PERSONAL

JURISDICTION: GENERAL

PERSONAL JURISDICTION (IPJ)

Constitutional Statutory Service
CHART: GENERAL PJ
14th Am. Due Process Clause: (“DPC”) Federal: FRCP 4(k)(2) Federal: FRCP 4 (a-e, h, n)
Does ∆ have sufficient contacts with the United
notice & opportunity to be heard Reasonably calculated under the
Does this ∆ have sufficient connection with the FS States as a whole? Fall back provision that ONLY circumstances to give NOTICE to
so that jurisdiction comports with due process? applies if there would be NO PJ under any other
interested parties Milliken
provision – this is really rare because there must
be NO STATE with jurisdiction. Did service comply with FRCP 4? Waiver 4(d)?
Article IV, §1 Full Faith & Credit Clause:
full faith and credit given in each state State: long arm statute (“LA§”) State: Did service comply with state rules
Deference to judgments passed in other states. on service of process?
unenumerated (full extent of DPC) v. enumerated

TRADITIONAL JURISDICTION Pennoyer (sovereignty) PROPERTY JURISDICTION

Is ∆ a resident of the YES YES PJ. Valid general jurisdiction by Does own
forum state (“FS”)? DOMICILE PROPERTY in FS? NO
Individuals Corporations
NO “Domicile” Milliken Incorporation, HQ YES NO PJ. No in rem or
Was ∆ PRESENT in quasi in rem (“QIR”)
YES YES PJ. Valid tag jurisdiction for Is there an jurisdiction.
the forum state when transient presence, regardless attachment
process was served? of purpose. Burnham (SPLIT DECISION!) statute?
NO
NO YES
YES PJ. Valid general jurisdiction.
Did ∆… Helicopteros: purchasing/selling a lot of Could get in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction.
CONSENT to be sued? product or frequently sending Go to MINIMUM CONTACTS analysis.
1. Express: written in forum YES employees to conduct business = NO PJ Shaffer: owning stock insufficient for PJ; Type 2 QIR
selection clause Carnival Cruise, Zapata Perkins: co. prez operating out of OH = limited. Property must be cause of claim = NO PJ
2. Implied: (specific jdx) agent for sufficient to show general jdx = YES PJ Savchuk: no QIR by attaching insurance K = NO PJ
service, nonresident motorist Hess
3. Waived: legal submission by
coming to litigate Ireland Insurance Does the claim arise
NO NO NO PJ. No specific or
out of/relates to ∆’s general jurisdiction.
contact with the FS?
If ∆ is a corporation, are contacts
with FS “continuous and
systematic” as to render ∆ YES State NO PJ – must be a § basis if
essentially “at home” in FS? non-resident ∆ not served in FS, or
Goodyear, Daimler Does the FS’s long
NOTE: this is high threshold & requires arm statute provide NO Federal – only if jdx provided under
serious presence in the FS! PJ over ∆? FRCP 4(k) other FRCP 4(k) provisions, such as:
nationwide service statute (class action),
bulge rule for FRCP 14/19 joinder
YES

Does it satisfy MINIMUM CONTACTS analysis? Burger King ** SEE MIN CONTACTS CHART!! **

International Shoe: ∆ must have sufficient minimum contacts within the FS such that
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

YES
NO NO PJ. Even though ∆ has REASONABLENESS TEST:
minimum contacts with FS, due Does imposing jurisdiction meet the
process prevents exercise of PJ. NO notions of fair play and substantial
NO PJ. No specific jurisdiction. ∆ Asahi: foreign ∆ burden too great
justice? Consider: Burger King
has not purposefully availed 1. Burden on ∆
herself to the FS. YES PJ. Valid specific jurisdiction. YES 2. Interest of π
3. Interest of FS in adjudicating

Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz (SC 1985) YES PJ

MIN CONTACTS
MODERN TEST

∆ franchisee of BK in MI, stopped making payments

and continued to operate store.BK sue for breach of K in FL, choice of law clause for FL
• Brennan: (majority) FL has IPJ. Similar to WWVW (where Brennan dissented), wants choice of law closer to choice of forum
• 2-part test: Nicastro
1. MIN CONTACTS: Has D purposefully established minimum contacts in the state?
2. REASONABLENESS: Are notions of fair play satisfied by establishing jurisdiction there?
5
• Defendant’s inconvenience, plaintiff’s interest, interstate judicial system and the shared interest of the several states