Michelle Buckley

Kory Kaplan
Stephen Lin
Brian Mosley
Robby Uppal

1. Probably, yes. Royal Shell’s contacts with the state of NY

satisfy the requirements of NY’s long-arm statute. In order to
assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident the action must first
fall under the state’s long-arm statute and also under the federal
constitutional requirements. This New York Statute echo’s the
federal requirements that the action must either be related to the
companies contact with the state, or the state must have “a fair
measure of permanence and continuity” in the state. While the
state’s long arm statutes are separate from the federal due process
requirement of minimum contacts, they usually follow similar
criteria. Here the action in Nigeria did not directly relate or arise
out of the corporations contacts with the state so the action is not
allowed under (1) of the statute. However, the corporation does
have both permanence and continuity within the state and so the
action, although unrelated to Shell’s contact with the state, should
still be eligible under (2) of the statute. Royal Shell lists its shares
on the NYSE, maintains a bank account in NY, has participated in
at least one lawsuit in NY, and most importantly has an Investor
Relations Office that has an employee who mails information
about Royal Shell to others throughout the U.S. and even organizes
meetings for investors and company officials. All of Royal Shell’s
contacts with NY show that the corporation has purposefully
availed itself of the benefits of the state and thus renders NY
proper in exercising its long-arm statute.

2. Probably, no. Under the U.S. Constitution to exercise specific

jurisdiction, there must be 1) activity or transaction with forum or
resident thereof 2) activity arising out of or related to the forum-
related activities, and 3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be
reasonable. In Helicopteros, the helicopter crash did not “arise out
of” contacts with the state of Texas, even though they had many
contacts with the forum state. Similarly to Helicopteros, Royal
Shell has many contacts with NY but the cause of action is
unrelated and does not arise out of them. Thus, specific
jurisdiction over Royal Shell is not proper.

3. Probably, yes. Under the U.S. Constitution a court can assert

general jurisdiction when a company has continuous and
systematic business contacts in the forum state. International Shoe
held that a nonresident’s conduct of continuous, systematic, and
substantial business in the forum would also subject that defendant
to general jurisdiction, which is authorized by long-arm statutes,
over any claim, regardless of where it arose. Similar to
International Shoe, Royal Shell maintains continuous contacts with
the state of NY including a year-round employee who manages its
Investor Relations Office. Therefore, it would be proper for a NY
court to assert general jurisdiction over Royal Shell.

4. Probably yes. If the New York statute is not applicable, the

court could still assert jurisdiction of Royal Shell by personal
service pursuant to Fed. Rules Civ. Pro. Rule 4(h). Rule 4 (h)
states that a corporation is subject to jurisdiction if a copy is
delivered to an officer, employee, or any other agent authorized by
appointment or by law. This rule establishes personal jurisdiction
solely by means of personal service of summons. In Mullane v.
Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., the Court acknowledges,
“Personal service of written notice within the jurisdiction is the
classic form of notice [and is] always adequate in any type of
proceeding.” Royal Shell maintains an Investor Relations Office in
New York City with a permanent employee and keeps local
counsel in the forum state. If either of these agents is authorized to
receive process than Royal Shell will be subject to personal
jurisdiction.
5. In this situation the Court should deny Royal Shell’s motion to
dismiss because they have already filed an Answer and Counter-
Claim thereby consenting to personal jurisdiction. Rule 12(h)(1)
of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a motion asserting a
defense of lack of personal jurisdiction must be made before
pleading if responsive pleading is allowed. Royal Shell would have
had to assert the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in their
original Answer to comport with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. However, if Royal Shell files the motion claiming lack
of personal jurisdiction within 21 days of the answer it will be
accepted by the Court. Even after the 21 day deadline, the motion
may still be admitted with the opposing parties written consents, or
the courts leave, which should be freely given when justice
requires. In this case justice would not require that Royal Shell be
allowed to contest personal jurisdiction simply because they were
unhappy with the change in judges, so if they did not file within 21
days, the motion should be barred.

6. Probably, no. Van der Veer’s motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction should not be granted. The actual physical presence of
an individual in the state at the time of service has always been
sufficient to establish jurisdiction. This "tag jurisdiction" has been
a cornerstone of the American justice system and was affirmed by
the Supreme Court in Burnham v. Superior Court. In Burnham,
the Court found a New Jersey resident was subject to personal
jurisdiction in California when he was served with a Summons and
Complaint after visiting his children in the forum state. In this
matter, Van der Veer was served while in New York visiting his
daughter. It is irrelevant that Van der Veer tore up and threw away
the Summons and Complaint. Van der Veer has been given notice,
which is required by due process and therefore subject to personal
jurisdiction.