Personal Jurisdiction Flow Chart

PERSONAL JURISDICTION – WHAT STATE? (“IT’S Was ∆ present in the forum state when process was served on him?

YES

A

MINIMUM CONTACTS THING”)

There is Valid General PJ –  presence  presence is valid basis (split decision in  Burnham re: why – Brennan (reasonable) Scalia (tradition)

NO

Does the forum state’s long arm statue provide for PJ over ∆?

NO

No PJ - even if min. contacts (i.e. const. basis), still need  statutory  statutory basis as well if ∆ not served while present in the state

YES

Is any of the following true? ∆ is domiciled in the f.s. (or is a corp incorporated in the f.s.)? ∆ has consented to be sued in the f.s.? ∆ owns property in the f.s.? ∆ regularly transacts business in the f.s.?

There is Valid PJ – contacts are so voluntary & unambiguous that they automatically constitute “minimum contacts” and entitle f.s. to exercise PJ over ∆ whether contacts are related or not ( General PJ )

YES

NO

Are at least some of ∆’s contacts with f.s. voluntary?

No PJ - ∆ did not purposefully avail himself of the laws &  benefits of the f.s. ( Hanson)

YES

YES

Does the cause of action arise out of  or relate to ∆’s contact with the state? (i.e. Specific PJ )

NO

Are ∆’s contacts with the forum state “ systematic & continuous ”? (i.e. General PJ )

YES

NO

YES

Are ∆’s contacts w/ the f.s. sufficiently great that they should be deemed “minimum contacts ”? - could ∆ have reasonably have anticipated being  haled to court in f.s. ? Specific PJ McGee – pj – single contact(insurance K) but solicited bus. in CA thus sufficient  Hanson – no pj – unilateral movement of π; no purposeful availment VW – no pj – unilateral movement of π; no purposeful availment  Kulko – no pj – sending kids to CA; no reasonable anticipation of haled  Keeton – pj – π contact not necessary; distributing magazines sufficient Calder – pj – actions outside directed at state inside w/ tort conseq  BK  –  – pj – long K w/ forum clause; foreseeable to be haled to court in FL Stream of Commerce Gray – pj – stream of commerce. (contemplate use in f.s.; made $ of use) Asahi – no pj – split (O – aware not enough; B – reasonable anticipation) General PJ  Perkins –  pj  pj – company HQ in f.s. created general pj b/c sys/con contacts  Helicop – no pj – not sys/con contacts; purchases/training not related to accident In Rem Shaffer  –  – no pj – mere presence of property in f.s. is not enough to create general  pj; must pass “min” contacts test

NO

No PJ - Contacts will be deemed not “minimum”   systematic & continuous contacts ( systematic are needed where claim does not relate to ∆’s contacts with the f.s. to establish General PJ –  Perkins  Perkins)

No PJ – ∆ lacks minimum contacts with the forum

YES

 Is jurisdiction reasonable , i.e. does it comport with “traditional notions of fair play”? Consider…  burden on ∆ interests of the f.s. π’s interest of relief in f.s. YES

NO

NO PJ – Even though ∆ has minimum contacts w/ f.s., due process prevents the exercise of PJ  ( Asahi  Asahi – b/c foreign ∆’s, the burden was too great)

Valid Constitutional Exercise of PJ over ∆