Personal Jurisdiction

There's a lot to know about personal jurisdiction for both the MBE and the essays on the UBE. 

Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's power over the defendant, and the determination has two components: first, the exercise of personal jurisdiction must fall within a state statute. In addition, exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant must not violate the Constitution.

As to the first component, each state has a statute laying out the requirements for personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction might require that the defendant is present in the forum state at the time of service, or that the defendant is domiciled in the state, or that the defendant has consented to jurisdiction, or etc. 

Although these statutes can differ, in many states a "long arm statute" allows courts to exercise jurisdiction to the full extent of the Constitution. Other statutes are more specific, providing for specific situations in which personal jurisdiction over the defendant is proper. It's important to note, though, that merely satisfying a specific state statute will be insufficient if the constitutional basis for personal jurisdiction isn't satisfied. 

The second component requires a constitutional analysis. The essential question to ask is whether the defendant has such minimum contacts with the forum state such that personal jurisdiction over the defendant does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." 

"Minimum contacts" seems open to interpretation, but there is some guidance. The two factors to consider are purposeful availment and forseeability. The contacts (in order to satisfy minimum contacts) must result from the defendant's purposeful availment with the forum state (a voluntary act). The defendant must reach out to the forum or target the forum. This does not, however, mean that the defendant must be present in the forum; it's possible to target a forum without making oneself present in the forum. Further, it must be true that the defendant could have foreseen that the defendant might be sued in the forum. 

Once through the analysis of minimum contacts, next is to determine if the plaintiff's claim is related to the defendant's contacts with the forum. If the claim does relate to the contacts then specific jurisdiction is at issue. With specific jurisdiction, fewer contacts (perhaps even just one contact) are required to satisfy the standard of minimum contacts since the claim relates to or arises out of the contact(s). If the claim does not relate to the contacts then general jurisdiction is at issue. With general jurisdiction, more contacts are required to satisfy the standard of minimum contacts. The contacts must be such that the defendant is essentially "at home" in the forum state. 

With specific jurisdiction, since a very limited number of contacts are required, it's also important to address whether personal jurisdiction would be fair or reasonable under the circumstances. A fairness analysis is not required with general jurisdiction since fairness is presumed if the defendant is "at home" in the forum. 

Fairness is, essentially, a due process consideration. But due process does not require that the suit will be in the most convenient forum for the defendant. Rather, to rebut fairness, the defendant must show that the forum will put the defendant at a severe disadvantage in the litigation. Also important is the state's interest and the plaintiff's interest in having the suit in the forum. In other words, the burden on the defendant should be weighed against the interest of the state and the plaintiff.