8/10/2019 PJ Exam Approach

1/2

PJ:Issue is if (State) Fed CT has PJ over D. 3 kinds of PJ: in personum, in remwhen D owned

property in state and quasi in remwhen D owns property but is not disputed Penoyer. If in

rem/quasi, PJ satisfied. Ct will need to find in personum jdx over D. Whether there is PJ is a two-

step analysis: 1)there is long-arm statute conferring jdx & 2) within Const bounds, not abridging

Ds right to Due Process. STATUTE: most states allow PJ in variety of contexts, such as PJover Ds who: 1)served with process in state, 2) domiciled in state, 3) commit tortuous act, enter

K, conduct business in state, or 4) otherwise consent. Under FRCP 4(k)(1)(A),fed ct use long-

arm statute. CONST:Next question is whether its within Const bound, satisfying Due Process

Clause to assert jdx over. Answer this by using minimum contacts test of Intl Shoe, which states

Due Process requiresonly that in order to subject D to judgment in personum, if he be not

present within territory of forum, he have certain min. contacts with it such that maintenance of

suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. If D did not purpose.

avail himself of laws/benefits of forum state, there is no PJ. Regardless, we still ask if D had

such minimum contacts with forum so that exercise of jdx satisfies Due Process. (Intl Shoe).

Two-step analysis includes: 1)sovereignty prong and 2)fairness prong. CONTACT: Where

contacts are continuous/systematic and give rise to COA, PJ typically found. Where contacts are

sporadic/casual and do not give rise to COA, PJ is not found. Where contacts are continuous and

systematic, but do not give rise to COA, general jdx, as opposed to specific jdx, and hurdle of

continuous/systematic contacts increases greatly, as they must also be substantialcontacts.

These quadrant-based tests determines first prong, known as sovereignty prong, based on nature

of COA. Courts ultimately ask, does COA arise out of OR significantly relate to contacts with

state? (Apply facts-are contacts sporadic and casual? If not: are contacts with forum systematic

and continuous?) If no: contacts not deemed minimum because systematic and continuous

contacts are needed where claim does not relate to Ds contacts with forum state. (Perkins). if yes

to COA ?: Contact resulting from Ds actions purposeful avails D privileges of conducting

activities within forum, thus evoking benefits and protections of its laws. (Hanson) Contacts are

also based on foreseeability, where D could reasonably anticipate being haled to Ct. in forum.

Purposeful availment has been treated differently for different cases (chose one of TESTS). IN

THIS CASE BK CONTRACT:purposeful availment through contracts satisfied by: 1) prior

negotiations, 2) contemplated future consequences, 3) actual course of dealing, 4) terms and

choice of law provisions. (APPLY). Fairness is satisfied by measuring: 1) burden on D, 2) forum

states interest in adjudicating dispute, 3) Ps interest, 4) interstate judicial systems interest

(efficiency-witnesses, location), and 5) shared interests of several states. (APPLY). If first prong

is satisfied, D must provide compelling argument that it was unreasonable. Herelike BKthere

was long K with forum clause and it was foreseeable that they would be haled to Ct in forum.

ThereforeASAHI S.O.C.: Cts use this analysis when dealing with products. Productcan

8/10/2019 PJ Exam Approach

2/2

either be: 1)manuf. product, made component of other product, sold again make other products

or 2)manufact. finished product, is sold to distributor, which sold to retailer. (APPLY). For SOC

related cases, Cts split as to what standard to use for sovereignty prong, which are: SOC &

SOC+.SOC approach permits PJ over nonresident D that delivers its products into SOC with

expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in forum state. The foreseeability requiredin products liability context is not mere likelihood that product will find its way into forum state.

Rather, its that D's conduct and connection with forum state are such that he should reasonably

anticipate being haled into court there. (APPLY-argue both sides). The SOC+ approach permits

PJ when nonresident D sells large quantities of product in a State, even indirectly through SOC,

would support jdx in State, depending on nature/quantity of sales. Plus factors include: 1)office,

agents, employees/property in forum, 2) design product for forum state, 3)ads/soliciting in state,

4)selling product through distributor who acts as sales agent or 5 est. support channels for

customer advice in forum (APPLY). Therefore CALDER INTENTIONAL ACT: PJ exists

over D when there are: 1) intentional actions, 2) expressly aimed at the forum state and 3) causes

harm that the D knows is likely to be suffered to the forum state. Must individually target known

forum resident. Here..ThereforeZIPPO: PJ determined by whom initiates contact. Cts using

Zippoanalysis require intentional, forum specific targeting or express aiming at forum and/or

interactions via website w/ residents of forum. Factors targeting/aiming include:1) disclaimers

such website intended for limited geog use, 2)statements posted on website directed at residents

of limited region, 3)designing website so wont interact w/ users out of state, 4)forum-selection

agreements. Some interactions via website, also done by actual residents in forum, such as:

search website, access customer service, ordering, track orders. Interactions analyzed using

sliding scale: PJ for active website-D clearly has business Ks with foreign residents,

know/repeating transmissions. Gray areainteractivewebsite where D exchanges info w/ host

computers, based on level of interactivity/commercial nature of exchange, place orders on site,

post comments. No PJ passive websitesD has simple posts of info and is accessible to those

interested. Based on facts, is/is not PJ. (APPLY) Cybersquatting factors determ if ownership of

domain name (DN) expressly aimed at P: 1)if registrant has preexist, legit use of DN, 2)

likelihood confusion created by DN as to control of domain, 3)if registrant register DN incorp

other protected marks, 4)if trademark owner been directly solicited to purchase DN, 5)if DN

offered for sale by current registrant, if so, $? FAIRNESS. Assuming the appropriate

sovereignty prong has been satisfied, cts next look at the fairness prong, which includes: 1)

Actual burden of the D defending the forum, 2) Interest of the forum state in the case, 3)

Plaintiffs interest in getting relief and 4) convenience - efficient resolution of controversies and

5) public policy reasons. (APPLY both sides).All factors considered, State CT likely be deemed

to have/not have PJ over D for this case, and under FRCP 4k1A.