Determining Personal Jurisdiction

Was D present in the forum state when process was served on him?

There is VALID personal jurisdiction. - Burnham

Does the forum state’s long arm statue provide for jurisdiction over D? Gray & VW

Yes

No

The forum state cannot exercise p.j. over D

No

Is any of the following true? -D is domiciled in forum state (or is corp incorporated state) -D has consented -D owns property & is subject -D regularly transacts business in state

There is VALID p.j.Yes

No

At least some of D’s contacts with the forum state voluntarily?

No

No D lacks minimum contacts with the forum and no p.j. – need purposeful availment - Hanson

Does the cause of action arise out of or relate to D’s contact with forum state?

Are D’s contacts with the forum state “systematic and continuous”? Helic

Yes

NoContacts not minimum and no p.j.

No

Are D’s contacts with the state sufficiently great that they should be deemed

“minimum contacts”? - reasonably anticipate be haled into court (VW)

McGee – p.j. – obligation, premiums from CA residents, witness

Hanson – no p.j. b/c lack office in FL, business, creation of trust in PA

Gray – p.j. - product “w/ contemplation of use in state” – tort in state

VW – no p.j. - car bought in NY as NY residents & P brought to state

Kulko – no p.j. - sent kids to live w/ mom in state

Keeton – p.j. – suit related to magazine distribution, interest in libel

Calder – p.j. – brunt of harm directed towards state w/ distribution

Burger – p.j. – long term K, foreseeable injury, choice of law was state

Asahi – no p.j. – no agree, but stream, volume, danger, value

Helic – no p.j. – negotiated, purchased, training, checks

Shaffer – no p.j. – owned stock statute considered in state

Yes

D lacks minimum contacts with the forum and the forum therefore can’t exercise p.j. over him

No

Yes

Jurisdiction reasonable, comport with traditional notions of fair play?

(a) Burden of D (inconvenient litigation)(b) Forum state interest(c) Interstate judicial efficiency(d) Substantive social policies(e) P’s interest

Yes

Even though D has minimum contacts with due process prevents the exercise of p.j.Asahi – not reasonable even for Brennan

NoThe court may constitutionally exercise p.j. over D

Yes

general

specific

Determining DiversityCannot be waived!!

Does at least one side consist solely of foreign countries or citizens of foreign countries?

For diversity purposes, a corp. is deemed to be a citizen of:1. State of Incorporation2. Principal Place of

Is a corporation a party?

No

Alienage jurisdiction – Is the suit between a citizen of a state on one side, and a foreign country or citizens or subjects thereof on the other? Mas Case: §1332(a)(2)

The is NO diversity jurisdiction

Yes

No

Yes

Is diversity complete? No P is a citizen of the same state as any D. Strawbridge, Mas

Does the amount in controversy exceed $75,000 as made in good faith by P? Mas §1332(a)

There is NO diversity jurisdiction

Yes

Noo

There IS diversity jurisdiction.

No

Yes

No

Yes

Other way to get Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal Question Jurisdiction1. §1331 – “actions arising under the

Constitution, [federal] laws”2. No amount in controversy requirement

a. Mottley: must be “Well pleaded complaint” must be a federal claim by P not a

defense by D

No

Is an unincorporated entity a party?

For diversity purposes, an unincorporated entity is deemed to be a citizen of every state where members are citizens.

i.e. only foreigners

No

Continue analysis

There is NO diversity jurisdiction

Yes§1332 – permanent aliens citizens of domicile

Removal P’s choice where to file, but D remove state to fed D can’t remove if case filed in D’s state of residence

Removal statute narrower than diversity statute1. P could file in fed court - but

filed in state §1441(a) Exception: §1441(b)

Diversity cases in D’s home state can’t remove All Ds agree - §1446(b) Within 30 days from time case become removable - §1446(b) –

Noble Case Absolute limit 1 yr. if under §1332 (diversity, alien)