Personal Jurisdiction Flowchart- General 6h1f1z
This document was ed by and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this report form. Report r6l17
Overview 4q3b3c
& View Personal Jurisdiction Flowchart- General as PDF for free.
More details 26j3b
- Words: 691
- Pages: 1
PERSONAL JURISDICTION: GENERAL PERSONAL JURISDICTION (IPJ) Constitutional
Statutory
CHART: GENERAL PJ 14th Am. Due Process Clause: (“DPC”)
notice & opportunity to be heard Does this ∆ have sufficient connection with the FS so that jurisdiction comports with due process?
Article IV, §1 Full Faith & Credit Clause: full faith and credit given in each state Deference to judgments ed in other states.
Service
Federal: FR 4(k)(2)
Does ∆ have sufficient s with the United States as a whole? Fall back provision that ONLY applies if there would be NO PJ under any other provision – this is really rare because there must be NO STATE with jurisdiction.
State: long arm statute (“LA§”)
Is ∆ a resident of the forum state (“FS”)?
YES
Was ∆ PRESENT in the forum state when process was served?
YES PJ. Valid tag jurisdiction for transient presence, regardless of purpose. Burnham (SPLIT DECISION!)
YES
1.
YES PJ. Valid general jurisdiction.
2. 3.
Express: written in forum selection clause Carnival Cruise, Zapata Implied: (specific jdx) agent for service, nonresident motorist Hess Waived: legal submission by coming to litigate Ireland Insurance
YES
NO
If ∆ is a corporation, are s with FS “continuous and systematic” as to render ∆ essentially “at home” in FS?
Goodyear, Daimler
NOTE: this is high threshold & requires serious presence in the FS!
Helicopteros: purchasing/selling a lot of product or frequently sending employees to conduct business = NO PJ Perkins: co. prez operating out of OH sufficient to show general jdx = YES PJ
Does the claim arise out of/relates to ∆’s with the FS?
NO
YES
NO PJ. No in rem or quasi in rem (“QIR”) jurisdiction.
NO
YES Could get in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction. Go to MINIMUM S analysis.
Shaffer: owning stock insufficient for PJ; Type 2 QIR = limited. Property must be cause of claim = NO PJ Savchuk: no QIR by attaching insurance K = NO PJ
NO PJ. No specific or general jurisdiction.
NO
YES Does the FS’s long arm statute provide PJ over ∆? FR 4(k)
Does own PROPERTY in FS?
Is there an attachment statute?
NO Did ∆… CONSENT to be sued?
on service of process?
PROPERTY JURISDICTION
YES PJ. Valid general jurisdiction by DOMICILE Individuals Corporations “Domicile” Milliken Incorporation, HQ
NO
Did service comply with FR 4? Waiver 4(d)?
State: Did service comply with state rules
unenumerated (full extent of DPC) v. enumerated
TRADITIONAL JURISDICTION Pennoyer (sovereignty)
Federal: FR 4 (a-e, h, n) Reasonably calculated under the circumstances to give NOTICE to interested parties Milliken
State NO PJ – must be a § basis if non-resident ∆ not served in FS, or
NO
YES
Federal – only if jdx provided under other FR 4(k) provisions, such as:
nationwide service statute (class action), bulge rule for FR 14/19 der
Does it satisfy MINIMUM S analysis? Burger King ** SEE MIN S CHART!! ** International Shoe: ∆ must have sufficient minimum s within the FS such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
NO
MIN S MODERN TEST
NO PJ. No specific jurisdiction. ∆ has not purposefully availed herself to the FS.
YES NO PJ. Even though ∆ has minimum s with FS, due process prevents exercise of PJ. Asahi: foreign ∆ burden too great
YES PJ. Valid specific jurisdiction.
Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz (SC 1985) YES PJ
NO YES
REASONABLENESS TEST: Does imposing jurisdiction meet the notions of fair play and substantial justice? Consider: Burger King 1. Burden on ∆ 2. Interest of π 3. Interest of FS in adjudicating
∆ franchisee of BK in MI, stopped making payments and continued to operate store.BK sue for breach of K in FL, choice of law clause for FL • Brennan: (majority) FL has IPJ. Similar to WWVW (where Brennan dissented), wants choice of law closer to choice of forum • 2-part test: Nicastro 1. MIN S: Has D purposefully established minimum s in the state? 2. REASONABLENESS: Are notions of fair play satisfied by establishing jurisdiction there? • Defendant’s inconvenience, plaintiff’s interest, interstate judicial system and the shared interest of the several states 5
Statutory
CHART: GENERAL PJ 14th Am. Due Process Clause: (“DPC”)
notice & opportunity to be heard Does this ∆ have sufficient connection with the FS so that jurisdiction comports with due process?
Article IV, §1 Full Faith & Credit Clause: full faith and credit given in each state Deference to judgments ed in other states.
Service
Federal: FR 4(k)(2)
Does ∆ have sufficient s with the United States as a whole? Fall back provision that ONLY applies if there would be NO PJ under any other provision – this is really rare because there must be NO STATE with jurisdiction.
State: long arm statute (“LA§”)
Is ∆ a resident of the forum state (“FS”)?
YES
Was ∆ PRESENT in the forum state when process was served?
YES PJ. Valid tag jurisdiction for transient presence, regardless of purpose. Burnham (SPLIT DECISION!)
YES
1.
YES PJ. Valid general jurisdiction.
2. 3.
Express: written in forum selection clause Carnival Cruise, Zapata Implied: (specific jdx) agent for service, nonresident motorist Hess Waived: legal submission by coming to litigate Ireland Insurance
YES
NO
If ∆ is a corporation, are s with FS “continuous and systematic” as to render ∆ essentially “at home” in FS?
Goodyear, Daimler
NOTE: this is high threshold & requires serious presence in the FS!
Helicopteros: purchasing/selling a lot of product or frequently sending employees to conduct business = NO PJ Perkins: co. prez operating out of OH sufficient to show general jdx = YES PJ
Does the claim arise out of/relates to ∆’s with the FS?
NO
YES
NO PJ. No in rem or quasi in rem (“QIR”) jurisdiction.
NO
YES Could get in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction. Go to MINIMUM S analysis.
Shaffer: owning stock insufficient for PJ; Type 2 QIR = limited. Property must be cause of claim = NO PJ Savchuk: no QIR by attaching insurance K = NO PJ
NO PJ. No specific or general jurisdiction.
NO
YES Does the FS’s long arm statute provide PJ over ∆? FR 4(k)
Does own PROPERTY in FS?
Is there an attachment statute?
NO Did ∆… CONSENT to be sued?
on service of process?
PROPERTY JURISDICTION
YES PJ. Valid general jurisdiction by DOMICILE Individuals Corporations “Domicile” Milliken Incorporation, HQ
NO
Did service comply with FR 4? Waiver 4(d)?
State: Did service comply with state rules
unenumerated (full extent of DPC) v. enumerated
TRADITIONAL JURISDICTION Pennoyer (sovereignty)
Federal: FR 4 (a-e, h, n) Reasonably calculated under the circumstances to give NOTICE to interested parties Milliken
State NO PJ – must be a § basis if non-resident ∆ not served in FS, or
NO
YES
Federal – only if jdx provided under other FR 4(k) provisions, such as:
nationwide service statute (class action), bulge rule for FR 14/19 der
Does it satisfy MINIMUM S analysis? Burger King ** SEE MIN S CHART!! ** International Shoe: ∆ must have sufficient minimum s within the FS such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
NO
MIN S MODERN TEST
NO PJ. No specific jurisdiction. ∆ has not purposefully availed herself to the FS.
YES NO PJ. Even though ∆ has minimum s with FS, due process prevents exercise of PJ. Asahi: foreign ∆ burden too great
YES PJ. Valid specific jurisdiction.
Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz (SC 1985) YES PJ
NO YES
REASONABLENESS TEST: Does imposing jurisdiction meet the notions of fair play and substantial justice? Consider: Burger King 1. Burden on ∆ 2. Interest of π 3. Interest of FS in adjudicating
∆ franchisee of BK in MI, stopped making payments and continued to operate store.BK sue for breach of K in FL, choice of law clause for FL • Brennan: (majority) FL has IPJ. Similar to WWVW (where Brennan dissented), wants choice of law closer to choice of forum • 2-part test: Nicastro 1. MIN S: Has D purposefully established minimum s in the state? 2. REASONABLENESS: Are notions of fair play satisfied by establishing jurisdiction there? • Defendant’s inconvenience, plaintiff’s interest, interstate judicial system and the shared interest of the several states 5
Related Documents 171j1w
Personal Jurisdiction Flowchart- General 6h1f1z
December 2019 534
Civil Procedure Personal Jurisdiction Flowchart 6o6r1b
November 2019 90
Personal Jurisdiction - Minimum s Analysis Flowchart 5o2o2i
November 2021 0
Federal Jurisdiction Flowchart 4k4u6y
February 2022 0
Personal Jurisdiction Flow Chart 705h3w
October 2019 132
Epistolary Jurisdiction 3g4k1o
December 2019 55More Documents from "Laura C" o4cj
Legislation And Regulation - Outline - Spring 2014 6y16a
December 2019 50
Personal Jurisdiction - Minimum s Analysis Flowchart 5o2o2i
November 2021 0
Personal Jurisdiction Flowchart- General 6h1f1z
December 2019 534
Intellectual Property Attack Outline 4m3n6
December 2019 77
Civpro Attack Outline 1m4m4e
January 2022 0