Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

PERSONAL JURISDICTION ATTACK OUTLINE ISSUE: The issue is whether the court has personal jurisdiction over D.

CONCLUSION: No/Yes, the court does/doesnt have personal jurisdiction RULE: Personal Jurisdiction is two step process that tells us in what state P can sue D. Step 1: First we will look at the statutory step. FRCP 4K1a helps inform our decision and brings us to the state statute. RULE: -Takes us to state civil code/statute -State is a enumerated acts/or const max state -if enumerated acts give specific act and then apply facts -if constitutional max go straight to constitutional step APPLY FACTS Step 2: Second, we will look at the constitutional step, we need to see if the exercise of PJ over D is consistent with the 14th amendment, due process clause. RULE: -See if one of the four traditional basis apply, if so you have establish PJ -If not, move on to minimum contacts Step 3: Establishing minimum contacts meets two goals laid out in International Shoe: 1) to avoid unfair conveniences for the D, and 2) maintaining the system of co-equal sovereignty among states this is a two step process Step 1- Sovereignty step that is on the P to prove that D purposefully established contacts with the forum. -what are D contacts? - continuous/ isolated? -purposeful availment-foreeseeable to be drawn into court? -SOC -contacts related? -D benefit from contacts? APPLY FACTS: The contacts are continuous and systematic because they did this..and this do not have to include every fact again! but be sure to mention EACH CONTACT w specificity Once P had proved D has establish the amount and relatedness of contacts, must decide if minimum contacts such that maintanence of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice Step 2 Fairplay/substantial justice: In order for D to make a compelling case, D must establish: RULE: To show jurisdiction is unfair, D must show that defending the case is so gravely difficult and inconvenient that you are at a severe disadvantage in the litigation. -D convenience/burden (this alone will not violate PJ) -location of witness and evidence -forum state interest -what are P interest in forum? -shared interest of several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies -judicial system interest in efficient resolutions in controversy APPLY FACTS: Do not have to state every one again- just say it would be easy/hard for D to make a compelling case because they live close, P have more of interest, etc