Personal Jurisdiction - Minimum s Analysis Flowchart 5o2o2i

CHART: MINIMUM S PERSONAL JURISDICTION: MINIMUM S ANALYSIS



s?

none . . . . . . . . . . . . casual/isolated . . . . . . . single . . . . . . . continuous but limited . . . . . . . . . . . . substantial

Jurisdictional G! Result: no jdx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . specific jdx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . general jdx Decreasing s

Increasing s

Was there PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT? (Voluntary Affiliation)

Denckla: NO PJ bad kids case, ∆ DE trust co. did not do purposeful act, unilateral act of π to move to FL; ∆ must purposefully avail herself of the privilege of conducting activities within the FS, thus invoking the benefit and protection of the FS’s laws.

1. 2. 3.

Were the s the result of “unilateral activity” of the π? WWVW FORESEEABILITY Is ∆’s conduct and connection with FS such that she should “reasonably anticipate being haled into court” there? Int’l Shoe, WWVW (in dissent) Did ∆ “deliberately engage in significant activities” within the FS or has she created “continuing obligations” between herself and FS? (business relationship) Burger King

NO YES NO PJ.

Other Methods? 1. Direct s – go back to general jurisdiction 2. Contractual obligation – K with a resident of the state McGee, Burger King 3. Internet/Website – non-ive website (active, not informational) viewed within the FS, PJ depends on commercial nature of website, level of consumer used doesn’t matter Zippo

Stream of Commerce

Single

“Effects” Test

placing product in stream

“seek to serve”

tortious act

1961 GRAY v. RADIATOR (IL case) YES PJ

1950 TRAVELER’S HEALTH YES PJ

1980 WWVW NO IPJ

1957 MCGEE YES PJ

Ill. Accident, PA boiler mfr. implead OH valve component co; Ill. LA§ compliant with DPC, transaction has substantial connection with FS; injury occurred, most convenient forum

π buy audi in NY, accident OK; sues car dealer, importer, Audi, VW; unilateral activity of πs; no purposeful availment primary focus is to prevent ∆s from defending too far from home, prevent states from reaching out beyond sovereignty • Dissent: cars are uniquely mobile, should be foreseeable consequence

Health insurance co. solicit/”reached out” to VA residents, VA asks them to stop under Blue Sky laws. Found “systematic and wide” solicitation created “continuing obligations” with VA.

π sues for dead son’s insurance policy. CA LA§ covers (regulatory interest in adjudicating matter). ∆ solicited π for re-insurance agreement and purposefully mailed policy to CA.

1981 MCGOWAN (NY case) NO PJ

Est. "effects” test: state has power to exercise PJ over a party who causes effects in a state by an act done elsewhere w.r.t. any cause of action arising from these effects; NO PJ for domestic relations disputes (only commercial transaction)

1984 CALDER YES PJ

Libel, π celeb sued author/editor of article; ∆s story about CA π, CA sources, for CA readers, knew harm would occur in CA = FS as focal point. NO PJ just based on “effects” felt in CA, also found “purposefully availed.” (c.f. WWVW where harm was felt in FS, but insufficient for PJ)

1984 KEETON v. HUSTLER YES PJ

NY brings fondue pot to Canada, sues JP mfr; NYLR 302(a)(1) = “arise from transacting business, contractual activity”; single shipment not enough

Libel, ∆ deliberately sold magazines in FS, state has interest in citizens’ access to truthful info. = “not too small a tail to wag out-of-state dog”; relationship btwn ∆, forum, and litigation; look @ volume of activity and nexus of suit

1987 ASAHI (foreign) NO PJ



1981 KULKO NO PJ

SPLIT COURT DECISION! CA motorcycle injury, ∆ TW implead JP component; CA settle, TW v. JP 4 votes: no min s, 4 votes: s, 3 votes: meets either, 8 votes: unreasonable • O’Connor: “awareness not enough” need to “seek to serve” à stream of commerce plus • Brennan: yes min. s, awareness/foreseeability suffices; reasonableness requirement of Burger King will get rid of unfair cases

1985 BURT v. BOARD OF REGENTS YES PJ

2011 JMM v. NICASTRO (foreign) NO PJ (basically changes nothing)

2014 WALDEN v. FIORE NO PJ

6-3 NO PLURALITY! scrap metal recycling, attempt to fix Asahi imprecision problem; NJ (Nicastro, acc, FS), JMM UK co., McIntrye USA distributor is gone/bankrupt • Breyer/Alito: narrowest grounds holding of majority (wants better facts for a ruling), under either view of stream of commerce/plus there is no PJ à only a single sale • Wouldn’t affect the Etsy-ers of the world, because wouldn’t REASONABLENESS TEST • Kennedy: likes O’Connor “seek to serve”, brings up Pennoyer SOVEREIGNTY = consent, presence, domicile; consent is established by purposefully availing self to FS (“submission to sovereign”) • RBG: NJ is part of the US market, can use FR 4(k)(2) to adjudicate, scrap metal recycling is niche and could’ve foreseen product in NJ, NJ has strong interest in providing venue; unfair

6

Medical recommendation letter from NE to CO included defamatory statement, π suffer economic harm in CO, sending the letter was targeted and purposeful

DEA police officer in ATL seize $ from NV π’s in ATL airport; π cannot be only btwn ∆ and FS (NV); DPC requires ∆ cannot be haled into FS due to “random, fortuitous, or attenuated” s (contra Calder had other FS s) = foreseeability alone is not enough, need relation