Get these flashcards, study & pass exams. For free! Even on iPhone/Android!

Minimum contacts

DE Corporation w/ PPB in MO that has “independent agents” in WA – can be sued in WA?

H - Rather than looking at Pennoyer’s conception of presence, due process requires that if he isn’t present in the forum, must have certain MINIMUM CONTACTS w/ the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend the “traditional notice of fair play and substantial justice”

Notes:
How do you determine if there are MINIMUM CONTACTS?
(1) Systematic & continuous activities in forum state
(2) Volume of business/activity in forum state
(3) Benefits and protections of forum state
(4) Claim arising out of those systematic & continuous activities

P has life ins. policy w/ D and P committed suicide; D bought by TX company which asked P by mail if wanted to keep policy; CA had statute which made corporations subject to suit in CA on insurance contracts

H - A single act can constitute minimum contacts as long as case is from those contacts if state has interest

Notes:

ADDS A FIFTH FACTOR:  state interest in adjudication of disputes

Water heater mfctr in PA.  Exploded and injured person in Illinois.  She sued heater maker, and Titan, maker of valves, in Ohio.

H - stream of commerce theory: if commercial actor puts its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be marketed in the forum, it may be sued in the forum for injuries resulting there.

Complicated case - but basically, purposeful availment (not unilateral activity).

Bought a car in NY.  Moved to Arizona.  While passing through OK, in a car accident.  Brought products liability action in OK.

H - no minimum contacts.  Stream of commerce not sufficient - didn't sell cars in OK or solicit business there.  Must have purposeful availment; i.e., reasonably foresee you could be sued there.

Also, reasonability of jdx: burden on D, interests of P, state’s interest, several state’s interest

P injured by exploding Buckeye boiler in CA.  Buckeye sells lots of boilers in CA, but it was clear this one hadn't been sold in CA and nobody knew how it got there.  However, jdx still applied. 

H - sufficiency of economic activity in CA, it should've known it could be haled in ct there.

National Enquirer published story about P, an entertainer who lives in CA that alleged unseemly activities by P
U
pheld jdx b/c w/ libelous stories – it is reasonable that where the Π lives is where the impact of the case is
H - CA is focal point of THE ACT and THE HARM, jdx is proper b/c “effects” are felt in CA

Notes:
*With LIBEL CASES, court will typically look to where the P lives and is affected by the libel b/c most of the harm would impact the P…it is reasonable for the D to foresee that its libelous conduct would impact the P wherever they are**

Effects test controversial, not just limited to defamation

P sued Hustler in OH, where they were incorporated.  Dismissed, statute of limitations.  She found the only state where statute hadn't run, NJ, and sued there.  B/c paper distributed 10-15,000 copies of its magazine there, jdx upheld, even though P had no contacts there.

Notes:

state's interest were in its residents not being misled about woman who was libeled.

Note, in Gordy v. Daily News, 15-18 copies circulated in CA were enough, b/c P lived in CA.

Indy Colts sued for trademark violation of Baltimore people in Indiana.  Upheld b/c effects of the trademark violation were felt in IN.

Purposeful availment + reasonableness

BK wants to sue in FL against franchisees who live in MI – have choice of law clause (all of our Ks will be governed by FL law), but no forum selection clause – FL is proper jdx

Has there been purposeful availment?  (franchisees availed selves to benefits/protections of FL law)

Did the D enter into a long-term relationship w/ the forum state?  Like through a K? yes, D reached out to forum by signing franchise K

Was the D put on adequate notice that could be subject to suit in forum state?
o Purposeful availment gives Ds fair warning that a particular activity may subject them to jdx in a foreign state
o Even if there IS purposeful availment, does it pass the REASONABLENESS test – would assertion of pjdx comport w/ “fair play and substantial justice”?
1 - Burden on Δ to defend in forum
2 - Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
3 - P’s interest in obtaining convenient & effective relief – burden on P to go elsewhere
4 - Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of the controversy
5 - Shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies
o Claims related to the forum contacts that satisfy the purposeful availment requirement = specific jdx

Stream of Commerce PLUS

P sues Cheng who has 3rd party against Asahi – P settles, so Cheng and Asahi are fighting for contribution

D must purposefully avail actions toward forum state & have substantial connection

What is purposeful availment?  Sandra Day says:  stream of commerce + purposeful conduct for targeting the state - Look at Four Factors:
• Designing the product for the market in the forum state
• Advertising in the forum
• Channels to customers
• Marketing through a distributor

FIVE (majority) justices say stream of commerce is enough -
• Brennan:  benefiting economically from retail sales of product in the forum state – regular and anticipated flow of products from manufacturer to distributor to sale
• Stevens:  meeting first prong of WWVW of purposeful availment is determined by volume, value, and hazardous character of product

o All justices say need to meet reasonableness

Well-pleaded complaint: can't anticipate federal question in the answer.

Train case, denied use of train tickets 4 life which they got in a previous post-accident settlement b/c of new federal law.  Not allowed to anticipate the "b/c of new federal law" answer and try to bring in fed ct.