In personam jurisdiction

PERSONAL JURISDICTION
in personam jurisdiction refers to the course ability to exercise power over particular defendant. Traditionally in personam jurisdiction
is based on where the party is domiciled, presence in the state when served, and consent. Here the defendant lives in state X and thus
is not domiciled in state Y, the forum state. Additionally, he was not served in the state nor did he consent to in personam jurisdiction.
Thus, no traditional basis for in personam jurisdiction exists.
LONG ARM STATUTE
since no traditional basis exists, the plaintiff must look to see if the state has a long arm statute that would allow in personam
jurisdiction over the defendant. A long arm statute gives the court in personam jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Californias
long arm statute gives courts the power over any person over whom the state can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction. Here
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS
even if the state statute arguably grants the state court I P.J. over the defendant, such exercise must still be constitutional. To be
constitutional, there must be sufficient contacts with the forum state so as not to offend the traditional motions of fair play and
substantial justice.
Minimum contacts
minimum contacts require a showing of purposeful availment and foreseeability
purposeful availment
the courts must find that defendant purposefully availed herself of the privilege of conduct in activities in the form state thus invoking
the benefits and protections of its loss. Here
Foreseeability
the defendant also must have known or reasonably anticipated that her activities in the form rendered it foreseeable that she may be
sued in that court. Here
Relatedness of the claim to the contact
the claim must arise from the defendants contacts with the forum. This requires a showing of either specific or general jurisdiction
specific jurisdiction
the claim must relate to defendants contacts with the form. Here Specific facts that support this element
general jurisdiction
where there is no specific jurisdiction, the court will look to see if the defendant had systematic and continuous activity in the form
state such that the defendant is essentially at home in the form. Here Insert analysis
Fairness
the court in determining whether exercising in personam jurisdiction over the defendants fair will look at convenience to the
defendant the states interest and other factors.
Convenience
A forum is constitutionally acceptable unless it is so gravely difficult and inconvenient that the defendant is put at a severe
disadvantage. Here Insert analysis
states interest
the forum state may have a legitimate interest in providing redress for its residents. Here Insert analysis
other factors
other factors include the plaintiffs interest, the judicial systems interest, and shared interests of the states. Here Insert analysis

In conclusion, the factors more strongly support a finding that in personam jurisdiction exists over the defendant and thus the courts
ruling to deny the defendants motion just to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was proper.



Personal Jurisdiction
I P.J. refers to the courts ability to exercise power over a particular defendant. Traditionally I P.J. is based on where the party is
domiciled, presence in state when served, and consent. Here the defendant lives in state X and thus is not domiciled in state Y, the
form state. Additionally he was not served in the state nor did he consent to I P.J. Thus no traditional basis for I P.J. exists.
Long arm statute
since no traditional basis exists plaintiff must look to see if the state has a long arm statute that would allow I P.J. over the defendant.
A long arm statute gives the court I P.J. over an out-of-state defendant. Californias long arm statute gives courts the power over any
person over whom the state can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction.
Constitutional limits
even if the statute arguably grants this date court I P.J. over the defendant, such exercise must still be constitutional. To be
constitutional there must be sufficient contacts with the form state so as not to offend the traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.

Minimum contacts minimum contacts require a showing of purposeful availment and foreseeability. The courts must find that that
the defendant purposefully availed herself of the privilege of conduct and activities in the form state thus invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws. The defendant must also have known or reasonably anticipated that her activities in the forum rendered it
foreseeable that she may be sued in that court.
Relatedness of the claim to the contact the claim must arise from the defendants contact with the forum. This requires a showing of
either specific or general jurisdiction. For specific jurisdiction the claim must relate to the defendants contacts with the forum. For
general jurisdiction where there is no specific jurisdiction the court will look to see if the defendant had systematic and continuous
activity in the forum state such that the defendant is essentially at home in the forum.
Fairness in determining whether to exercise I P.J. over the defendant the court will look at the convenience to the defendant, the
states interest, and other factors.
Convenience a form is constitutionally acceptable unless it is so gravely difficult and inconvenient that the defendant is put in a
severe disadvantage. States interest the form state may have a legitimate interest in providing redress for its residents. Other factors
include the plaintiffs interest, the judicial systems interest, and shared interests of the states.