A Framework for Analyzing Personal Jurisdiction

What makes the concept of personal jurisdiction complex is that the analysis contains many different components. Having a framework for analyzing it can simplify it quite a lot. Most of the analysis on a bar exam will center on the constitutional requirements but it's important to note that whether there is personal jurisdiction is a two-step analysis. The exercise of personal jurisdiction must both satisfy a state statute (often called a "long-arm statute") and also satisfy the constitutional requirements of due process. 

Each state has its own statute for analyzing personal jurisdiction. Sometimes these long arms statutes are quite broad: they might say something like personal jurisdiction is allowed to the full extent to which the constitution allows it. Other times, situations are specified in which the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a given state is allowable. It's important to note that these more specific long arm statutes do not obviate the need to satisfy the constitutional requirements. 

More important on a test like the Uniform Bar Exam are the constitutional requirements for a state to exercise personal jurisdiction. The question to ask here is whether the defendant has such minimum contacts with the forum state such that jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Seems simple enough? Not so fast. 

To determine whether the minimum contacts standard is satisfied requires analyzing three separate components: contacts, relatedness, and fairness. Let's take each in turn.

Contacts: There must be relevant minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state. Two factors will determine this component: purposeful availment, and foreseeability. For purposeful availment, the contact must result from Defendant's voluntary act. The defendant must target the forum state, though that doesn't mean that the defendant, necessarily, needs to have been present in the forum state. It's possible to target without being present if the defendant, for example, intentionally causes an effect in the forum. In addition, you'll want to determine whether Defendant's contacts with the forum state made it foreseeable that Defendant could be sued there.

Relatedness: After determining that there are minimum contacts using the analysis above, next determine whether Plaintiff's claim arises from or relates to Defendant's contacts with the forum state. If that type of relatedness is present then the type of personal jurisdiction is called specific jurisdiction. If that type of relatedness is not present, then the type of personal jurisdiction is called general jurisdiction. 

Only if it's determined that there's specific jurisdiction, then it's time to move on to the next step analyzing whether personal jurisdiction would be fair under the circumstances. If, on the other hand, it's determined that there's general, rather than specific jurisdiction, then personal jurisdiction over Defendant is only proper if Defendant is "at home" in the forum state. A good test for "at home" is to determine where Defendant is domiciled. 

Fairness: It's important to reiterate here that the fairness element is only analyzed in specific jurisdiction cases. In general jurisdiction cases where the defendant is deemed to be 'at home" in the forum state, the fairness analysis is not necessary. For fairness to be satisfied, the forum need not be the most convenient for Defendant; rather, Defendant, to prove the forum is not fair, will need to show that the forum puts Defendant at a severe disadvantage in the litigation. Further, there may be an interest that the forum state has in providing a forum for its citizens; that, too, will weight against an argument by Defendant that the forum is not a fair one. Lastly, Plaintiff's interest in having the forum state as the place of litigation must be also be considered and weighed against Defendant's claim of unfairness.