Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

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 states long arm statue provide for jurisdiction over D? Gray, W


The forum state cannot e#ercise p.j. over D

$s any of the followin% true? -D is domiciled in forum state &or is corp incorporated state' -D has consented -D owns property ( is su)ject -D re%ularly transacts )usiness in state


There is VALID p.j.

"o *t least some of Ds contacts with the forum state voluntarily? !es Does the cause of action arise out of or relate to Ds contact !es


D lac+s minimum contacts with the forum and no p.j. , need purposeful availment - -anson /ontacts not minimum and no p.j.


*re Ds contacts "o with the forum state .systematic and !es "o

*re Ds contacts with the state sufficiently %reat that they should )e deemed minimum contacts? - reasona)ly anticipate be haled into court (VW 0cGee , p.j. , o)li%ation, premiums from /* residents, witness -anson , no p.j. )1c lac+ office in 23, )usiness, creation of trust in 4* Gray , p.j. - product .w1 contemplation of use in state5 , tort in state W , no p.j. - car )ou%ht in "! as "! residents ( 4 )rou%ht to state 6ul+o , no p.j. - sent +ids to live w1 mom in state 6eeton , p.j. , suit related to ma%a7ine distri)ution, interest in li)el /alder , p.j. , )runt of harm directed towards state w1 distri)ution Bur%er , p.j. , lon% term 6, foreseea)le injury, choice of law was state *sahi , no p.j. , no a%ree, )ut stream, volume, dan%er, value !es 8urisdiction reasonable, comport with traditional notions of fair play?
&a' &)' &c' &d' Burden of D &inconvenient liti%ation' 2orum state interest $nterstate judicial efficiency 9u)stantive social policies

D lac!s minimum contacts with the forum and the forum therefore cant e#ercise p.j. over


:ven thou%h D has minimum contacts with due process prevents the e#ercise of p.j. *sahi , not reasona)le even
for Brennan

"he court may constitutionally e#ercise p$%$ over D


Determining Diversity
Cannot be waived!!
Does at least one side consist solely of foreign countries or citi7ens of forei%n countries? "o Alienage %urisdiction , $s the suit )etween a citi7en of a state on one side, and a forei%n country or citi7ens or su)jects !es
<=>>? , permanent aliens citi7ens of domicile


$s a corporation a "o


i.e. only forei%ners

$s an unincorporated !es entity a party? "o $s diversity complete? "o 4 is a citi7en of the same state as any D. 9traw)rid%e, 0as

The is *+ diversity jurisdiction

2or diversity purposes, a corp. is deemed to )e a citi7en of; &$ 'tate of Incorporation ($ )rincipal )lace of 2or diversity purposes, an unincorporated entity is deemed to )e a citi7en of every state 1here members are citi6ens. /ontinue analysis



!es There I' diversity jurisdiction.

Does the amount in controversy e#ceed ,-./000 as made in %ood faith )y 4? 0as <=>>?&a'

There is *+ "o diversity jurisdiction "o There is *+ diversity jurisdiction

+ther 1ay to get 'ub%ect 2atter 3urisdiction 4ederal 5uestion 3urisdiction


-<=>>= , .actions arisin% under the /onstitution, @federalA laws5 -no amount in controversy reBuirement -0ottley - must )e .Well pleaded complaint5 -must )e a federal claim )y 4 not a defense )y D

-4s choice where to file, )ut D remove state to fed -D cant remove if case filed in Ds state of residence -removal statute narrower than diversity statute =. ) could file in fed court - )ut filed in state <=CC=&a' -exception; <=CC=&)'