This first part deals with personal jurisdiction (the courts power to call a non-resident into court).
· Due process
o Minimum Contacts
§ International Shoe: Delaware company employed 11-13 salesmen who resided in WA; rented sample rooms for the workers; paid the salesmen’s’ commissions in WA; products (shoes) were shipped to WA. Even though company didn’t have any offices or make contracts for sale there nor store merchandise there.
· Holding: Defendant must have certain “minimum contacts” with the forum state to be subject to jurisdiction there.
· Defendant received the benefit and protection of the laws of Washington
· JDX: Proper
§ World-Wide Volkswagen: Car was sold in New York; family was traveling to Arizona, car accident in Oklahoma. No advertisements calculated to reach there, did not business there, no agent to receive process there.
· Holding: May have been foreseeable, but foreseeability alone is never enough. Did not purposefully avail themselves. Contacts must be sufficient as that maintenance of the suit does not “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
· Unilateral activity of the purchaser to take the vehicle into a different area
· The marginal amount of revenue that was derived from one sale is too insignificant to justify upholding jurisdiction here.
· Foreseeability: Defendant should have reasonably anticipated being hauled into court there
· Purposeful availment: Defendant “purposefully avails” itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state. Defendant does something to have clear notice of being subject to suit.
· JDX: Not proper
§ Keeton: Woman, NY resident, sues Hustler, an Ohio corporation HQ’d in California in New Hampshire.
· The magazine’s regular circulation of magazines in the forum state is sufficient to support an assertion of jurisdiction in a libel action based on the contents of the magazine since regular monthly sales of thousands of magazines cannot by any stretch of the imagination be characterized as random, isolated, or fortuitous.
· Although Keeton was unknown in New Hampshire, the state still has an interest in employing its libel laws to discourage the deception of its citizens. Further substantial interest in abiding by the single publication rule which preserves judicial resources nationwide by prohibiting multiple libel actions against the same defendant in different states.
§ Asahi: Taiwanese manufacturer of a motorcycle part sought indemnification from Japanese manufacturer.
· Reasonableness Test: Reasonableness exercise of jurisdiction will depend on an analysis of several factors
o Burden on the defendant
o Interest of the forum state
o Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief
o Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies
o Shared interests of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies
· O’Connor: Additional conduct is required than just stream of commerce theory, creates a “stream of commerce plus” theory, in which the actions must be purposefully directed at the forum state
o Additional Conduct: Specifically tailoring the products for the forum state, advertising in the forum state, or creating a service line for the forum state
· Brennan: As long as the producer is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum state, it should be subject to jurisdiction. The producer is receiving an economic benefit, and an indirect benefit from the protection of the laws of the state.
· JDX: Not proper
§ Burger King: Two individuals (Michigan) enter into a 20 year contract with Burger King (Florida). The payments were sent to Florida, Florida was the head office, and defendants knew that the Florida office was the only one with authority. The individuals were sophisticated actors.
· Holding: As long as the actor’s efforts are purposefully directed toward residents of another state, the absence of physical presence cannot defeat jurisdiction. Defendant reached out beyond state borders to negotiate a 20 year contract.
· The foreseeability that is critical to the minimum contacts analysis is that the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court there.
· JDX: Proper
§ Shaffer: Greyhound bus case. Plaintiffs attempted to get jurisdiction over the defendants by getting jurisdiction over their property. Defendants accepted positions of officers and directors for a Delaware corporation.
· Holding: Simply by accepting positions as officers and directors does not mean that the defendants purposefully availed themselves of Delaware law. All assertions of state court jurisdiction must conform to a minimum contacts analysis.
· If the litigation is related to the property, there is a good chance that JDX can be obtained.
· JDX: Not proper
§ Burnham: Divorce case, couple is married in New Jersey, wife moves to California. When the husband visits California to see his kids, is served by the wife.
· Scalia: Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in any state which he is served. This is true because it is fundamental to American jurisprudence. Shaffer didn’t mean that all state court assertions of jurisdiction must be subject to a minimum contact analysis, this is the exception.
· Brennan: Should be subject to personal jurisdiction, but it shouldn’t be because of tradition. The defendant received the fruits of the California economy and the protection of its laws. Defendant has already traveled there once; traveling there again (to defend against the suit) will likely not be burdensome
o Should conduct an independent inquiry into the fairness of subjecting the defendant to jurisdiction in the forum state.
§ Zippo: Website jurisdiction, sought to sue a website for trademark dilution. Sold passwords to 3,000 residents, If the risk is too great they can sever ties with the forum state.
· Repeatedly chose to process subscriptions from Pennsylvania. Unlike World-Wide Volkswagen, because Zippo had reason to know of the local of its subscribers. If a subscription for NJ was taken to NY on a laptop, then there would be no jurisdiction.
· Holding: Three levels of activity of websites
o Active: Situations where the defendant clearly does business over the internet. If the defendant enters into contracts with residents of foreign jurisdictions that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the internet, JDX is proper.
o Interactive: Where a user can exchange information with the host computer. Jurisdiction is determined by the level of interactivity and the commercial nature of the exchange of information.
o Passive: No jdx, simply posing information on the internet.
· JDX: Proper
§ uBid: Complaint arises from cyber squatting, where users would buy domain names so companies could not use them. Go daddy had an extensive marketing campaign, with advertisements in major sports arenas, hundreds of customers from forum state, derives millions in revenue from forum state.
· Holding: Godaddy purposefully availed itself of the laws of the forum state.
· Doesn’t matter that the payments are automatically processed, because uBid set the system up that way, so that the payments would be processed automatically. Thus, the argument that they had no idea where their customers were from fails.
· JDX: Proper
§ Are the contacts related to the suit?
§ Burden on the defendant
§ Interest of the forum state
§ Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief
§ Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies
§ Shared interests of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies
· Kulco: Allowed the dad to visit his kids with his ex-wife.
· Presence: Being physically present in the state
· Consent: Consenting to being subjected to personal jurisdiction in the forum state.
o Carnival Cruise: Couple (WA residents) goes on a cruise (FL Company); old lady falls and injures her leg-region. Attempts to sue the cruise line. Forum selection clause on the back of the ticket ruins their day.
§ Forum selection clauses are ok.
· Waiver of Due Process Rights:
o Szukhent: Waiver of service of process requirements is O.K.
§ Doesn’t matter if there was a potential for bad service, only whether bad service actually occurred.