PERSONAL Jurisdiction is D a resident of forum state? does property relate to suit? Are D's contacts with state systematic or pervasive? stream of commerce If D puts products into stream of commerce, is he purposely availing himself to whichever state the products end up?
PERSONAL Jurisdiction is D a resident of forum state? does property relate to suit? Are D's contacts with state systematic or pervasive? stream of commerce If D puts products into stream of commerce, is he purposely availing himself to whichever state the products end up?
PERSONAL Jurisdiction is D a resident of forum state? does property relate to suit? Are D's contacts with state systematic or pervasive? stream of commerce If D puts products into stream of commerce, is he purposely availing himself to whichever state the products end up?
• Individuals: State of Residence Does Δ own property in state? • Corporations: State of incorporation and principal place of business Was Δ served with process in state? Does property relate to suit? • Tag Jurisdiction: Upheld in Burnham • Requirement in Shaffer v. Heitner Does Δ consent to PJ? (appearance) • Fork: Majority suggests this is required for real estate as well. Concurrences disagree
General Jurisdiction over Δ? Does state’s Long Arm Statute cover Δ?
• Are Δ’s contacts with state • Rule 4(k)(1)(A) references/incorporates state law systematic or pervasive? • Statute may be interpreted broadly, as in • Helicopteros sets standard; the Gray v. American Radiator following were not sufficient: ◦ Purchase of entire copter fleet in TX ◦ Copters retrieved, flown back from TX ◦ CEO initiated negotiations in TX ◦ $4 million in business over 7 yrs. in TX Specific Jurisdiction over Δ? ◦ Employees continuously in TX for 7 yrs. • Minimum Contacts: Did Δ’s contacts with ◦ Pilots trained in TX over 7 yrs. state give rise to Π’s harm • Note: Majority rejects each • Purposeful Availment: Did Δ take factor individually, but never deliberate action towards state? considers the sum. Fork? • World Wide Volkswagen: Being subject • Clearly a very high bar to meet to suit must be foreseeable. Unilateral act of Π not sufficient. • Burger King: Signing long-term contract of affiliation with party in state sufficient Fairness Factors satisfied? for minimum contacts there ◦ Interests, burdens of the parties ◦ Chosen forum’s interest Fork: Stream of Commerce ◦ Interest of other forums If Δ puts products into stream of commerce, ◦ Interest of judicial system is he purposely availing himself to whichever ◦ Applicable state law state the products end up? Asahi Metal Look to Burger King, Asahi Metal does not resolve this. • O’Connor view: Not enough, Δ must clearly seek market there. Π has Personal • Brennan view: Good enough, Δ benefits Jurisdiction over Δ from sales in other states regardless of how products get there
No Personal Jurisdiction unless Δ waives objection