Tues. Oct. 9

PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN STATE COURT

specific jurisdiction the activities that are the source of PJ are also those giving rise to the cause of action e.g. D intentionally enters into Va and commits a tort – there is specific PJ in Va

general jurisdiction the activities that are the source of PJ are not those rising to the cause of action but D has such substantial continuous contacts with the forum state that it can be sued on any cause of action there

specific jurisdiction that is sort of like general jurisdiction (questionable case) not all of the event giving rise to the cause of action occurred in the forum state (e.g. out- of-forum-state activities by the D had in-state effects) but PJ exists over the D for the cause of action because unrelated contacts with the forum state are added (although not enough to create general jurisdiction)

general jurisdiction that is sort of like specific jurisdiction (very questionable case) the activities that are the source of PJ are not those rising to the cause of action BUT the activities giving rise to PJ are similar to those that D has in the forum state, and D has a lot of contacts with the forum state (although not enough to justify PJ over D for any cause of action)

general jurisdiction over corporations

Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining (US 1952)

GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES OPERATIONS, S. A., v. EDGAR D. BROWN U.S. S.Ct. - June 27, 2011

“For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home.”

Ex Parte Newco Mfg, 481 So.2d 867 (Ala. 1985)

- Alabama P brings a wrongful death action against NewCo (incorporated in Missouri with its principal place of business in Missouri), the manufacturer of thimble clamps for grist blast machine. - The manufacture and sale of the thimble clamps occurred in MD. - The accident occurred in Tenn. - Newco's annual sales in Alabama during the period of January 1979 to December 1984 ranged from $65,000 to $85,000, with a total of 2,000 transactions.

“We agree with Newco that, because the allegedly defective clamps were not sold in Alabama and because the decedent's fatal accident did not occur in Alabama, the instant lawsuit does not relate to or arise from Newco's contacts with Alabama; therefore, Newco is not subject to ‘specific’ jurisdiction in Alabama. We must determine, then, whether sufficient contacts exist between Alabama and Newco so that due process is not offended in subjecting Newco to Alabama's ‘general’ jurisdiction. In other words, the nature of the contacts between the forum state and the party over whom jurisdiction is sought must be examined to determine whether those contacts constitute continuous and systematic general business contacts which would support a reasonable exercise of jurisdiction by the forum state. “

We find that Newco engages in that continuous and systematic course of conduct in Alabama, albeit through an independent manufacturer's representative or the telephone and mail services, that will support a reasonable exercise of jurisdiction by the courts of Alabama. Newco's annual sales in Alabama during the period of January 1979 to December 1984 ranged from $65,000 to $85,000, with a total of 2,000 transactions. Newco's contacts with Alabama are deliberate rather than fortuitous and, therefore, it was reasonably foreseeable that Newco, in purposefully doing business in Alabama, would at some point both need the protection and invoke the jurisdiction of the courts of Alabama. Newco avails itself of the privilege of making sales (and profits) in Alabama in a continuous and systematic course of merchandising. For the privilege of conducting such activities, Newco must bear the burden commensurate with the benefits received from its sales in Alabama.

Imagine that all of Newco’s thimble clamps except the one causing the accident were sold (through an intermediary) in Alabama.

Pedelahore v. Astropark, Inc., 745 F.2d 346 (5th Cir. 1984)

A Louisiana P is injuired in Astropark in Houston, Tex. Astropark is a Delaware Corp., with its principal place of business in Texas. In considering whether Louisiana had general PJ over the defendant, the court said the following:

The final and most difficult inquiry presented by this appeal is whether subjecting Astropark to in personam jurisdiction in Louisiana is constitutionally permissible under the operative facts. Upon close examination we conclude and hold that valid personal jurisdiction exists.

What are the minimum contacts between Astropark and the people and State of Louisiana? Pedelahore points to the following actions by Astropark:

(1) An advertising program aimed at Louisianians, including the distribution of brochures and thousands of radio and television spots, together with advertisements in local, national, and regional publications, all extolling the wonders of Astroworld and encouraging visitors to attend. (2) A ticket consignment agreement with all Louisiana travel agencies authorizing those agencies to sell Louisiana residents tickets to Astropark's facilities. (3) The conducting of a three-day seminar in New Orleans in December 1982 by the Astropark Marketing Department, aimed, inter alia, at developing business from Louisiana for the Houston operation. (4) The appointment of a sales representative with Louisiana as her area of responsibility. To these active steps by Astropark, Pedelahore adds the results of the efforts. During the years 1981, 1982 and 1983, Louisiana accounted for 10.3%, 9.7%, and 8.0%, respectively, of the total patronage at the amusement park. Only one state, Texas, accounted for more patrons.

specific jurisdiction

McGee v. Int’l Life Ins. Co. (US 1957)

Turning to this case we think it apparent that the Due Process Clause did not preclude the California court from entering a judgment binding on respondent. It is sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract which had substantial connection with that State. The contract was delivered in California, the premiums were mailed from there and the insured was a resident of that State when he died.

It cannot be denied that California has a manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents when their insurers refuse to pay claims. These residents would be at a severe disadvantage if they were forced to follow the insurance company to a distant State in order to hold it legally accountable. When claims were small or moderate individual claimants frequently could not afford the cost of bringing an action in a foreign forum - thus in effect making the company judgment proof. Often the crucial witnesses - as here on the company's defense of suicide - will be found in the insured's locality. Of course there may be inconvenience to the insurer if it is held amenable to suit in California where it had this contract but certainly nothing which amounts to a denial of due process.