Personal Jurisdiction

MBEMax wiki article — paired with the Civil Procedure question set on mbemax.com.

One-line summary

A court has power over a defendant only if a statute (usually a long-arm) authorizes jurisdiction AND the exercise satisfies constitutional due process.

Mnemonic

S-M-T-C — Statute (long-arm) + Minimum contacts + Targeting (purposeful availment) + Constitutional fairness.

Think "Shoes, Mattel, Target, Calder" — four Supreme Court contacts cases whose names spell the test.

The rule (plain-language)

Personal jurisdiction has two gates. First, a state statute (long-arm) must authorize the court to reach the defendant. Second, the Due Process Clause must be satisfied: the defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Elements you must hit

1. Statutory authority — usually a long-arm statute; some states go to the constitutional limit.
2. Traditional bases (automatic) — domicile, presence + service in forum (Burnham), consent, express waiver, or the defendant appears and litigates the merits without objecting.
3. Minimum contacts (if no traditional basis) — defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the forum so that suit there is reasonably foreseeable.
4. Relatedness — for specific jurisdiction, the claim must arise out of or relate to the contacts (Ford). For general jurisdiction, the defendant must be "at home" in the forum.
5. Fairness — the exercise must not offend due process given burden on defendant, forum state's interest, plaintiff's interest in convenient relief, interstate efficiency, and shared substantive policies.

NCBE loves to test

• General vs. specific jurisdiction. General = at home. Individuals: domicile. Corporations: state of incorporation + principal place of business (Daimler). Specific = claim arises out of defendant's forum contacts.
• Purposeful availment vs. mere foreseeability. Selling a product that ends up in the forum via the stream of commerce is not automatically enough (Asahi, J. McIntyre). Something more — targeting, advertising, distribution network, local agents — is needed.
• Effects test (Calder). Intentional tortious conduct expressly aimed at the forum, causing harm the defendant knew would be felt there, supplies minimum contacts (defamation, fraud).
• Internet contacts. Sliding-scale (Zippo): passive websites rarely suffice; interactive and targeted commerce does. Modern courts emphasize targeting.
• Consent by forum-selection clause. Enforceable unless unreasonable or unjust (Bremen, Carnival Cruise).
• Service under Rule 4. Federal courts borrow the host state's rules or serve a defendant with minimum contacts under the federal rule. Rule 4(k)(1)(A) = state long-arm. Rule 4(k)(2) = federal-question, not subject to any state, aggregate U.S. contacts satisfy due process.

Fast hypos

Hypo 1. A California plaintiff sues a New York defendant in California for an accident that occurred entirely in Ohio. Defendant has never visited California. No specific jurisdiction (claim doesn't arise from California contacts); no general jurisdiction (not at home).

Hypo 2. Nevada plaintiff sues a tabloid writer in Nevada for a defamatory article written in Florida about the Nevada plaintiff's Nevada business. Writer targeted Nevada readers. Calder effects test satisfied — specific jurisdiction.

Hypo 3. A Michigan plaintiff injured in Michigan by a Ford sold used in Michigan sues Ford in Michigan. Ford argues the specific car was first sold in another state. Jurisdiction proper (Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist.) — "relate to" is satisfied when defendant markets the same product in the forum.

Hypo 4. Defendant is served with process during a two-hour layover in the forum airport. Transient presence is a traditional basis (Burnham) — jurisdiction.

Case anchors

• International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) — minimum contacts framework.
• World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) — purposeful availment, foreseeability.
• Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) — contractual dealings + reasonableness prongs.
• Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) — intentional-effects test.
• Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) — at-home standard for general jurisdiction.
• Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) — corporation at home only where incorporated or PPB.
• Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604 (1990) — transient presence still a traditional basis.
• J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011) — stream of commerce plus targeting.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 592 U.S. 351 (2021) — "arise out of or relate to" includes product-marketing contacts.
• Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court, 582 U.S. 255 (2017) — no claim-by-claim specific jurisdiction for non-forum plaintiffs.

See also

• Subject-Matter Jurisdiction — Federal Question
• Subject-Matter Jurisdiction — Diversity
• Venue
• Service and Rule 4

Sources

U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, 12(b)(2); International Shoe, 326 U.S. 310 (1945); World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. 286 (1980); Burger King, 471 U.S. 462 (1985); Daimler, 571 U.S. 117 (2014); Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. 351 (2021); Bristol-Myers Squibb, 582 U.S. 255 (2017); Calder, 465 U.S. 783 (1984); Burnham, 495 U.S. 604 (1990).