in for the last six years of their marriage, which is located in Minnesota. Husband still resides in that house, but Wife has moved to North Dakota and intends to stay there indefinitely. Husband files a lawsuit against Wife in a Minnesota state court, seeking divorce and alimony. Husband has a process server deliver the pertinent service papers to Wife at her residence in North Dakota. Under the law that would apply to a case like this today, does the Minnesota court have personal jurisdiction over Wife?

Back 4

Yes. Because the couple's marriage existed for some time in Minnesota, where they resided together, and because this divorce lawsuit arises out of that marriage, a Minnesota court would probably conclude that Wife has sufficient minimum contacts with the state of Minnesota to exercise in personam jurisdiction over her in this case.

Front 5

Molly Mom is a stay-at-home mom (and Maine resident) with an entrepreneurial spirit and a talent for crafting. She started a home business embroidering various items such as bags and shirts, and marketed them through a Facebook.com page. Sally Store is a Georgia resident who operates a boutique in a small town outside of Atlanta, Georgia, where she sells primarily bags, gifts, and children's clothing. Store saw Mom's products on Facebook and became a fan of Mom's page. When Mom saw that Store was her "fan," Mom sent Store a private message, stating "I saw that you like my products. I could prepare a box full of various bags and children's clothing items embroidered with logos for the University of Georgia and Georgia Tech. I would sell that box to you at 5% above my cost, and authorize you to re-sell those items in your store. Let me know if you would be interested." Store responded that she was interested, and they negotiated and signed a contract via an exchange of e-mail messages. When Store received the shipment from Mom, however, she was disappointed because it did not contain the items on which they agreed, and it did not arrive at the specified time. Instead, it arrived a month late, after the end of football season, when Store thought the college items were most likely to sell. Store therefore sued Mom in a state court in Georgia, seeking damages for breach of contract. Would the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the Georgia state court be constitutional?

Back 5

Yes. Mom deliberately reached out into the state of Georgia and entered into a contract with a resident of that state, purposefully availing herself of the benefits and protections of the laws of that state, so she has sufficient minimum contacts to support jurisdiction.

Front 6

Reconsider the facts underlying the hypothetical case of Store (in Georgia) v. Mom (of Maine), outlined in the previous question. Assume now that no dispute arose in relation to the items Mom shipped from Maine to Store in Georgia, and that Store sold Mom's products to various consumers who visited her store. One such consumer, Polly Purchaser, bought a bag from Store on which Mom had embroidered the University of Georgia "G." Purchaser, a South Carolina resident, returned to her South Carolina home after making the purchase from Store, and when she used the bag while attending the Georgia-South Carolina football game (in South Carolina) a few weeks later, sustained serious injuries when an embroidery needle embedded in the bag poked through the fabric and cut her wrist, causing serious bleeding. Upon recovery, Purchaser filed a tort lawsuit against Mom in a South Carolina state court. Assuming that South Carolina's long-arm statute reaches to the limits of the Due Process Clause, would the South Carolina court have personal jurisdiction in the Purchaser v. Mom lawsuit?

Back 6

No, because the contact with the forum state came about only as a result of the unilateral act of the consumer (Purchaser), and the facts suggest no other constitutionally cognizable contact sufficient to support South Carolina jurisdiction over Mom.

This is like World-Wide Volkswagen in that the injury-causing product reached the forum state only due to the unilateral act of the consumer, so that the seller lacks a sufficient deliberate connection (purposeful availment) and cannot reasonably foresee being haled into court there.

Front 7

This question contemplates the same case of Purchaser v. Bag Co. hypothesized in previous questions, where Purchaser (a Georgia resident) has sued Bag (incorporated in Delaware and with its principal place of business in Missouri) after Bag's product, sold in the stream of commerce in Georgia, injured Purchaser there. Assume for this question that Purchaser v. Bag Co. is filed in a federal court in Georgia. Which of the following statements is true?

Back 7

The federal court would have personal jurisdiction over Bag Co. only if the state courts in Georgia would have personal jurisdiction over Bag Co.

Under Rule 4(k)(1)(A), the federal courts may exercise only so much personal jurisdiction as the courts of the state in which that federal court is located may exercise. Thus, the personal jurisdiction of federal and state courts within a single state is nearly identical

Front 8

Consider again the case of Store v. Mom, where Store (a Georgia citizen) sues Mom (a Maine citizen) for breach of contract. Assume for this question that Mom owns a million-dollar mountain estate in Colorado, so Store files the lawsuit in a federal court in Colorado, asking the court to attach Mom's mountain estate to the lawsuit. For what purpose could Mom's mountain estate properly be attached to this lawsuit?

Back 8

As pre-judgment security, but only if some other basis for exercising jurisdiction over Mom in Colorado exists

Front 9

Consider one last time Mom, a Maine resident, who owns a million-dollar estate in Colorado. Assume that Mom visits the estate in Colorado once or twice a year, for a few days to a week at a time. Would jurisdiction over Mom be proper in Colorado?

Back 9

Yes. The lawsuit relates directly to Mom's ownership of the mountain estate. Thus, the property likely provides sufficient contact with the forum to support jurisdiction under Shaffer and International Shoe.

Front 10

Rockin Rollers, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and operates an amusement park in Tennessee that attracts thrill-seeking roller coaster enthusiasts from all over the world due it its innovative and creative coaster designs. For years, all of the food sold at the Rockin Rollers park was purchased from Star Provisions, a food supply company located in Ohio. Rockin Rollers made regular purchases from Star Provisions over the last several years. Its only other connection with Ohio is that some of the park's visitors each year come from Ohio. Phoe, a resident of Pennsylvania, was injured at Rockin Rollers when a coaster he was riding lost control and flew off the tracks. Phoe would like to sue Rockin Rollers in Ohio, since he is still recuperating from his injuries and Ohio is closer to his home than Tennessee. Would an Ohio court's exercise of jurisdiction over Rockin Rollers comport with due process?

Back 10

No, because Rockin Rollers' contacts with Ohio are insufficient to justify general jurisdiction.

Rockin Rollers apparently lacks sufficient contacts with Ohio to support the exercise of general jurisdiction there.

Front 11

Reconsider the scenario described in the preceding question, in which Phoe, a Pennsylvanian, visited the Rockin Rollers theme park in Tennessee, which purchases all of the food it sells from Star Provisions, an Ohio company. Assume now that Phoe became extremely ill after ingesting food sold at Rockin Rollers, and believes Star Provisions may be to blame for having improperly stored the food it sold to Rockin Rollers. Phoe wishes to sue Star Provisions. Assuming no facts beyond those given here, which of the following courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over Star Provisions consistent with due process?

Back 11

Ohio and Tennessee only.

Star Provisions would likely be subject to general jurisdiction in Ohio (where it is located) and specific jurisdiction in Tennessee, where the cause of action arose, given that it sells its products to Rockin Rollers on a regular basis and therefore has purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of doing business in Tennessee and should reasonably foresee being sued there.

Front 12

Driver, a Wyoming citizen, is in an accident in South Dakota with Worker, who is driving a truck for her employer, Darn-Good Pest Control, Inc. Darn-Good Pest Control is incorporated in Montana. Its corporate headquarters are in Colorado, and it has operations in six mountain-west states: 35% of its sales are in Wyoming, 25 percent are in Colorado, and the rest are scattered among four other states, including South Dakota. It manufactures $50 million worth of pest control chemicals and parts at its factory in Wyoming. If Driver sues Darn-Good Pest Control for her injury (alleging that the employer is liable for the employee's negligence in driving the truck) in a federal court in Wyoming, alleging in good faith that her damages exceed $75,000, the Wyoming court will:

Back 12

have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case based on diversity. It may also have personal jurisdiction over Darn-Good for this claim, but we do not know for sure.

Subject-matter jurisdiction is proper because the suit is between a WY citizen and a dual citizen of MT and CO -- there is complete diversity, and the amount in controversy is satisfied.

Front 13

Father, a citizen of Georgia, establishes a trust at the Southeast Community Bank, a banking company incorporated in North Carolina and that operates banks in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Three years later, Father dies in Georgia. Father's son, Heir, is the beneficiary of the trust, and he lives in Arizona. Heir bring suit against Southeast Community Bank in a state court in Arizona to collect the trust fund proceeds. Assume that an Arizona jurisdictional statute authorizes Arizona courts to hear "any suit by a resident of this state on a claim to trust proceeds if the resident either established the trust or is a named beneficiary of it." If Southeast Community Bank files a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in this case, how should the Arizona court rule?

Back 13

The court should grant the motion because even though the Arizona statute authorizes jurisdiction in Heir's suit, it would likely violate the Due Process Clause for the court to exercise jurisdiction over the Bank in this case.

Its only connection with the state lies in the fact that a beneficiary of a trust fund that Bank held (in GA) happens to live there (in AZ).