1 Agenda for 23rd Class (AE) Admin –Name plates –Handouts Slides Internet Jurisdiction 2011 Exam Exam info Personal Jurisdiction –Review of International Shoe & Hanson v. Denkla –World Wide Volkswagen –McIntyre

2 Assignment Read Yeazell (Burger King) Read Handout (internet jurisdiction) Blackboard Questions – Personal Jurisdiction Q4 and Q5 Questions to think about / Writing Assignment –Briefly summarize Burger King –Yeazell pp. 117ff. Q1, 2 –Suppose you buy Duck Boots mail order from LL Bean and pay with a check. They send you the boots, but your check bounces. LL Bean sues you in Maine, where it is headquartered. Does the Maine court have jurisdiction over you? –Briefly summarize Revell –Handout Problems 2-18 to 2-20 (last page of Internet Juris. Handout)

3 Exam Info I 2 parts –Multiple choice – 3 hours in-class exam, Tuesday, December 9. Will probably take less than 1 hour –Essay. Take home. Any 8 hours between 9AM Saturday 12/6 and 5PM Friday 12/19 –Both parts are open book Office hours –Additional office hours the first week of December Times TBA –Cannot answer any questions after 5PM Friday, December 5 Because some students may take final starting 9AM Saturday, December 6 –TAs will not hold office hours after Thanksgiving They need to study for their own exams

4 Exam Info II Old exams – on MyLaw Portal under “Exam Archives” –Did not teach Civ Pro –2013 & 2014 on MyLaw Portal under “Secure Documents” –2011. Just handed out –QII.4 is assignment for Monday (F-J) or Friday (A-E) –You can do Qs II.1 & II.2 now –You’ve already done II.3 –2012. To be distributed as assignment for Friday 12/5 –Particularly useful exams Recent exams: 2011, and 2013, 2014 (spring) Multiple choice: 2000 & 2013 Other study tools –Glannon –Model answers

5 Review of Personal Jurisdiction I International Shoe –Don’t analyze in personam jurisdiction over corporations by asking if corporation is “present” in state –Instead analyze “minimum contacts” –Very substantial contacts give rise to general jurisdiction Corporation can be sued even if lawsuit is not related to contacts with state State of incorporation or headquarters Perhaps where has physical presence (factory, office, shops), lots of employees and/or does lots of business –More sporadic contacts give rise to specific jurisdiction Corporation can be sued only if lawsuit is related to contacts with state Hanson v Denkla –Contacts only count if defendant purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the forum –Jurisdiction cannot be established by the unilateral acts of the plaintiff.

6 World-Wide Volkswagen Briefly summarize World Wide Volkswagen Yeazell pp. 109ff 1c, 4e Did the plaintiffs in World-Wide Volkswagen sue in federal or state court? How can you tell from the opinion itself (not Yeazell’s notes)? What is a writ of prohibition? Why did the defendants seek one? Who is Woodson? How did he get in the case? Would the case have come out differently if the Robinsons had gotten into an accident in New Jersey and sued in a New Jersey court, but the facts were otherwise the same? Suppose the Robinsons had purchased their Audi in California from Pacific Audi in Torrance, had gotten into an accident in California, and sued Audi, Volkswagen of America, Pacific Volkswagen (the regional distributor, based in Nevada) and Pacific Audi in a California court. Would the California court have jurisdiction over all, some, or none of the defendants? Note that there is a passage in the opinion which directly addresses this question. Is it dicta?

Cons v Manuf. In CA YesProbably Stream of Commerce Question Cons v Retailer in CA Yes Cons v Manuf. In OR Yes Cons v Distrib. In NV Probably Cons v Distrib. in CA Probably Cons v Manuf. In NV No Probably

8 Stream of Commerce Product manufactured in A, sold to distributor in B, and sold to consumer by retailer in C White dicta in World-Wide Volkswagen (stream of commerce) –There is jurisdiction over mfg in C, if sale is “not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the mfg or distributor to serve, directly or indirectly the market for its products” in C O’Connor plurality opinion in Asahi (1987) (stream of commerce plus) –Jurisdiction over mfg in C if White’s criteria satisfied AND “additional conduct of the defendant [indicates] an intent or purpose to serve the market” in C, e.g. Designing the product for C Advertising in C Establishing channels for providing regular advice to consumers in C Marketing product through distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum state –mfg has direct contractual relationship with retailer in state C? No majority opinion on stream of commerce in Asahi –Majority agreed that no jurisdiction in California over indemnity suit between foreign manufacturer and foreign part supplier, when California plaintiff had settled with foreign manufacturer, because inconsistent with “fair play and substantial justice,” even if purposeful availment could be satisfied.

9 McIntyre I Briefly summarize McIntyre Yeazell pp. 131ff Qs 1- 4 How would McIntyre have been decided under White’s view of the “stream of commerce” theory as expressed in his opinion in World-Wide Volkswagen How would McIntyre have been decided under O’Connor’s “stream of commerce” plus theory How is Kennedy’s view of jurisdiction based on the “stream of commerce” different from White’s and O’Connor’s? In what cases would they reach the same result? In what cases different results?

10 McIntyre II Suppose the California courts and juries are relatively generous to product liability plaintiffs, but Nevada courts and juries are relatively stingy. A Chinese company which is breaking into the US market is considering two distributors, one based in California and another based in Nevada. The two distributors seem roughly equal in quality and price. Which distributor would you advise the Chinese company to select. Why? Suppose Washington state is suffering from high unemployment. Its legislators would like to find a way to expand employment by encouraging Chinese manufacturers to choose distributors based in Washington state. You are an adviser to a Washington state legislator. What changes would you suggest that Washington state make to its laws? If you were on the Supreme Court, in what situations would you allow those injured by products to sue the manufacturer? Would you adopt White’s Stream of Commerce theory? O’Connor’s Stream of Commerce plus? Kennedy’s theory in McIntyre? Some other rule?