Personal Jurisdiction with DSFs

What is Personal Jurisdiction?

• Can the Plaintiff sue the Defendant in the Forum State

• Can the Defendant sue the Plaintiff in the Forum State

• Action between citizens of different states

• Does the court have power over this particular case

The town of Halloweentown, Oregon planned to build a new street through a parcel of vacant land on the edge of town. The land records show a deed dated October 5, 1947, to Marnie, for whom an address is given in St. Helens, Oregon. Halloweentown instituted an in rem condemnation action in state court, with notice to all interested parties published in the town newspaper. Marnie, who still resides at the address in St. Helens, does not see the notice. The court allows the condemnation to proceed as requested by Halloweentown.

Is the condemnation valid as to Marnie?

• Yes, because the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter

• Yes, because notice by publication was sufficient

• No, because Marnie was required to be served by summons

• No, because Marnie should have been mailed notice of the proceeding

A used car dealer, Saul, in Maine is profiled in an article in a newspaper with national circulation. The article states that Saul never sells a car without rolling the odometer back at least 25,000 miles. In fact, Saul is an honest businessperson who never changes odometers, so he sued the newspaper for libel in Maine’s state court. The newspaper's entire operation is conducted from its offices in Vermont, but it sells 5,000 copies in Maine on an average day. Despite this activity, the newspaper has not registered to do business in Maine, which recognizes registration as a basis for general personal jurisdiction. In its initial pleading, the newspaper argues for dismissal based on its lack of contacts with Maine.

What is the likely ruling of the court on this issue?

• Deny the motion because the newspaper contacts with Maine were sufficient so it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in Maine

• Deny the motion because the newspaper should have registered to do business in the state

• Grant the motion because selling 5,000 copies of a newspaper per day is not sufficient contacts with the forum

• 1.        Grant the motion because the newspaper has not registered to do business in Maine.

A citizen of Nevada purchased life insurance by mail from a California insurance company. The policy was the only one that the company had ever sold in Nevada. The purchaser mailed premiums from California to Nevada for five years, and then died. The insurance company refused to pay the policy benefits. The purchaser's administrator sued the company in Nevada state court. The state has a long arm statute that grants a state court in personam jurisdiction over a defendant who "contract[s] to insure any person, property, or risk located within this State at the time of the contracting." The insurance company argued that its only contact with State A since it began its business was the purchaser's insurance policy, and that this single contact does not meet the minimum required for the exercise of in personam jurisdiction under International Shoe.

How should the court rule on the minimum contacts issue?

• For the purchaser’s administrator, because the Nevada Statute authorizes jurisdiction.

• For the purchaser’s administrator, because of the close connection between the contact and the case.

• For the Insurance company, because the exercise of jurisdiction would not be constitutional

• For the insurance company, because suit must be brought in California

Sam starts a software business in Michigan. His principal product is an application that helps pet owners keep track of medical records of their animals. He sells the product through a website he maintains, allowing customers who have paid by credit card to download the software. Nora, who lives in North Carolina, buys the product and later brings suit against Sam in that state, alleging that the application's failure resulted in serious and expensive medical problems for her dogs.

Sam challenges the jurisdiction of the North Carolina courts. Which of the following is accurate?

• Nora will prevail so long as Sam's website is at all interactive.

• Sam will prevail so long as nothing about his product makes it especially attractive to North Carolina customers.

• Sam will prevail because he has never travelled to North Carolina.

• Nora is more likely to prevail if as part of the purchase she was required to list her

  North Carolina address.

Pam went on a vacation to Savannah, Georgia with her best friend, Jim. Jim is a resident of Pennsylvania. Pam had been a lifelong resident of Pennsylvania but moved to New Jersey, just before leaving for vacation. While they were in Georgia, Pam and Jim rented motorcycles and during their ride, Jim’s motorcycle ran into Pam’s motorcycle while Pam was on it. Pam returned home and filed a civil action in federal court in New Jersey asserting $200,000 tort claims against Jim and Bikes, Inc., the Georgia rental company that is incorporated under the laws of Delaware. Jim has never been to New Jersey and never had any contact with the state. Although Bikes, Inc. operates a highly interactive website, no one in New Jersey has ever visited that site or purchased any products from the company.

Does venue lie in the chosen forum?

• Yes, because Pam is a resident of New Jersey

• Yes, because Bikes, Inc. is subject to Personal Jurisdiction in New Jersey

• No, neither of the defendants reside there and the accident occurred in Georgia

• No, because Jim is not subject to Personal Jurisdiction in New Jersey

A plaintiff filed a products liability lawsuit in her home state against the manufacturer of a defective spark plug that caused her lawn mower to malfunction. The defendant manufacturer was a nonresident of the forum state and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In her response to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff argued that jurisdiction was proper because the defendant should have reasonably foreseen that lawn mowers using the defendant’s spark plugs would be used in the forum state. 

In the defendant’s reply brief, which of the following facts, if true, would be most likely to persuade the court to rule in the defendant’s favor?

• The defendant’s spark plugs are available for sale in all fifty states in the United States.

• The defendant is not incorporated in the forum state and does not have its principal place of business in the forum state.

• The defendant owns no property in the forum state.

• The defendant markets its spark plugs only to small engine manufacturers outside the forum state.

Christopher Boling suffered severe burns to his right hand and a posterior dislocation of his right shoulder after vapors escaping from a gas can ignited upon coming into contact with a hot metal eye bolt. At the time of his injury, the plaintiff was married to Holly Boling. The Bolings were citizens of Kentucky.

As a result of his injuries, the Bolings filed suit against the gas can manufacturer, Blitz USA. During the course of their litigation against Blitz USA, the Bolings entered into a series of non-recourse loans with Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC and Cambridge Management Group, LLC, two out-of-state limited liability corporations, to obtain advances on his potential personal injury recovery. The Bolings received $30,000 plus fees through these loans. In entering into the loan agreements, Prospect and CMG obtained an interest in the Bolings’ potential personal injury recovery the pending lawsuit against Blitz USA.

By their terms, these loans accrued interest at a rate of 4.9% per month and at the time of the suit, the total amount owed to Prospect was $340, 405.00. Boling filed a lawsuit against Prospect in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Kentucky seeking a declaratory judgment that the loan agreements were to be interpreted by and deemed unenforceable under Kentucky law. His wife was not made a party to this lawsuit. Subsequently, Prospect filed suit against the Bolings in the Superior Court of New Jersey, and Boling removed that action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Kentucky has a long-arm statute that provides: courts “may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent, as to a claim arising from the person’s . . . transacting any business in this Commonwealth. . . .”

In a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), defendant Prospect moved to dismiss the case from the Kentucky federal district court for a lack of personal jurisdiction.

On defendant Prospect’s motion to dismiss for a lack of personal jurisdiction, the Kentucky federal court should:

• Grant the motion to dismiss because Prospect was not a citizen of Kentucky, had only very limited contact with the state through the loans to the Bolings; and assertion of personal jurisdiction would offend due process;

• Grant the motion to dismiss because Prospect had a parallel lawsuit pending in federal court in New Jersey on the same issues;

• Deny the motion to dismiss because Prospect was conducting business in the state of Kentucky and availing itself of the benefits and protections of Kentucky law;

• Deny the motion to dismiss because as a loan provider, Prospect had contacts with all fifty states;

• Deny the motion to dismiss courts generally give deference to the plaintiff’s choice of forum.

Mateo traveled to Paris, Texas, on vacation. While shopping at local department store there (a "mom and pop" establishment that has never advertised outside of Texas), he was wrongfully detained and searched. Back home in Virginia, Mateo filed suit against the store. Can a Virginia court constitutionally assert jurisdiction over Mateo's claim against the Texas store? Assume that the forum state has a long-arm statute that would authorize over the defendant.

•  Yes. The store intentionally injured a resident of Virginia.

• Yes. Plaintiffs can always file suit in the home states

• No. The store’s contacts with Virginia are insufficient to permit the assertion of jurisdiction

• Yes. The store profited from selling its products to a Virginian.

Airplane Corporation is a worldwide manufacturer of commercial jetliners. It is incorporated in Delaware, and its principal place of business is in Chicago, Illinois. Airplane Corporation has most of its manufacturing plants in the State of Washington, where it employs hundreds of thousands of people and manufactures thousands of planes. Moshe, a resident of Washington State, was visiting Airplane Corporation's home offices in Chicago while on vacation there. Moshe was in the company swag store when he slipped and fell, suffering significant injuries. When Moshe returned to his home in Washington, he filed suit in a Washington state court against Airplane Corporation, seeking relief for his injuries. Can a Washington court constitutionally assert jurisdiction over Airplane Corporation?

• No, Airplane Corporation's contacts with the State of Washington are not sufficient to meet the requirements for specific jurisdiction.

• No, Airplane Corporation is not subject to general jurisdiction in the State of Washington.

• Yes, Airplane Corporation's substantial manufacturing presence in the State of Washington is sufficient to subject it to general jurisdiction there.

• Yes, Airplane Corporation is a worldwide corporation, so it is fair to subject it to personal jurisdiction in the State of Washington.