RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE

Friday, July 5, 2019

Personal Jurisdiction (Constitutional Requirements)

Personal jurisdiction can intimidate many studying for the bar exam but it's actually a straight-forward issue when approached systematically. It all begins with minimum contacts.

Minimum Contacts:

Personal jurisdiction requires that the defendant at least have minimum contacts with the forum state such that if the forum state exercises jurisdiction over the defendant, such jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable. A commonly used test for assessing minimum contacts is to ask whether the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in that state. If so, the defendant should know that he might be haled into court to defend himself in that state.  A complication can arise if the defendant manufactures a product in state x but then sells it to another in state y. The defendant has then placed that product in the stream of commerce; it's very possible the product might then end up in state z injuring someone in that state. Generally, there is a need to show that the defendant has done more than merely placed the product into the stream of commerce; rather, an intent to benefit from doing business in state z is often required especially if there are no other contacts between the defendant and state z. Similarly, merely maintaining a passive website from which those from the forum state can order products is generally insufficient. A stronger case for jurisdiction over the defendant will be found if the defendant actively targets the state through the website.

Relatedness of Claim to Conduct (Specific vs General Jurisdiction):

When analyzing minimum contacts, it's important to determine whether the claim for which the defendant has been sued is related to the contacts that the defendant had with the forum state. If the claim is related to the contacts with the forum, the court is more likely to find specific jurisdiction as to that claim. But if the claim is unrelated to the contacts with the forum, then for the court to hold that the defendant is subject to general jurisdiction in that forum, it must be true that the defendant is "at home" in that forum. For example, a person is at home in the state in which he is domiciled, and a corporation is at home in the state in which it is incorporated as well as the state in which it has its principal place of business.

Fairness:

Contacts with the forum are not enough. The exercise of jurisdiction must not "offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." The court will consider any inconvenience to the defendant by requiring the defendant to defend in the forum. Only, however, if the defendant is put at a severe disadvantage due to the inconvenience will this factor hold any weight. Another factor is the interest that the forum state has in providing redress to its residents. Also considered is the interest of the plaintiff in obtaining convenient and effective relief. Judicial efficiency is likewise considered.

Notice:

Assuming there are minimum contacts and that the fairness requirements above are satisfied, it is also required that a reasonable method be used to notify the defendant of a pending lawsuit so that the defendant may have an opportunity to be heard.  And this requirement is the basis of the service of process rules, many of which are also tested on the MBE.





No comments:

Post a Comment