Chapter2.

PersonalJurisdiction
A. TheOrigins
1. Fuentesv.Shevin
I. RuleofLawPartieswhoserightsaretobeaffectedareentitledtobeheard,andinorder
thattheymayenjoythatrighttheymustfirstbenotified.
II. HoldingUndertheFourteenthAmendmentsDueProcessClause,partieswhoserights
aretobeaffectedareentitledtobeheard,andinorderthatmayenjoythatrighttheymust
firstbenotified.Noticeandopportunitytobeheardmustbegrantedatameaningfultime
andinameaningfulmanner.Anytakingbythestateofpersonalpropertyrequiresthis
dueprocess.Here,Fuentesspropertywasrepossessedwithoutanynoticeoropportunity
tobeheard.Thereisnopublicpolicyjustifyingthistakingwithoutdueprocess,asthe
takingwasonlytoserveFirestonesprivateinterest.Accordingly,thestatuteauthorizing
issuanceofthewritofreplevinrunsafouloftheFourteenthAmendmentsdueprocess
requirement.
III. Keywords
A. DueProcess
B. Notice
C. Opportunitytobeheard
2. Pennoyerv.Neff
I. RuleofLawUndertheDueProcessClause,nopersonissubjecttothejurisdictionofa
courtunlessshevoluntarilyappearsinthecourt,isfoundwithinthestate,residesinthe
state,orhaspropertyinthestatethatthecourthasattached.
II. HoldingAstatemaynotexerciseinpersonamjurisdictionoveranonresidentonthe
basisofpropertyownershipalone.Thisisdifferentfromcaseswherethepropertyisthe
subjectoftheactionorthepartiesrightshavealreadybeenadjudicatedandattachment
issoughttosatisfythejudgment.Thecourtspoweroverthepersonmustbeestablished
beforeajudgmentisrendered,orthejudgmentwillbevoid.Statesretaintheirsovereign
authority,subjecttotheConstitution.Eachstatehasexclusivejurisdictionand
sovereigntyoverpersonsandpropertywithinitsterritory.Stateshavepowerto
adjudicatetherightsofpeopleinsidetheirborders.Itfollowsthatastatespowerdoes
notextendbeyonditsterritory.Thispreservescomityandequaldignitybetweenstates.
Nevertheless,astatesexerciseofauthoritywithinitsbordersmayhaveeffects
elsewhere.Thisispermitted,butattemptsbyastatetoexertpowerextraterritoriallyare
invalid.Astatemaytakejurisdictionovercontractualissuesrelatedtolandinanother
state,butnotthelanditself.Similarly,astatemayseizelandwithinitsterritoryto
compelanonresidenttosatisfyclaimsofitscitizens.Butthestatehasnopowerover
nonresidentswhoownnolandinthestate.Theremustbesafeguardsensuringthatin
personamjudgmentsagainstnonresidentsarenotfraudulentlyobtained.Serviceby
publicationmaybeeffectiveforproceedingsinrem,inwhichtheownerwillbemade
awareoftheproceedingsbytheseizureofherproperty,butnotforinpersonamactions.
Constructivenoticetoanonresidentisinsufficientforproceedingstodeterminepersonal
rightsandobligations.Jurisdictionthereisonlyproperifthedefendantisservedinside
thestateorvoluntarilyappears.Statesmustgivejudgmentsrenderedinotherstatesfull
faithandcreditbutmaystillinquireintothejurisdictionoftherulingcourt.Enforcement
ofajudgmentrenderedbyacourtwithoutjurisdictionwoulddenydueprocess.States
maystilladjudicatethecivilstatusofitscitizensorrequirethosedoingbusinessthereto
appointanagentforserviceofprocess.Intheunderlyingcase,Neffdidnotvoluntarily
appearorreceiveserviceinthestate.TheOregoncourtlackedinpersonamjurisdiction,
anditsrulingwasvoid.
III. Keywords
A. Rigidrule
B. Dueprocessbindingjudgment
a. Req.personalservice

b. Constructivenoticeisnotsufficientforoutofstateresident
C. Power,consent,notice
D. Inrem;inpersonam
E. Raiseorwaive;abinitio
IV. ChallengeandWaiver
B. TheModernConstitutionalFormulationofPower
1. RedefiningConstitutionalPower
I. InternationalShoeCov.Washington
A. RuleofLawForadefendantnotpresentwithintheterritoryofaforumtobe
subjectedtoajudgmentinpersonam,dueprocessrequiresthathehavecertain
minimumcontactswiththeforumsuchthatthemaintenanceofthesuitdoesnot
offendtraditionalnotionsoffairplayandsubstantialjustice.
B. HoldingAstatemaysubjectacorporationtoinpersonamjurisdictionwhere
thecorporationhassuchminimumcontactswiththestateastomakeit
reasonabletorequirethecorporationtodefendasuitthere.Acorporationis
deemedtobepresentinastateforjurisdictionpurposeswhentheactivitiesof
thecorporationinthatstatehavebeencontinuousandsystematic.Dueprocessis
violatedwhereastatemakesabindingjudgmentinpersonamagainstan
individualorcorporatedefendantwithwhichthestatehasnocontacts,ties,or
relations.However,totheextentthatacorporationexercisestheprivilegeof
conductingactivitieswithinastate,givingrisetocertainobligations,itisnot
undulyburdensometorequireacorporationtorespondtoasuitbroughtwithin
thestatetoenforcethoseobligations.Inthepresentcase,InternationalShoes
activitiesinWashingtonweresystematicandcontinuousandresultedinalarge
volumeofinterstatebusiness.Indeed,theobligationuponwhichthissuitis
basedaroseoutofthoseactivities.InternationalShoeemployedsalesmenwho
residedinWashington,whoseprincipalactivitieswereconfinedtothestate,and
whowerecompensatedbycommissionsbasedonsales.Thesesalesmen
occasionallyrentedatInternationalShoesexpenseroomsinhotelsorbusiness
buildingswithinthestateforexhibitingsamples.Itisclearthattheseactivities
establishsufficientcontactswithWashington,tomakeitreasonable,under
traditionalnotionsoffairplayandsubstantialjustice,topermitthestateto
enforcetheobligationswhichInternationalShoehasincurredthere.
C. Keywords
a. Prevailingmodernview
b. Movedfromrigidtoflexstandard
c. Minimumcontacts;mustalsohaveFPSJmusthaveboth!
d. Personaljuris.Req.togivepowerovertheperson/defendant
e. Neitherirregularorcasual
f. Systematiccontinuous
g. Qualityandnature
h. TraditionalnotionofFPSJ
i. Reasonableandfairtodefend
ii. Benefitsandprotections
iii. Amenabletothelawoftheforum
iv. Serveagentofdefendant
v. Reasonableassurancenoticewillbeactual
vi. Ifnot,canbeservicedbymailatprincipaloffice
II. McGeevInternationalLifeInsuranceCo
A. RuleofLawAstatecourthasjurisdictionoveranoutofstatecompanyifthe
companyhassubstantialconnectionswiththestate.
B. HoldingUnderprecedentcases,astatecourthasjurisdictionoveranoutof
statecompanyifthatcompanyhassubstantialconnectionswiththestate.The

2.

3.

CaliforniacourthasjurisdictionoverInternationalbecauseofInternationals
connectionwithCalifornia.Thelifeinsurancecontractwasdeliveredtoa
Californiaresident,andCaliforniahasaninterestinprotectingtheinterestsofits
insuredresidents.ItisnotanundueburdenonInternationaltorespondto
allegationsinCaliforniagiventhestateofthenationaleconomy.
C. Keywords
a. Evolutionofmin.contactstosubstantialconnection;mc+subs.conn=
requirements
b. Defendantsintent.
c. Isqualityofnaturesignificantenough
d. Contractwithpeoplewithinthestate
e. Solecontact=businessbymail
III. Hansonv.Denckla
A. RuleofLawAstatecourtmaynotexercisepersonaljurisdictionoveraparty
locatedoutsidethestateinwhichthecasewasfiledunlessthepartyhas
substantialcontactswiththestate.
B. HoldingAstatecourtmaynotexercisepersonaljurisdictionoveraparty
locatedoutsidethestateinwhichthecasewasfiledunlessthepartyhas
substantialcontactswiththestate.TheFloridacourtcouldnotexercisepersonal
jurisdictionovertheDelawaretrustee.ThetrusteesonlyactrelativetoFlorida
wasremittingpaymentsfromthetrusttoMs.Donnerwhileshewasaresident
thereof.ThetrusteehadnoofficeandconductednobusinessinFlorida.Asthe
trusteedidnothavesubstantialcontactswithFlorida,theFloridacourtlacks
jurisdictionovertheDelawaretrust.
C. Keywords
a. Unilateralactivity;hastobecontactbydefendant
b. Opp.Ofpersonalavailment
c. Purposeful.availment.Foreseeable
d. Invokingbenefitsandprotect.Fromlawsofforumstate
AbsorbinginRemJurisdiction
I. Shafferv.Heitner
A. RuleofLawQuasiinremjurisdictionmayonlybeassertedwhentheinterests
ofthepersonsinthepropertyseizedhavesufficientcontacts,ties,orrelationsto
thestate.
B. HoldingQuasiinremjurisdictionmayonlybeexercisedoverapersonifthe
interestsofthepersoninthethingsseizedmeettheminimumcontactsstandard
establishedforpersonaljurisdictioninInternationalShoeCo.v.Washington,
326U.S.310(1945),whichestablishedtheminimumrequirementsfor
exercisingjurisdictioninamannerconsistentwiththeDueProcessClauseofthe
FourteenthAmendment.Thus,iftherewerenottheminimumcontactsrequired
byInternationalShoe,theDelawaresequestrationstatutedeprivedShafferofhis
propertywithoutdueprocess.Here,thepropertyseizedwasstatutorilylocated
inDelaware,butitdidnothaveanyrelationtothesubjectmatterofthe
litigation.ThedefendantshadnothingtodowiththestateofDelaware;their
onlyconnectiontoitwasthattheyhadaccepteddirectorialpositionsina
companyincorporatedinDelaware,butacceptingthesepositionsdoesnotmean
theycanbetakentoaDelawarecourt.
C. Keywords
a. Quasiinremabolished(disputeditemsubjectoflitigationwould
establishpowerforcourt)
b. Inrem=minimumcontacts
c. Propertyisnowconsideredcontact
SpecificJurisdiction:TheModernCases

I. WorldWideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson
A. RuleofLawForeseeabilityaloneisnotsufficienttoauthorizeastatecourts
assertionofpersonaljurisdictionoveranonresidentdefendantthathasno
contacts,ties,orrelationswiththeforumstate.
B. HoldingThedueprocessclauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentlimitsthepower
ofastatecourttoassertpersonaljurisdictionoveranonresidentdefendant.See
Kulkov.SuperiorCourt,436U.S.84(1978).Accordingtothecourtin
InternationalShoeCo.v.Washington,326U.S.310(1945),astatecourtmay
onlyexercisepersonaljurisdictionoveranonresidentdefendantifthe
defendanthassufficientcontactswiththeforumstate.Therelationshipbetween
anonresidentdefendantandtheforumstatemustbesuchthatitisreasonableto
requirethenonresidenttocometothestatetodefendtheaction.Here,the
plaintiffshadnocontacts,ties,orrelationswiththeStateofOklahoma.Theonly
basisforthedistrictcourtsassertionofpersonaljurisdictionovertheplaintiffs
isthefactthattheautomobile,whichwassoldintheStateofNewYorktoNew
Yorkresidents,wasinvolvedinanaccidentinOklahoma.Thattheplaintiffs
couldforeseetheautomobilesuseinOklahomaisnotsufficienttoauthorizethe
statecourtsassertionofpersonaljurisdiction.InKulko,thecourtexplainedthat
foreseeabilityinadueprocessanalysisreferstowhetherthedefendants
contactswiththeforumstatearesuchthatheshouldreasonablyexpectbeing
subjecttothejurisdictionofthestatescourts.Inthiscase,becausetheplaintiffs
conductednoactivitiesinOklahoma,itisunreasonabletosaythattheyshould
haveanticipatedbeinghaledintoanOklahomastatecourt.
C. Keywords
a. Evolutionofmctocalculatedpurposefulavailment
b. Foreseeabilityisnotenough
c. Streamofcommercedoesnotmakeitforseeabletoforum
d. Mustbeconductandconnection;shouldanticipateinrem
e. Mustbereasonableandfairforum
f. Targetingv.unilateral
II. BurgerKingCorp.v.Rudzewicz
A. RuleofLawWhendeterminingifadefendantsatisfiestheminimumcontacts
requirementforpersonaljurisdiction,thecourtmustlooktothepurposefully
directedactivitiesofthedefendanttowardtheforumstateandwhethertheharm
arisingorrelatingtothoseactivitiesarethecauseofthelitigation.
B. HoldingWhendeterminingifadefendantsatisfiestheminimumcontacts
requirementforpersonaljurisdiction,thecourtmustlooktothepurposefully
directedactivitiesofthedefendanttowardtheforumstateandwhethertheharm
arisingoutoforrelatingtothoseactivitiesarethecauseofthelitigation.Oncea
courthasconcludedthatminimumcontactsexistbetweentheforumstateand
thedefendant,thecourtmustconsiderwhetherfairplayandsubstantialjustice
wouldbeoffendedifthedefendantmustdefendhimselfintheforumstate.
Factorsthathelpresolvethisquestionincludethedefendantsburdenif
jurisdictionisimposed,theforumstatesinterestinimposingjurisdiction,the
plaintiff'sinterestinobtainingrelief,theinterstatejudicialsystem'sinterestin
obtainingefficientresolutionofcontroversies,andthefurtheranceof
fundamentalsubstantivesocialpolicies.Ifthedefendantpurposefullydirected
hisactivitiestowardtheforumstate,thedefendantmustpresentacompelling
casethatthesefactorsindicatejurisdictionwouldbeunreasonable.Although
RudzewiczhadnotiestoFloridaanddidnotmaintainanyFloridaoffices,he
deliberatelynegotiatedwithrepresentativesoutsidehishomestateofMichigan
andfinalizedadealwithacorporationheknewwaslocatedinFlorida.The
courseMacSharaattendedtogetafranchisewasheldinFlorida.Anyfranchise

feesRudzewiczdidpayweresenttoFlorida.Rudzewiczreasonablyshouldhave
knownthathewasaffiliatinghimselfwithanorganizationbasedinFloridaand
hemightbehailedtocourtinthatstateforharmarisingoutoforrelatingtohis
conduct.Furthermore,thecontractRudzewiczsignedacknowledgedthatthe
BurgerKingHeadquartersinMiamiregulatedthefranchise.Itisnot
unreasonabletograntFloridapersonaljurisdictionoverRudzewicz.Itshouldbe
notedthattherequiredminimumcontactsarenotestablishedbycontracts
obtainedbyfraud,undueinfluence,orunequalbargainingpower.Suchcontracts
mayinessencedeprivedefendantsoftheirdayincourt.
C. Keywords
a. Internationalshoereadtoobroadly
b. Nophysicaltiestostate
c. Reachesouttobeyondstateintoanother
d. Cannotbesaidtoberandom
e. Businessdealamongequals
f. Purposefullyavail.v.minimumcon.
i. PAqualityandnatureifdoneright=person.Juris
ii. Mc;isthecontactrandom,fortuitousorattenuated=ifnot
thenPJ
III. Pavlovichv.SuperiorCourt
A. RuleofLawAcourtmayexercisespecificpersonaljurisdictionifthe
defendanthas(1)purposefullyavailedhimselfofforumbenefits,(2)the
controversyisrelatedtoorarisesoutofthedefendantscontactswiththeforum,
and(3)theassertionofpersonaljurisdictionwouldcomportwithfairplayand
substantialjustice.
B. HoldingAcourtmayexercisespecificpersonaljurisdictionifthedefendanthas
(1)purposefullyavailedhimselfofforumbenefits,(2)thecontroversyisrelated
toorarisesoutofthedefendantscontactswiththeforum,and(3)theassertion
ofpersonaljurisdictionwouldcomportwithfairplayandsubstantialjustice.
Purposefulavailmentrequiresthatthedefendantvoluntarilydirectheractivities
towardtheforum,butinCalderv.Jones,465U.S.783(1984),theSupreme
Courtconcludedthatpersonaljurisdictionwasproperinalibelcasewherethe
conductoccurredinonestatebuttheeffectswerefeltinanother.Courtshave
appliedtheCaldereffectstesttootherintentionaltortcases,buteventhen,
conductmuststillbeintentionalandexpresslyaimedatortargetingtheforum
state.WithrespecttotheexerciseofpersonaljurisdictionbasedonInternetuse,
thereisaslidingscale,withjurisdictionbeingproperwhereadefendantactually
conductsbusinessinthestatethroughtheInternetandimproperwherea
defendantpostsinformationonapassivewebsitethatmaybeaccessedinthe
forum.Here,thewebsitewaspassive,makinginformationavailablebutwithout
anyinteractivefeatures.PavlovichdidnotspecificallytargetCalifornia
residents,andindeeditisunknownwhetheranyCaliforniaresidentsactually
accessedthewebsite.Pavlovichdidnotpurposefullyavailhimselfofforum
benefitssimplybypostinginformationonthewebsitethatharmedCalifornia
corporations.Theexerciseofpersonaljurisdictioninthiscasewouldeviscerate
traditionalnotionsoffairplayandsubstantialjustice.Allintentionaltortfeasors
whocouldpotentiallyharmCaliforniaresidentswouldbesubjectedto
jurisdictionthere,regardlessofwhethertheyhadanyothercontactswiththe
state.
C. Keywords
IV. J.McIntyreMachinery,Ltdv.Nicastro

4.

A. RuleofLawForadefendanttobesubjecttoastatespersonaljurisdiction,it
mustpurposefullyavailitselfoftheprivilegeofconductingactivitieswithinthe
forumState,thusinvokingthebenefitsandprotectionsofitslaws.
B. HoldingIthasbeenheldthatacourtmaysubjectadefendanttoitsjurisdiction
onlywhenthedefendanthassufficientcontactsintheforumstatesuchthatthe
maintenanceofthesuitdoesnotoffendtraditionalnotionsoffairplayand
substantialjustice.InternationalShoeCo.v.Washington,326U.S.310
(1945).Generally,theCourtsexerciseofpowerrequiressomeactonbehalfof
thedefendanttopurposefullyavailitselfoftheprivilegeofconducting
activitieswithintheforumState,thusinvokingthebenefitsandprotectionsofits
laws.Hansonv.Denckla,357U.S.235(1958).Suchactivitiesmayinclude
actualpresenceinthestatewhenthesuitiscommenced,citizenshipordomicile
inthestate,andincorporationorhavingaplaceofbusinesswithinthestate.
Conversely,thosewholiveoroperateoutsideofastatehavearightnottobe
subjectedtojudgmentinitscourts.InAsahiMetalIndustryCo.v.Superior
CourtofCal.,SolanoCty.,480U.S.102(1987),theCourtconstructeda
differentapproach.There,JusticeBrennansconcurrencecontendedthata
defendantthatplacedaproductintothestreamofcommercemaybesubjecttoa
Statesjurisdiction[a]slongasaparticipantinthisprocessisawarethatthe
finalproductisbeingmarketedintheforumState....JusticeOConnors
concurrencenotedthat[t]hesubstantialconnectionbetweenthedefendant
andtheforumstatenecessaryforafindingofminimumcontactsmustcome
aboutbyanactionofthedefendantpurposefullydirectedtowardtheforum
State.Id.at112.DespitethelackofclarityputforthbyAsahi,theCourts
precedentsmakeclearthatitisthedefendantsactions,notexpectations,that
allowaStatescourtstoexercisejurisdictionoverthedefendant.Itistruethatin
someinstancesadefendantmaybesubjecttothefederalcourtsduetoa
relationshipwiththefederalgovernmentbutnottoacourtofanyparticular
state.Butthatisanexception,nottherule.Here,J.McIntyredidnotengagein
anyconductpurposefullydirectedatNewJersey.Consequently,itcannotbe
subjectedtothejurisdictionofaNewJerseycourt.
C. Keywords
a. Streamofcommercepurp.Availandminim.Con.
b. Foreseeabilityandfairness
c. Intentandtargeting
d. Flowandeddy
e. Samebusinessmodelasshoe
f. Intenttotargetusorspecificstate
g. Affiliationwithstate
GeneralJurisdiction
I. GoodyearDunlopTiresOperations,S.A.v.Brown
A. RuleofLawAstatecourtmaynotexercisegeneraljurisdictionoveraforeign
subsidiaryofaUnitedStatesbasedcorporationunlessitengagesincontinuous
andsystematicactivitiesintheforumstate.
B. HoldingInInternationalShoeCo.v.Washington,326U.S.310(1945),the
Courtheldthatastatemayauthorizeitscourtstoexercisepersonaljurisdiction
overanoutofstatedefendantifthedefendanthascertainminimumcontacts
with[thestate]suchthatthemaintenanceofthesuitdoesnotoffendtraditional
notionsoffairplayandsubstantialjustice.Inanattempttomorenarrowly
definethetermsfairplayandsubstantialjustice,theInternationalShoeCourt
classifiedcasesinvolvingoutofstatecorporatedefendants.Thefirstgeneral
jurisdictionclassificationinvolvesinstanceswherethedefendantsinstate
activityiscontinuousandsystematicastorenderitessentiallyathomeinthe

forumstate.SeePerkinsv.BenguetConsol.MiningCo.,342U.S.437(1952).
Thesecondspecificjurisdictionclassificationinvolvestheoccurrenceofcertain
singleoroccasionalactsinastatethatmaybesufficienttojurisdictionally
bindadefendantwithrespecttothoseacts.SeeHansonv.Denckla,357U.S.
235,253(1958).Specificjurisdictionisconfinedtoadjudicationofissues
derivingfrom,orconnectedwith,theverycontroversythatestablishes
jurisdiction.Here,theNorthCarolinacourtsreliedonthesubsidiariesplacing
tiresintothestreamofcommercetojustifytheexerciseofgeneraljurisdiction
overtheminthestate.However,merelyplacingaproductintothestreamof
commerceinastateisnotenoughtosupportthedemandthattheentitybe
amenabletosuitsunrelatedtothatactivity.InPerkins,theCourtnotedthatthe
defendant,aPhilippineminingcorporation,haditscompanyfileslocatedin
Ohio,thecompanyspresidentmaintainedanofficeinOhioandsupervised
othersfromthatlocation.Consequently,theCourtheldthatOhiocouldexercise
generaljurisdictionoverthecompany.InHelicopterosNacionalesdeColombia,
S.A.v.Hall,466U.S.408(1984),survivorsofUnitedStatescitizenswhodied
inahelicoptercrashinPerufiledwrongfuldeathactionsinTexasstatecourt
againsttheownerandoperatorofthehelicopter,aColombiancorporation.The
ColombiancorporationhadnoplaceofbusinessinTexasandwasnotlicensed
toconductbusinessinthestate.Whilethecorporationmadesomepurchasesin
Texas,theseactivitiesfailedtoachievetherequiredcontinuousandsystematic
businesscontactsnotedinPerkins.Here,thesaleofsometiresinNorth
Carolinathroughintermediariesisinsufficienttowarrantjurisdictionoverthem.
MeasuredagainstHelicopterosandPerkins,NorthCarolinaisnotaforumin
whichitispermissibletosubjectthesubsidiariestogeneraljurisdiction.
C. Keywords
II. Burnhamv.SuperiorCourt
A. RuleofLawAnonresidentisproperlyservedifheisphysicallypresentinthe
forumstate,andtheforumstatemayexercisepersonaljurisdictionoverhim
withoutviolatingdueprocess.
B. HoldingAnonresidentpartymaybeproperlyservedwithprocesswhile
temporarilyvisitingastatewithoutviolatingdueprocess.Itiswellestablished
thatstateshavejurisdictionovernonresidentswhoarephysicallypresentinthe
state,nomatterhowlongthatindividualplanstostayinthestate.Thisrulehasa
longandcontinuingtraditionofbeingenforcedbythecourts,across
jurisdictions.Burnhamarguesthathelackstheminimumcontactsnecessaryfor
thecourttoproperlyapplypersonaljurisdiction,butthatisaperversionofthe
standard;indeed,theminimumcontactsstandardwascreatedforuseinthe
absenceofapartysphysicalpresenceinthestate,whichisnotnecessaryinthis
case,asDenniswasphysicallypresentinCaliforniawhenhewasserved.For
thesamereason,DenniscannotrelyontheholdinginShafferv.Heitner,433
U.S.186(1977),whichheldthatastatelacksjurisdictionoveranindividual
unlessthelawsuitarisesoutofhisactivitiesinthestate,becausethenon
residentlitigantinthatcasewasanabsentone,unlikeDennis.JusticeBrennans
concurringopiniondisregardsthefactthatthisbodyoflawisbasedin
traditionalnotionsofdueprocess,notfleetingorcontemporarynotions.Because
DenniswasphysicallypresentinCaliforniawhenhewasservedwithprocess,
thestateproperlyassertedpersonaljurisdictionoverhim,andtheholdingbelow
isaffirmed.
C. Keywords
C. ConsentasASubstituteforPower
1. CarnivalCruiseLines,Inc.vShute

I. RuleofLawAforumselectionclauseisnotfundamentallyunfairsolelybecausethe
clausewasnotnegotiated.
II. HoldingAforumselectionclauseisprimafacievalidandenforceableeveniftheparties
didnotnegotiatethetermsoftheclauseaslongasitisfundamentallyfair.Theprecedent
establishedinTheBremenv.ZapataOffShoreCo.,407U.S.1(1972),appliesbutmust
berefinedinordertoaddressthefactsofthiscase.Inthatcase,theinternational
transactioninvolvedtwocompaniesfromdifferentcountrieswhonegotiatedthetermsof
theforumselectionclauseintheirshippingcontractandtheclausewasenforcedasprima
facievalidbecausetherewasnofraud,undueinfluenceoroverweeningbargaining
power.However,thisdoesnotmeanthataforumselectionclauseinanonnegotiated
formticketcontractisnecessarilyunenforceableforlackoffundamentalfairnessbecause
itwasnotnegotiated.Here,theforumselectionclauseisfairandenforceableeven
thoughitappearedinaformcontractintheplaintiffs'cruiseticketsandtherewasno
opportunitytonegotiatethetermsofthecontract.Theclause,ofwhichplaintiffsadmit
theywereonnotice,isfairandreasonablebecauseitlimitstheforainwhichCarnival
couldbesuedandCarnivalpassesalongtheresultingsavingsintheformofless
expensivecruisefares.TheclauseisalsoreasonablebecauseFloridaisnotanalien
forum.ThereisnoindicationthatCarnivalchoseFloridainbadfaithtodiscourage
litigationsinceCarnival'sprincipalplaceofbusinessisinFloridaandmostcruisesdepart
fromFlorida.
A. Keywords
D. TheConstitutionalRequirementofNotice
1. Mullanev.CentralHanoverBank&TrustCo.
I. RuleofLawNoticemustbereasonablycalculated,underallthecircumstances,to
appriseinterestedpartiesofthependencyoftheactionandaffordthemanopportunityto
presenttheirobjections.
II. HoldingTheDueProcessClauserequiresthatdeprivationoflife,liberty,orpropertyby
adjudicationbeprecededbynoticeandopportunityforhearing.Theproceeding
potentiallydeprivestrustbeneficiariesofpropertybycuttingofftheirrighttocontestthe
administrationofthetrustandbyhavingtheirincomereducedbydeductionsforfeesand
expenses.Noticeisconstitutionallyrequiredtobereasonablycalculatedtoapprise
interestedpartiesofthependencyoftheactionandaffordthemanopportunitytopresent
theirobjections.Suchnoticemustreasonablyconveytherequiredinformationandmust
offeranyinterestedpartiesareasonabletimetocomeforward.Here,underthe
circumstances,thenoticewasreasonablycalculatedtonotifypotentiallyinterested
partiesofthependinglitigationwhoseinterestsoraddresseswereunknowntothetrustee
andgavethemsufficientopportunitytocomeforwardwiththeirclaims.Thenumberof
beneficiariesandtheiridentitiesweredifficultorimpossibletotrack.Therewere
numerousunknownbeneficiaries,andtherightswerelikelyoftentransferredtoother
parties.Thecostoftrackingdownthesenumerousbeneficiariesforpersonalnoticewas
enormous,andthisburdenshouldnotbeplaceduponCentralHanover.Mullane
adequatelyrepresentedtheinterestsofthepartieswhocouldnotbeidentified,andthe
noticegiveninthenewspaperwassufficientunderthecircumstances.However,notice
bypublicationdoesnotsatisfydueprocesswherethebeneficiariesaddressesand
interestsareknowntothetrustee.Here,thetrusteehasthenamesandaddressesofthe
incomebeneficiariesrepresentedbyMullane.Thereisnoreasonwhythetrusteeshould
bepermittedtodispensewithaseriousefforttoinformthesepartiespersonally.Because
theNewYorkbankinglawpermitsnoticebypublicationeventopartieswhoseaddresses
andinterestsareknowntothetrustee,itisincompatiblewiththeFourteenth
Amendmentsdueprocessprovision.

III. JusticeJacksondividesthetrusteesintwoclasses
A. Knownnoticegiventooutofstatepartiesbypublicationinthenewspaper
whenthepartysaddresswasknownisunconstitutionalinlightofthe14th
amendmentbecausenoticemustbereasonablycalculatedtoinformknown
parties
B. Unknownconstructivenoticebypublicationwhatsacceptabletomissingor
unknownpartieswhocouldnotbeattainedthroughduediligence
IV. Keywords
A. Constructivenotice
B. InappropriateforpartiesthatcanbeID
C. Noticecanbeservedconstructivelyifdueprocess[diligence]wasexercisedto
discoverunknownparties
D. MullanedoesfornoticewhatInternationalShoedoesforpower(SUPER
IMPORTANT)
a. Makesthestandardflexible
b. Statespowertoregulate
c. Statespowertoadjudicateclaimsinvolvingthosedefendants
E. Itsaysdueprocessrequiresnotpersonalservice,notpublication,butaformof
noticethatisreasonableunderallcircumstances
F. Classicalconflictbetweenindividualinterestsandthoseofthestate
a. Thiscaseisthebalancebetweenindividualsinteresttobeprotectedby
the14thamendmentand
b. interestofthestatetoresorttoconstructivenotice
G. Oldstuffv.New.
a. Old;personalserviceofwrittennoticewithinthejurisdictionisthe
classicformofnoticealwaysadequateinanytypeofproceeding
b. New;noticecanbeservedconstructivelyifdueprocesswasexercised
todiscoverunknownparties
H. Thiscaseisonlyapplicablewhenimpossiblestandardsapplytoduediligence
I. Statelegislaturecreatedthisineffectiveformofnoticebecausetheyhadaread
Pennoyer
a. constructivenotice
b. wasadequateforinremproceedings
J.

Thiscasebringstwopartfix:
a. Wethinkthatunderreasonablerisksthatnoticemightnotactually
reacheverybeneficiaryarejustifiable
b. Nowandthenanextraordinarycasemayturnup,butconstitutionallaw
likeothermortalcontrivanceshastotakesomechancesandinthegreat
majorityofinstancesthereisnodoubtjusticewillbedone

V. Serviceofprocessandpersonaljurisdiction
A. ServiceofprocessthewayinwhichDEFisgivennoticeofactionMullane
B. PersonaljurisdictiontheextentofacourtsadjudicatorypowerInternational
Show(minimumcontactsandthelike)
C. Combineaboveparagraphs
D. Alsotransientjurisdictionserviceofprocesswithinastatesboundariesmay
conferbothjurisdictionandprovidenotice
E. SelfImposedRestraintsonJurisdictionalPower:LongArmStatutes,Venue,andDiscretionaryRefusalof
Jurisdiction
1. LongArmStatutes
2. VenueasAFurtherLocalizingPrinciple
3. DecliningJurisdiction:TransferandForumNonConnviens

Chapter3SubjectMatterJurisdiction
A. TheIdeaandTheStructureofSubjectMatterJurisdiction
1. Itprotectsthecourt
2. ITCANNOTBEWAIVED
3. FederalcourtsdonothavetheSMJtoprobateawill
4. Whetherthecourthasthepowertoenterajudgmentagainstaaparticulardefendant
5. Whethertheconstitutionandrelevantfederalstatutesauthorizefederalcourtthearthecase
I. FederalcourtshaveSJMinderfederalquestionsthatconcerntheconstitutionandfederal
laws
6. THREETYPESOFSMJ
I. Diversity
II. Arisingunderfederalquestion
III. Supplemental
B. FederalQuestionJurisdiction
1. Louisville&NashvilleRailroadv.Mottley
I. RuleofLawForasuittoariseundertheConstitutionandlawsoftheUnitedStates,
givingafederalcourtjurisdictiontohearthecase,aplaintiffmustallegeacauseof
actionbaseduponthoselawsorthatConstitution.
II. Holding Inorderforfederalquestionjurisdictiontobegranted,aplaintiff'sstatement
mustshowthatheroriginalcauseofactionarisesundertheConstitutionorafederallaw.
Itisnotsufficientthattheplaintiffanticipatesthatthedefendantwillraiseafederal
statuteindefense.Instead,theplaintiff's"wellpleadedcomplaint"muststatethatthe
defendantdirectlyviolatedsomeprovisionoftheConstitution,lawsortreatiesofthe
UnitedStates.
III. Keywords
A. AnticipateddefensesarenotenoughtoestablishSMJ
B. Federalquestionmustbestatedincomplaint
C. PLmustdemonstratethatthisoriginalcauseofactionarisesunderthe
constitutionorfederalstatutes
C. DiversityJurisdiction
1. Citizensofdifferentstates
I. Enablescourttohearcaseswherethereisnotafederalquestion
II. Theoryarisingoutofacquiringfairforum
III. Requireshemountincontroversytoexceed75,000USD
2. Rednerv.Sanders
I. RuleofLaw Adistrictcourthasjurisdictionwherethematterincontroversyisbetween
citizensofdifferentstatesorcitizensofastateandcitizensorsubjectsofaforeignstate.
II. HoldingUnder28U.S.C.1332adistrictcourthasjurisdictionwherethematterin
controversyisbetweencitizensofdifferentstatesorcitizensofastateandcitizensor
subjectsofaforeignstate.Rednerfailstoestablishthatheisacitizenofaforeignstateor
aresidentofastateoftheUnitedStatesotherthanNewYork.SimplyresidinginFrance
doesnotestablishhimasacitizen,particularlywithoutdetailsabouthisresidence,
family,orprofessionalactivitiesinFrance.Furthermore,maintainingcontactswith,
regularlyvisiting,andretainingcertainlicensesinCaliforniaisnotsufficienttoestablish
thatoneisdomiciledthere.Therecanbenodiversityofjurisdictiononthebasisof
CaliforniadomicileorFrenchcitizenship.Thecomplaintisdismissedforlackofsubject
matterjurisdiction.
III. Keywords
A. Citizenshipv.residence
B. MustbeCITIZENofUS
C. MustbedomiciledintheUS

10

3.

HertzCorp.v.Friend
I. RuleofLawAcorporationsprincipalplaceofbusiness,forfederaldiversity
jurisdictionpurposes,referstotheplacewherethecorporationshighlevelofficers
direct,control,andcoordinatethecompanysactivities.
II. Holding Thefederaldiversityjurisdictionprovidesthatacorporationshallbedeemedto
beacitizenofanyStateinwhichithasbeenincorporatedandoftheStatewhereithasits
principalplaceofbusiness.28U.S.C.1332(c)(1).(emphasisadded).Therespective
circuitshavereacheddifferentconclusionsregardingthestatuteandmorespecificallythe
determinationofwhereacorporationhasitsprincipalplaceofbusiness.TheCourtholds
thatthephraseprincipalplaceofbusinessreferstotheplacewherethecorporations
highlevelofficersdirect,control,andcoordinatethecorporationsactivities.Many
courtshavecalledthislocationthecompanysnervecenter.Thenervecenteris
likelywherethecompanysheadquartersislocatedandwherethePresident,Chief
ExecutiveOfficer,andotherhighrankingcompanyofficialscoordinatethecompanys
activities.Therearethreeconsiderationsthatsupportthecompanysnervecenterbeing
itsprincipalplaceofbusinessforfederaldiversityjurisdictionpurposes.First,theplain
languageofthefederaldiversityjurisdictionstatutesupportsit.Second,thenerve
centerapproachissimpleandeasytoapply.Courtsoftenspendexcesstimeandmoney
attemptingtodeterminewhereacompanysprincipalplaceofbusinessislocated.Those
lowercourtdecisionsoftenleadtoinconsistentresults,produceappeals,andleadto
reversalsofdecisions.Third,thefederalstatuteslegislativehistoryofferssupportive
guidance.There,theJudicialConferencerejectedaproposalthatacorporationwouldbe
deemedacitizenoftheStatethataccountedformorethanhalfofitsgrossincomeas
beingtoocomplexandimpracticaltoapply.Thejudgmentofthecourtofappealsis
vacatedandthematterisremandedforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththeopinion.
III. Keywords
A. NerveCenter
B.
C.
D.
D. SupplementalJurisdiction
1. Canhearclaimsrelatedtoafederalclaimalreadybeforethecourt
2. Toresolveallrelatedclaims
3. Discretionoftrialjudge
4. InreAmeriquestMortgageCo.MortgageLendingPracticesLitigation
I. RuleofLaw Inanyactioninwhichthedistrictcourthasjurisdictionoverafederal
claim,thedistrictcourtalsohassupplementaljurisdictionoverstateclaimsthatareso
relatedtoclaimsintheactionthattheyformpartofthesamecaseorcontroversy.
II. HoldingThecourthasjurisdictionoverthefederalTILAclaim,anditcanexercise
supplementaljurisdictionoverthestatelawfraudclaimsiftheyaresorelatedtothe
federalclaimsthattheyformpartofthesamecaseorcontroversy.Thisstandardis
satisfied.Skanesfactuallyconnectedherfederalandstatelawclaimssothatifherstate
lawclaimsweredismissed,shemightbeunabletorecovertheamountofherallegedly
overpaidmortgageundertheTILA.Acourthasthediscretionnottoexercise
supplementaljurisdictioninfourinstances:(1)iftheclaimraisesanovelorcomplex
issueofstatelaw;(2)ifthestatelawclaimsubstantiallypredominatesoverthefederal
lawclaim;(3)ifithasdismissedallclaimsoverwhichithasoriginaljurisdiction;or(4)
wherethereareothercompellingcircumstancestojustifydecliningjurisdiction.Asnone
ofthesesituationsarepresentintheinstantcase,thechoicetoexercisesupplemental
jurisdictionoverthestatelawfraudclaimisappropriate.
III. Keywords
A.
B.

11

C.
D.
5.

SzendreyRamosv.FirstBancorp
I. RuleofLaw Supplementaljurisdictionshouldnotbeexercisedoverclaimsthatposit
novelandcomplexissuesofstatelaworwhenthestatelawclaimssubstantially
predominateoverthefederalclaims.
II. Holding ThenumberofclaimsunderPuertoRicanlawsubstantiallyoutnumberthetwo
claimsunderTitleVII,andtheelementsofthelatterareinsufficienttoestablishclaims
undertheformer.Moreover,theclaimsarisingunderPuertoRicanlawraisetheissueof
whetherSzendreyRamosviolatedthePuertoRicanCodeofProfessionalEthics,anovel
andcomplexissueofstatelawthatisbestadjudicatedinstatecourt.Therefore,the
claimsunderPuertoRicanlawaredismissedwithoutprejudicesotheycanbereentered
intheappropriatecourt.However,theTitleVIIdiscriminationandretaliationclaims
surviveandmaygoforward.
III. Keywords
A.
B.
C.
D.

E. Removal
1. CaterpillarInc.V.Lewis
I. RuleofLaw Iffederaljurisdictionisproperatthetimeofthejudgment,thenadistrict
court'serrorinprematurelyremovingacasefromstatecourttofederalcourtdoesnot
warrantvacatingtheverdict.
II. HoldingIffederaljurisdictionisproperatthetimeofthejudgment,thenadistrict
court'serrorinprematurelyremovingacasefromstatecourttofederalcourtdoesnot
warrantvacatingtheverdict.Fromapolicyperspective,itmustbestressedthatthe
excesscostonthecourtsystemforallowingpostjudgmentcollateralattacksonpre
judgmentdiversitymotionsarepersuasive.Tovacateafederaldistrictcourtsdecision
andsendthecasebacktostatecourtfortrialwouldbeahighlyinefficientandcostly
system.Italsowouldbeillogicalsince,ineffect,acasesatisfyingfederaljurisdictional
requirementswouldnowbetriedinstatecourt.Theremovalschemedevisedbycongress
placesemphasisonjudicialeconomy.Lewissargumentthattheruleadoptedwould
encourageunlawfulremovalinhopesthattheremovalwouldbecomelawfulbeforea
judgmentisreachedisrejected.Adistrictcourtserrorinimproperlyremovingacase
willhappeninfrequently.Unwarrantedremovalrequestswillmoreoftenbemeetwith
hostilityandquickrejectionbythecourts.Suchunlawfulremovalswouldbeahuge
gambleonthepartofdefendantsthatthejurisdictionaldefectwouldescapeinitial
detectionandthendisappearpriortojudgment.However,thecostofthisgamblenot
materializingisgreatandwillserveasaharshdeterrent.Thecourtofappealsjudgment
isreversed.
III. Keywords
A.
B.
C.
D.

12