PERSONAL JURISDICTION – WHICH STATE – IN PERSONAM – ANALYSIS AND RULES

Threshold Questions
1. Can the Plaintiff bring this action in this state?
2. Does the state STATUTE allow the court to bring the defendant into court?
3. Does the Constitution allow the defendant to bring the defendant into court?

Statute/Permission – In Personam
1. Traditional bases statutes
2. Nonresident motorist statutes
3. Long-arm – Gray - Requires statutory interpretation:  ARGUE BOTH WAYS
i. Argument for instate - Tort committed in state because injury committed instate
ii. Argument for OOS – Tort committed OOS because the requisite negligence in mftr which occurred OOS.
Fed courts have SAME PJ as State Statute (Rule 4k) – Unless another statute authorizes otherwise (DeJames – no nat’l min contacts)
Constitutional Power – In Personam (Preferred over In Rem/Quasi in Rem)
1. Traditional Bases: (Pennoyer, Burnham)
a) Domicile – Milliken v. Meyer, Blackmer (out of country, but domiciled in state)
b) Presence – Burnham (1990) – Scalia – “mere presence is enough”/Brennan – min contacts
c) Consent/Waiver:
 Express consent
 Waiver - not filing a Rule 12(b)(2) in first response (answer or motion)
 Implied consent – Hess v. Pawloski (1927) – nonresident motorist statute
2. General jdx – D can be sued in this state on a claim that occurred anywhere in the world.
o defendant has continuous systematic ties with the forum
o Perkins v. Benguet (WWII case), Helicopteros

3. Specific jdx – D can be sued in this state on a claim that arose in this state.
o Minimum Contacts – International Shoe

A. Relevant Contact between Defendant and Forum:

1) Purposeful availment by D
o Cannot be a unilateral act by a 3rd party – Hansen, World-Wide VW
o Policy rationale - Protect OOS parties from an unfair state ct balancing state int w/D int.
o Factors when NOT a commercial distribution of product (WWVW, Burger King, McGee)
 D Solicit business (WWVW, McGee)
 The contact is not arbitrary (WWVW, Burger King)
o ONGOING flow of D’s goods into state via DISTRIBUTOR OR MFTR - Stream of Commerce:
 Gray (approved in WWVW) – PJ over a corp that delivers its products into the stream of
commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum
state is w/in state power under due process clause.
 Asahi –
• Brennan – (Economic benefit by D) D has contact if a company:
o Puts the product into stream of commerce
o Reasonably anticipate that product will get to forum state
• O’Connor – Brennan’s factors + Intent/Purpose to serve forum state:
o Like advertising or having customer service in the forum state.
2) Foreseeable that Defendant would be sued in state bc of Def’s contact and connection to state– WWVW
o Gives a degree of predictability so that Def’s can structur conduct w min assurance of where liable
3) Relatedness of contact to the underlying lawsuit:
o If claim arises from Defendants Contact – McGee
o If claim not related to Def’s contact  General jdx

B. Fairness Factors - Def has burden of proof to show the forum is so GRAVELY INCONVENIENT that Def is at a
SERIOUS DISADVANTAGE IN THE LITIGATION – Very HIGH Standard of Proof
• Burger King could not meet standard
• Unfair  WWVW and Asahi
• Hess – did not have a fairness factor - auto consent. State-established consent likely to be valid if