1. Jurisdiction
Class 3

2. Subject matter jurisdiction
A court must have subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction:
federal questions
diversity of citizenship cases
a few other specific categories of suit
State courts have broad subject matter jurisdiction
In order to hear a case, a court must have subject matter jurisdiction
Which is?
The power to hear the type of case which the plaintiff wishes to litigate
What can we say about Federal courts subject matter jurisdiction?
It is limited
They can only hear certain types of cases:
Art III, Section 2 of Constitution
Federal questions: cases “arising under” a federal law, or a treaty, or the U.S. constitution
Cases in which federal law creates the cause of action or the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.
Diversity of citizenship cases
The parties are citizens of different states, AND the amount in controversy EXCEEDS $75,000
A few other specific categories of suit
cases in which the United States is Party
Controversies between two or more States
Cases affecting Ambassadors, Ministers and Consuls
admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States
Can only federal courts hear these cases?
In most cases there is concurrent jurisdiction.
There are a few categories which Congress has placed under exclusive federal jurisdiction > inc when US is a party, patent/copyright cases.
What about state courts?
State courts have broad subject matter jurisdiction
Can hear any cases not falling under exclusive FJ or which states are prohibited from hearing
Who defines SC jurisdiction?
Exact jurisdiction of state courts is defined by state legislatures

3. Personal jurisdiction
= a court’s authority to determine the rights and liabilities of a party to a lawsuit
= a court’s power to require a defendant to defend a lawsuit in a specific state
How is personal jurisdiction established?
However, a court must also be able to exercise personal jurisdiction.
i) What is personal jurisdiction?
= a court’s authority to determine the rights and liabilities of a party to a lawsuit
In practical terms that means that it refers to a court’s power to require a defendant to defend a lawsuit in a state
If a court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant, it must dismiss the case. The plaintiff will then have the choice to file suit in a different state.

4. 1) Consent
A party's consent to the jurisdiction of a court allows the court jurisdiction over that party.
This consent can happen through contract – parties may state in a business contract which state law is controlling in the case of a dispute
A party can consent by waiving the lack of personal jurisdiction. > A defendant can agree to have the case heard in California even if that state doesn’t have any basis for personal jurisdiction over him.
note that this is different from subject-matter jurisdiction.
A defendant cannot agree to have a case heard in federal court instead of state court, if the case does not fall under federal subject matter (not a federal question, no diversity etc)
If the party does not challenge personal jurisdiction within a set time, misses the deadline to object, he is held to have consented to the court’s jurisdiction.

5. 2) Presence = service of process to the defendant in the state
This has a specific meaning – which is?
service of process to the defendant in the state
If a defendant is present in the state and properly served with a copy of the summons to appear and the complaint against him then that creates personal jurisdiction.
That is true even if the defendant is in the state for completely unrelated reasons, and has had no previous contact with the state.

6. 3) Residence
Personal jurisdiction can be asserted over residents of the state in which the court sits.
Corporation – state where it is incorporated

7. Other out-of-state defendants
The Due Process Clause (14th amendment) limits the exercise of personal jurisdiction
International Shoe Co. v Washington (1945):
due process requires that such defendants have certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
iii) How is a court’s ability to establish PJ limited?
The Due Process Clause (14th amendment) limits the exercise of personal jurisdiction > means fair legal procedure must be followed, that includes limits on the places where a defendant can be required to defend a lawsuit.
In International Shoe (1945), the USSC held that, pursuant to the DPC, a defendant must have minimum contacts with a state, before he can be required to defend a suit there:
due process requires that such defendants have certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

8. Minimum contacts
D must have purposely availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the state (Hanson v Denckla, 1958)
So what does that mean?
The minimum contacts doctrine has then been further refined in a number of cases. The key principle is that, for minimum contact to exist, the D must have purposely availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the state (Hanson v Denckla, 1958)
The defendant must have made a deliberate choice to relate to the state in some meaningful way.
This is minimum contacts – this is what minimum contacts means

9. Examples
1) Sam (NY) places an ad in a New York newspaper to sell his rare sports car. Susan (Calif) buys it. She drives it to California and finds it is defective. Can she file suit against Sam in California?
2) What if Sam knew that Susan liked rare sports cars, and had phoned her in California to offer her the car?
No Calif Court cannot exercise PJ over Sam
To have minimum contacts D must have purposely availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the state > he must have deliberately sought to conduct activities in the state
Here Sam has not done this. He may be aware that Susan is from California, but he did not solicit business from California – his ad was in a NY newspaper.
He might be able to foresee that the car will be used in Calif, but foresight is not intention
2) Yes – Calif Court can exercise PJ over Sam
He specifically sought to do business with a California citizen, selling a product to be used in Calif - created minimum contact.
If a company deliberately seeks business in a state, for example by advertising their products on local TV or in local newspapers, they have created minimum contacts
In this second case, even if Sam does not consent he can be hailed into court in California. This is called ?
When minimum contacts exist, this allows long-arm jurisdiction > meaning state can reach outside its borders and oblige an out of state party to defend a suit

10. Specific long-arm personal jurisdiction
Limited activity or even a single act by a defendant may constitute minimum contact with a state
Usually minimum contacts give rise to specific in personam jurisdiction.
i.e. jurisdiction over D only in suits arising from the in-state activity/act
Sam (NY) now punches Fred (Calif) in New York. Can Fred sue Sam in California?
Depends on quality and nature of the acts
Limited activity or even a single act by a defendant in a state OR directed towards a state
may
constitute minimum contacts and
give rise to specific personal jurisdiction.
Sam (NY) – the same Sam as in the last example - now punches Fred (Calif) in New York. Can Fred sue Sam in California?
No – soliciting Susan to buy the sports car means Calif can exercise personal jurisdiction over Sam in suits arising from that act, so related to the sale of the car > but not in any other suits

11. General long-arm personal jurisdiction
However, very substantial and continuous activity within a state can give rise to general in personam jurisdiction.
D is “at home” in the state
D can be sued for any claim in that state
However, very substantial and continuous activity within a state can give rise to general in personam jurisdiction.
If there is very substantial/ continuous activity, a court may hold that
D is essentially “at home” in the state, and so
D can be sued for any claim in that state – even one completely unrelated to its activities in the state
Generally an issue for businesses and corporations (nor private individuals)
Means that a corporation may be sued for any claim at its Principle place of business, as well as in state of incorporation

12. Other limits
Five-part test from World-wide Volkswagen Corp. v Woodson (1980)
Is exercise of jurisdiction reasonable and fair?
Only applied once minimum contacts have been established
States’ long-arm statutes
Define the extent of each state’s long-arm jurisdiction
Five-part test from World-wide Volkswagen Corp. v Woodson (1980)
Intended to ensure fairness >p6
Only applied once minimum contacts have been established
If there are no minimum contacts, the court does not have jurisdiction
(In practice, if there are MC, D needs compelling case to avoid PJ being exercised)
States’ long-arm statutes
Each state has its own long-arm stature
These define the extent of each state’s long-arm jurisdiction
BUT this is not an alternative to minimum contacts
All long-arm statutes Must respect the minimum contacts requirement
Why? Constitutional requirement based on DPC
State legislatures can only choose either to allow PJ to be exercised whenever the D has minimum contacts with the state, or to set stricter limits and require that D has more than minimums contacts.
They cannot require less.
(Example – requiring a tort be committed within the state)