Agenda for 29th Class

1. Agenda for 29th Class • Admin • Handouts – slides • Friday April 18 class rescheduled to 1:15-2:30 in Rm.101 (still April 18) • Review of Choice of Law • Personal Jurisdiction: • International Shoe • General and Specific Jurisdiction • Challenging jurisdiction • McGee; Hanson v Denkla • Next Class • Questions on next page

2. Next Class Yeazell, 103-112 Questions to think about / Writing assignment Briefly summarize World Wide Volkswagen Yeazell pp. 109ff 1c, 4e Did the plaintiffs in World-Wide Volkswagen sue in federal or state court? How can you tell from the opinion itself (not Yeazell’s notes)? What is a writ of prohibition? Why did the defendants seek one? Who is Woodson? How did he get in the case? There were four defendants in the original action. Which of them challenged jurisdiction? What if anything, did the U.S. Supreme Court decide about jurisdiction over each of the four defendants. If there were some defendants for whom the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on personal jurisdiction, how would you argue that the trial court had jurisdiction over them? How would you argue that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over them? Would the case have come out differently if the Robinsons had gotten into an accident in New Jersey and sued in a New Jersey court, but the facts were otherwise the same? Question on next page 2

3. Next Class (continued) Questions to think about / Writing assignment (continued) Suppose the Robinsons had purchased their Audi in California from Pacific Audi in Torrance, had gotten into an accident in California, and sued Audi, Volkswagen of America, Pacific Volkswagen (the regional distributor, based in Nevada) and Pacific Audi in a California court. Would the California court have jurisdiction over all, some, or none of the defendants? Note that there is a passage in the opinion which directly addresses this question. Is it dicta? 3

4. Last Class -- Choice of Law • Traditional rules • Restatement (Second) • Find all states with contacts with dispute • Analyze the contacts • What policies lie behind each state’s laws? How would they be affected if another state’s laws applied to the dispute • Choose state with most significant relationship • E.g. whose policies are most strongly implicated • Often indeterminate • Laws have many policies, hard to know which strongest • Possible biases • Bias toward applying forum law • Judge likely to think her own state’s policies are important and impaired if other state’s laws are applied • Bias toward plaintiff -- Judge likely to choose law that favors plaintiff • Bias toward resident - Judge like to choose law that favors in-state resident

5. Personal Jurisdiction • Answers question: Court in which state? • Need statutory or rule authority & statute or rule must be constitutional • Federal rule: FRCP 4(k)(1)(A) • State long-arm statutes • Constitutional constraint: Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment • Unfair to have to litigate in courts of state with no legitimate authority over defendant or dispute • Odd mixture of sovereignty, federalism, and fairness concerns • Before International Shoe • In personam: • Defendant was citizen or resident of forum state • Defendant was present in forum state • Defendant consented to jurisdiction • In rem: Disputes about property, jurisdiction where property is • Quasi in rem: Dispute not about property, jurisdiction where defendant owns property, but only up to value of that property

6. Questions on International Shoe Briefly summarize International Shoe If the Supreme Court had not decided to change the rules in International Shoe, would jurisdiction have been proper under the prior rules? If your answer is “yes,” why do you think the Supreme Court changed the rules? If you answer is “no,” why was the outcome under the new rules better? Yeazell pp. 86ff. Qs 1b, 3 6

7. General and Specific Jurisdiction General jurisdiction Court which has general jurisdiction over a defendant can hear any case against the defendant Even if case has nothing to do with forum Bases for general jurisdiction Continuous and systematic contacts (International Shoe) Individuals. Citizenship, residence, presence, quasi-in-rem (but no longer constitutional) Corporations: Where “at home”. Goodyear v Dunlop (2011), Daimler (2014) Clearly yes: where incorporated, where headquartered Maybe. where have (large) factory or office and/or (lots of) employees and/or where conduct lots of business Do not confuse with “court of general jurisdiction” 4(k)(1)(A) Do not confuse with citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction Specific jurisdiction Jurisdiction only over cases related to contacts (International Shoe) Most cases we will read for class In rem can be thought of as specific jurisdiction Consent can also be thought of as specific jurisdiction 7

8. 2 Ways to Challenge Jurisdiction In court where sued Make 12(b)(2) motion or state equivalent “Special appearance” means defendant appears in court solely to challenge jurisdiction Otherwise, appearance in court could be construed as consent to jurisdiction Collateral attack Only possible where defendant does not have assets in forum So plaintiff would have to enforce judgment in state where defendant has assets Enforcing judgment in another state requires separate suit in that state But Full Faith & Credit Clause of US Constitution requires state to respect judgment of another state, IF THE STATE WHICH RENDERED THE JUDGMENT HAD JURISDICTION Defendant does not appear in court where sued Default judgment is entered against defendant When plaintiff goes to enforce judgment in state where defendant has assets, defendant raises lack of personal jurisdiction as defense Very risky, because if enforcing court decides the original court had jurisdiction, defendant cannot then challenge judgment on merits 8

9. McGee; Hanson McGee v International Life (1957). Yeazell p. 89. Franklin (CA resident) purchased life insurance by mail from out-of-state insurer. He died, and insurer refused to pay. Beneficiaries sued insurer in California. Held: California courts can constitutionally exert jurisdiction, because contract “was delivered in California, the premiums were mailed from there and the insured was a resident of that State when he died.” Hanson v Denkla (1958). Yeazell p. 90 Mrs. Donner (PA resident) created a trust in Delaware, with a Delaware bank as trustee. Later she moved to Florida. After she died, potential beneficiaries filed suit in Florida over the administration of the trust Held. Florida courts cannot constitutional exert jurisdiction because: Defendant “has no office in Florida and transacts no business there… no solicitation of business in that State either in person or by mail.” “The unilateral activity of [Mrs. Donner] … cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state.” For jurisdiction, defendant must “purposefully avail[] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws.” Key for later cases is “purposeful availment” requirements Contacts only count if voluntarily made by defendant 9