CivPro Hypos

Hypo #1
1. Does CA have Personal Jurisdiction of D

Shoe 2-prong test

o In federal court a defendant is subject to personal
jurisdiction in federal court where he is subject to the
jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction- RULE4(k)(1)
(A).

Minimum Contacts
D has contacts with CA because she signed a
contract with a CA company. D also shipped
DVDs to CA.
D can also point of lack of contacts with CA, no
office in CA
Ds contact with CA is single because she had
no contact until the contract was signed
The claim comes from the contract, so it is
related to Ds contacts with CA
As a part of the contract, D agreed to be
subject to CA law and choose to put products
into CA- purposeful availment
o D had purposeful availment because she
went to CA, signed a contract in CA,
signed a contract that said she was
subject to CA law
o Possible no availment because P found D
in Oklahoma, P asked D to send CDs to
CA
Conclusion: Probably dismiss 12(b)(2) motion

Hypo #2
1. Does NY have jurisdiction over Production?
2 Prong Shoe Test
Minimum Contacts
o Yes reasons: P solicited customers in all 50
states, including NY. P sold CD to customer in
NY. P knowingly sells CDs all over the country
o No reasons: P is headquartered in California,
has no offices in NY or employees in NY
o Single or Occasional Contct?: Specific contact,
it was one single act

o Related?: The claim is a result of this isolated

act- selling the CD to a customer in NY
Purposeful availment?
o Stream of commerce, the CD was sold. It was
sold through a website that was meant to
reach people all over America and spam mail
was sent to people in all states to promote Ps
product.
o Pavlovich: Internet site was NOT passive
because- It didnt just post info, it sold items.
Interactive because it advertised, created
online space for the retailer and customers to
connect to buy and sell
Fair and Reasonable
o 5 factors
1) Burden on P: There is some burden on
P, but it is not extreme, NY is accessable
from CA. P distributes across country so it
shouldnt be unexpected
2) Bs interest: B has a reasonable
interest in holding trial in NY because its
easiest, home state
3) NY interest: NY wants to protect its
citizens, evidence is in NY because
incident happened in NY
4) Judicial Interest: Doesnt conflict with
either state, it is easy to do the trial in NY
5) Several States Interest: None?
Conclusion: Maybe

2. Does NY have PJx over Dixie?

Shoe 2-prong test
o Minimum Contacts?
Ds contacts with NY: single, not continuous
Ds lack of contacts with NY:
Contact was isolated. No Jurisdiction
o Purposeful Availment- No
o Stream of commerce because CD was sold to Production. D
knew Production would sell product all over country
o Fair and Reasonable to bring D to NY Court?
Burden on D: There is a burden on D as she has
never been to NY and would have to travel far, but
the burden is not overwhelming

Bs interest: B has interest in keeping the case in NY

for convenience
NY Interest: The state has Jx over its own citizens,
Judicial interest:
Several States Interest:

Hypo #3
Question 1
1. Does NY have general Jx over Dixie?
o Rule 4(k)(1)(A)
o P would have general Jx in CA;
o D would have general Jx in OK
Does NY have General Jx over Dixie when she was served at JFK?
o Scalias rule- if your in that state when served, then that
state has jurisdiction over you.
o Brennan- Shoes 2 Prong
o Minimum contacts:
Substantial, because she brought herself to NY
where she is subject to their laws and wants
protections and benefits of NY law.
o Fairness
Burden on D:
Ps interest:
NY Interest:
Judicial Interest: efficient
Several states interest: