How to Analyze Personal Jurisdiction on a Civil Procedure Essay [SCOTUS UPDATE: See Description]

how do you analyze a personal jurisdiction issue on a Civil Procedure essay well you're not sure what personal jurisdiction is no problem pause the video here go back and watch my video right overview personal jurisdiction then you're going to be ready to go here but remember in short personal jurisdiction is merely a requirement that the civil court must meet in order to have the authority to adjudicate the rights and liabilities of a defendant which basically just means that the court has got a have personal jurisdiction to hear and decide the case you're going to have to establish that the civil court has personal jurisdiction how do you do that this is going to be your analysis there's two main parts you want to think about number one you're going to have the traditional basis now if any of the traditional bases are satisfied the court automatically has personal jurisdiction but if none of the person if none of the traditional bases are satisfied no problem court can still reach out using a state long arm statute reaching out of state defendants so long as minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state so step two you'll move on in your analysis to a discussion of minimum contacts state long arm to determine whether minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state you're going to want to discuss general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction finally to wrap up your analysis you want to make sure that the exercise of such jurisdiction general or specific jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice this you could kind of think about is part three of your analysis so number one you'll start with the traditional basis if any of those are satisfied court has personal jurisdiction if not no problem come down discuss state long-arm statute whether or not minimum contacts between the defendant in the form say how do you determine that general and specific jurisdiction finally you wrap up with this discussion of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice now no problem don't worry about it I know that's a lot to hear right now but when you actually run through this you practice some essays yourself it's not so bad but let's break each of these steps in the analysis down starting with your first step which will be a discussion of the traditional basis so remember if any of the traditional basis are satisfied then the court is going to automatically have personal jurisdiction over the defendant I want you to think about the traditional basis as automatic qualifiers if any of those are satisfied the court will have personal jurisdiction over the defendant no question about it so what are your traditional basis number one you have domicile number two you have physical presence number three you have consent and number four you have waiver okay so if any of these four things happen again the court is going to have personal jurisdiction over the defendant start with number one domicile if the defendant is domiciled in the forum state then that court is going to have personal jurisdiction over the defendant very straightforward remember domicile is the place where you reside with an intent to remain indefinitely it's where you live so if I live if I am domiciled in the state of New York I can be sued in the state of New York as personal jurisdiction over me very straightforward just rumor domicile is where you live where you reside with intent to remain indefinitely physical presence is a little bit more nuanced this is a kind of weird rule but if you are physically present in the form state voluntary under your own volition and while you were there you were served with processing notice of the lawsuit then that forum is going to have personal jurisdiction of you sometimes we call this tag jurisdiction because it's like coming into the forms that you get tagged with notice or service of process and now the court has personal jurisdiction over it you can be in the form state for an hour you know as long as you're there voluntarily and you're served with process then you're going to be able to be hailed into that form as a defendant core is going to have personal jurisdiction over you now the one exception to this is if you're a plaintiff you can't lure a potential defendant into the forum state by force or fraud you couldn't call the defendant and say hey your child is sick and in the hospital in this state you got to go there right now to see them they need you of course that defendant goes to that hospital and you're waiting there to serve them with notice that stuff is not gonna work you have to be there under your own volition if you're tricked or force or defrauded into coming into the forum state and then your serve that's not gonna work consent your third traditional base is very straightforward a defendant can always consent to the jurisdiction to the form that can be expressed or implied by conduct waiver again this is pretty straightforward something procedurally to remember is that the defendant actually has to object for lack of personal jurisdiction if the defendant wants to challenge the lawsuit based on lack of Jerusalem personal jurisdiction the defendant has to raise that they have to object for lack of personal jurisdiction so with waiver but the defendant fails to object and participates on the merit of the case then he is going to waive his objection for lack of personal jurisdiction which is the same as satisfying any of the other traditional basis once you've waived your objection you're at your Sol now you can't then challenge personal jurisdiction later so de facto it's just it's the same as being domiciled or physically present we're consenting you no longer have your objection to use now interestingly as a note lack of subject matter jurisdiction can not be waived can not be waived lack of personal jurisdiction can be waived and remember you can waive personal jurisdiction by substantial participation on the merits of the case so if you show up make your general appearance start participating and your defendant you're going to waive your objection for a lack of personal jurisdiction so important to note in practice to as an attorney if ever you think that there might be an issue with the jurisdiction especially personal jurisdiction you want to raise that objection sooner rather than later or you're going to risk waiving it and losing it forever okay so this is all those step one of the personal jurisdiction analysis of any of these four traditional bases are satisfied then the court is automatically going to have personal jurisdiction over the defendant now what happens if none of these traditional bases are satisfied don't worry this all of this as always will be below the video if you want to see it - don't try to worry about writing everything down but what happens if none of the traditional bases are satisfied then no problem court can still use a state long arm statute to reach an out-of-state defendant here under and state long arm statute if minimum contacts exists between the defendant and the forum state then the court is going to have personal jurisdiction over the defendant so what is minimum contacts this is going to be the test under a long arm statute what is minimum contact also one quick note before I jump into discussion of minimum contacts on a Civil Procedure essay remember we started with the four traditional basis and I said if you're none of those are satisfied court can still reach out with the state long arm statute in reaching out of an out of state defendant if you have minimum contacts okay but another important thing to note on a Civil Procedure essays it even if you find that a traditional base is satisfied which means the court automatically has personal jurisdiction of the defendant you still want to discuss state long arm statute and minimum contacts to make sure you're getting all of your points even though from a you know real-life standpoint or logical standpoint you're saying traditional basis satisfied Court has personal jurisdiction in real life yes the analysis could in there but on a Civil Procedure essay to make sure you're getting all of your points you want to make sure that you discuss a state long arm statute minimum contacts and everything I'm about to talk about also in real life though it is always good practice even if you think you've established something and it's obvious you always for your client would want to discuss other alternative ways you can come to the same conclusion it's good practice get some practical lawyer in here so how do you determine minimum context on well how do you determine whether minimum contacts exists between the defendant in the forms think you'll want to run through an analysis for both general general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction but let's just start with general jurisdiction how do you determine whether general jurisdiction is present well if the defendants contact or activities in the forum state is so systematic and continuous that he is essentially at home and the forum stay at home in the forum state then the court is going to have general jurisdiction and personal jurors the defendant one more time if the defendants activity in the forms days so systematic and continuous that the defendant is essentially at home in the forum state then the court is going to have general jurisdiction over the defendant so here you want to look for standard operating procedures think of a company that produces some sort of widget let's say a paper manufacturer a company that manufactures paper and ships those paper up and down the Pacific coast so let's say we have a manufacturing plant based in California manufacturing paper and then they ship that paper with big 18-wheeler trucks up and down from Oregon to Washington and back down to California up and down the Pacific coast that manufacturing facility in California is going to have a lot of systematic and continuous activity think of any supply line any manufacturing plant have you some sure you've seen on TV documentaries and things how systematic and continuous all of those operations are that is the ultimate systematic and continuous operation something like a manufacturing facility is actually in the for that is going to be activity that is so systematic and continuous that the defendant is now at home in the forms they sensually at home in the form state dreams the court has general jurisdiction right so once you establish the interesting thing here so think about that paper supply come here that paper manufacturer they have a manufacturing facility in California that means they're at home in California that means as a defendant they can be sued on any claim that is any claim that even if it's unrelated to their contact with the forms even if that claim has nothing to do with the manufacturing of paper because they're at home in the foreign state directivity is so systemic and continuous they're essentially at home they can be sued on any claim even if it's unrelated to the contact so it can be a breach of contract action that has nothing to do with the manufacture of paper and quite frankly thinking about supply lines near the truck routes if every day 6:00 a.m. the same trucks are leaving the same stations with the same supplies and running the same route systematically and continuously arguably that would also be systemic and continuous activity so they could be at home California Oregon Washington you could argue all of these things now so that's general jurisdiction and the important thing to remember with general jurisdiction is you can be sued on any claim even if it's unrelated to the specific contact even if it's not related to what is giving rise to your continuous and systematic activity so like I said it can be a breach of contract claim that has nothing to do with the manufacture of paper but because you're at home that's gonna work now with specific jurisdiction it's a little bit different a specific jurisdiction is another way you can establish minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum so there's gonna be two elements here we'll call it purposeful availment purposeful availment and foreseeability foresee ability i'll explain these two elements out in a second but first what's important to realize because I see this bungled all the time general jurisdiction once you establish the defendant is at home in the forum state can be sued on any claim specific jurisdiction once you establish that specific jurisdiction exists the defendant can only be sued on a claim that is directly related to the specific contact with the forum state so imagine that we have a the same paper company right and they've got their supply lines that go up and down the Pacific coast their manufacturing plant is in California but they travel they ship that paper up to Washington and Oregon in California well let's say something happens out of the usual that's not systemic and continuous where they would need to go to Arizona to get something maybe something on their supply line breaks they need some important part so they send one of their trucks to Arizona to go get that part this is not systemic and continuous right this is a one-off kind of deal going to Arizona but let's say that this truck as it's in Arizona the driver of that truck is not paying attention negligently rear-ends a driver in Arizona so that driver in Arizona wants to sue the paper manufacturing company for negligence in the state of Arizona could he do that well did so your first element for establishing a specific jurisdiction is going to be whether the defendant purposely availed himself to the benefits of the forms - here obviously using Arizona state highways that paper manufacturer company when that truck is using those public state highways you're availing yourselves to the benefit of the state of Arizona was it foreseeable that the activities in the forum state could result in the defendant being hailed into and as Arizona Court it's all about foreseeability yes obviously if you're driving trucks big 18-wheeler supply trucks and across state lines it's going to be foreseeable that accidents can happen that you could be hailed into court in Arizona in that event nothing with foreseeability there that would make specific jurisdiction out of the realm of possibility so the question being though could be defendant be sued for negligence yes because that claim arises out of the specific contact with Arizona that action of the truck driving in Arizona and rear-ending another car that is the actual specific contact that is giving rise to the action so that negligence action could be brought under specific jurisdiction for purse for gaining personal jurisdiction over the which is the paper supply company now say that some other plaintiff sees that this paper company is being sued in Arizona they say hey I would like to sue them in Arizona say Arizona has some sort of friendly plaintiff friendly law regarding breach of contract claims so a another company wants to sue this paper manufacturing company for breach of contract they can't do that in Arizona because that action is not coming from their specific contact with Arizona now remember if they had a manufacturing facility in Arizona they had systematic and continuous activity in Arizona then they could be sued on that breach of contract claim there at home they can be sued on any claim even if it's unrelated to the contact that gives rise to the action but for specific jurisdiction that's not the case but that's gonna be your main things to think about with minimum context because it's actually pretty simple just do a general jurisdiction analysis whether the contact is so systemic and continuous that the defendant is essentially at home in the foreign state then you want to follow up with a specific jurisdiction analysis we're gonna run through two elements whether the defendant purposely availed himself to the benefits of the form state and whether that was in a manner that was foreseeable that he could be hailed into court there run through those two elements now either these are satisfied general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction then you're going to have sufficient minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state so there will only be was instead left after you've run through all this once you've established that you either have general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction you want to discuss whether the exercise of such jurisdiction a thing traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice now this concept whether the exercise of such jurisdiction offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice comes from International Shoe the Washington this is one of your most seminal cases and Civil Procedure remember in torts you have Palsgraf this is the Palsgraf equivalent and Civil Procedure which is why on a Civil Procedure essay we want to make sure we include this it's giving a nod to your greater that hey I remember International Shoe I'm talking about this give me my points right so what's interesting about traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and why this is a little bit more nuanced as if you actually read International Shoe there isn't a direct discussion on exactly how to apply this concept it it's derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment but in that opinion the judges don't really give a clear way to apply it they give very broad stroke concepts and courts have grappled with that since International Shoe and lots of factors have been developed and I'll list out all the factors or at least most of the main factors you see crop up again and again from other courts but here I just want to kind of discuss what this idea is and the main things to think about and then I'll give you some actual factors that you can shoot through but without I think a little bit of basis for that you might get confused so what you're really looking for here okay so once you've established general jurisdiction in specific jurisdiction whether those exist you're looking for whether the exercise of that jurisdiction bends traditional notions of fair play and substantial just so the very first thing that you want to look for here it's wrong full-contact any wrongful conduct anything but the either party is doing the plaintiff or the defendant to avoid or induce jurisdiction so obviously if the sometimes you see the word scampering if the defendant is somehow scampering or doing something to avoid being hailed into that form that's clearly inefficient or wrongful that's going to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice likewise if the plaintiff is doing something that is you know trying to induce a plaintiff or is trying to induce a defendant into the forum kind of what we talked about with physical presence under the traditional basis you lie and say that you're that the defendants child is in the hospital to try to get them there anything like that all of that's going to be offending traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice so the first thing you want to think about is wrongful conduct and then once you do that there's lots of you know for lack of a better word kind of fairness factors you want to consider and and the main ones are going to be the easy way to remember is to think about the defendants perspective the plaintiffs perspective in the forum's perspective so with the defendant you can say defendant you want to think about convenience for the plaintiff you want to think about whether their interest is proper so just proper interest question mark in the forum similarly to the plaintiff does the forum have a legit interest and redress and providing redress so you want to think about these are your probably three main factors you're gonna see courts bring up again and again when discussing whether the exercise of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction thins traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice number one you want to think about the convenience for the defendant or personal jurisdiction is all about the defendant if hailing this defendant into this forum is going to be so inconvenient it's going to play such a burden on the defendant that it's truly unfair for and it's got to be big it's a high high threshold year then maybe that's going to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice the next factor you want to think about is from the plaintiffs perspective is the plaintiffs interest are they seeking relief that is proper right here you're thinking about frivolous law frivolous lawsuits interference stuff like that when we're thinking about the plaintiff dragging the defendant into an inconvenient form similarly how legitimate is the plaintiffs interest in this cause of action are they doing this for some sort of tortious interference reason or are they doing this for legitimate redress related to that is the forums interest does the forum state have a legitimate interest in providing redress right and those are going to be your three kind of main factors to think about when you're trying to discuss whether or not the exercise of general or specific jurisdiction of themes traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice but I'll put more factors below the main thing to remember is truthfully this is one of those ideas that's been brought up by International Shoe so you want to give the nod you want to hit the buzz words to let your grader know that you recognize International Shoe that you recognize the importance of this idea of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice but at the same time International Shoe didn't really give us a definable way to apply it especially on a Civil Procedure essay so there's gonna be some grappling there and courts have provided different factors and those things like I said the main thing you want to look it out for it's blatantly wrongful conduct then you can think about it from the defendants perspective the plaintiffs perspective and the forum's perspective and make sure that nothing is offending traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice with that guys that wraps it up so remember your whole analysis when you're discussing whether or not the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant number one you start with the traditional basis for any of the traditional basis are satisfied court automatically has personal jurisdiction the defendant either way you're going to move on to stay long arms at you if not none of the traditional bases are satisfied no problem court can still reach out with the state long arm statute can grab an out-of-state defendant so long as minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum so how do you determine whether minimum contacts exist you gotta run through general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction and then finally once you've established that either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction might apply just want to make sure that the exercise of such jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice sorry for the video cut there guys my camera is dying had to restart it but otherwise I hope this video did make sense and that cut wasn't too bad for you but otherwise I wish you all the absolute best and I'll see you in our next video

Channel: Studicata

Views: 94,336

Keywords: bar exam, law school, ube, mee, uniform bar exam, multistate essay exam, civil procedure, civ pro, personal jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction, general jurisdiction, international shoe, civ pro exam, civil procedure exam, traditional bases, personal jurisdiction analysis, studicata, michael bar, bar review, civ pro bar review, civil procedure bar review, bar review civ pro, bar prep

Id: OHNBLiemiLg

Length: 26min 32sec (1592 seconds)

Published: Mon Sep 03 2018