Personal Jurisdiction
Rule
A court must have power over the defendant’s person before it can render a binding judgment. Assertion of personal jurisdiction must be authorized by the forum’s long-arm statute and must comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Elements / Test
General Jurisdiction — defendant is subject to suit on any claim:
- Individual: domicile in the forum state
- Corporation: state of incorporation OR principal place of business (“nerve center”) — Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) rejects broader “doing business” test
- Consent (express or implied)
- Presence at time of service (tag jurisdiction) — Burnham v. Superior Court (upheld for individuals)
Specific Jurisdiction — jurisdiction over claims arising from or relating to forum contacts:
- Purposeful availment: defendant deliberately reached into the forum (acts directed at the forum, not unilateral acts of plaintiff or third parties) — Hanson v. Denckla
- Relatedness: plaintiff’s claim arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum contacts — Ford Motor Co. v. Montana (2021) relaxes strict but-for causation
- Reasonableness (Burger King factors): burden on defendant, forum state’s interest, plaintiff’s interest in convenient relief, judicial efficiency, substantive social policies
Exceptions
- Fraud or force used to bring defendant into forum defeats jurisdiction
- Immunity: witnesses and parties attending litigation in another state may have limited immunity from service
- Federal long-arm (Rule 4(k)(2)): for federal claims, defendant has contacts with U.S. as a whole but not any single state — national contacts aggregated
Policy
- Protects defendants from being haled into distant, inconvenient forums
- Ensures states exercise judicial power only over those with meaningful connections to the forum
- Balances plaintiff’s interest in suing where convenient with defendant’s liberty interest
Key Cases
- Pennoyer v. Neff — established territorial basis; physical power theory; later limited
- International Shoe v. Washington — “minimum contacts” replaces strict territoriality; “fair play and substantial justice”
- World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson — unilateral acts of plaintiff cannot create contacts; foreseeability insufficient alone
- Burger King v. Rudzewicz — contract + course of dealing can establish purposeful availment; reasonableness factors
- Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court — stream of commerce split (O’Connor: intent to serve forum; Brennan: mere awareness sufficient); no jurisdiction over foreign D here
- J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro — plurality: targeted forum is required; stream of commerce theory rejected by plurality
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown — general jurisdiction requires being “at home”; mere stream of commerce insufficient
- Daimler AG v. Bauman — general jurisdiction for corporations limited to state of incorporation and principal place of business