Personal Jurisdiction

Question: Is there personal jurisdiction in this case? A man who lives in Michigan is in Florida on business. His wife, who has just moved to Florida, gets the court to serve him divorce papers while he is down there. If he objects to the court on the basis that the Florida court does not have personal jurisdiction over him, could he win?

Answer: I say no. Under the Burger King v. Rudzewicz case, the defendant has no domicile in Florida and his contacts with Florida seem to consist only of a single trip there for business, which does not sound like "purposeful availment" of the laws of Florida. Note that Burger King v. Rudzewicz involved a Michigan franchisee of Burger King, which was based in Florida. However, in that case, the Michigan franchisee was found to be a "sophisticated businessman" who had engaged in protracted negotiations with the Florida-based franchisor and who contemplated a lengthy future business relationship with the Florida business. This case lacks that feature.

Question: If I filed a case of defamation in Michigan against a reporter from New York is there personal jurisdiction? I live in Michigan and a reporter wrote a false statement about me. The reporter is from New York, so does Michigan court have personal jurisdiction over him, if i file the case in Michigan?

Answer: sounds complicated but i believe in this case the defamation is out of jurisdiction. i would still go to your local court house and get more information.

Question: In this case, would NJ have personal jurisdiction over a company based in CT? If a NJ resident bought an item from a CT-based company whose principle place of business is in New England, and that item injured the NJ resident in NJ, does NJ have personal jurisdiction over the CT-based company? How and why?

Answer: a person can sue a person (or a corporation in this sense of the word) in either the plaintiff or the defendant's place of residence, but not both.

Question: Can a state assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident? The state wants to condemn a building. The owner of the building lives outside of the state. The state posts notice of condemnation on the building and serves the tenants of the building with process. Is this sufficient service of process and notice to the out of state owner of the building? Thus can the state assert jurisdiction over the property if it does not personally serve the landowner with process?

Answer: What you have described is not constitutionally sufficient service of process. Posting notice on the building, without more, is never sufficient. However, I am sure the state did more than that, because the state's lawyers aren't dumb enough to try to get away with just posting notice on the building. They have to make reasonable efforts to locate the owner and then serve the owner by whatever means are sufficient to make certain he/she gets the notice. This shouldn't be hard to do, because the owner's address should be in the property tax records -- the tax collector has to send the property tax bill to someone. If, for any reason, they cannot locate the owner after diligent efforts, the various jurisdictions have different rules. Typically, the state must (1) publish notice of the condemnation in the newspaper; (2) send a letter notifying the owner of the action at his/her last known address; and (3) post notice on the building. Whether the state can take over the property without serving the landowner with process depends on local law and the circumstances. If there is an emergency, the state can immediately take possession of any real property and contact the owner later. In other circumstances, the answer is generally no -- the state cannot take title to, or possession of, the property without properly serving the owner.

Question: Which of the following is least likely to provide a basis for personal jurisdiction over the defendent? A. Place where defendent committed the tort that's the subject of the lawsuit. B. Plaintiff's state of residence C. Location of contract negotiations at issue in the lawsuit. D. Residence of the defendent.

Answer: C. Im just guessing I dont really know

Question: What does this mean?ORDER OF RESPONENT TO DIMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION? This is what my attorney just filed in the Florida court system. Does anyone have a clear understanding of this motion?

Answer: A Motion is when you ask the Judge to order something. An order is what a Judge says he is going to make happen. So, when you say Order of Respondent... I think you have that off a little because Judges make orders, people only ask for Orders. Do you Mean, Motion of Respondent for Order to Dismiss? If you are the respondent (not the one who started the case but wants to get rid of it) then A Motion for An Order to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction would mean that your attorney wants the case thrown out because you -- the person -- have been sued or asked to show up (appear) in the wrong place. In many cases people can only be sued in a city where they live or work or where they caused an accident to happen or where they committed a crime. That is called Personal Jursidiction = the places where you can be asked to appear in court. For example, if you live in New York, in most cases you cant be sued in Hawaii and told to show up or risk losing a lawsuit, because Hawaii does not have "personal jurisdiction" over you, only New York does. Subject Matter Jurisdiction (what is at issue) is the other common type of Jurisdiction. For example, a Bankruptcy Court has Subject Matter Jurisdiction over bankrutpcy cases but not Divorce or Child Custody Cases. If someone asked a bankruptcy judge to order you to give up custody of your kids then an attorney would file a Motion for an Order to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

Question: Is advertising on the web alone enough to confer personal jurisdiction?

Answer: not in most cases

Question: Business Law and Personal Jurisdiction, Can anyone help me? What are some reasons that a website owner might be concerned with whether a court is able to obtain personal jurisdiction over them

Answer: When is a Web Page Creator Subject to a State's Jurisdiction? Creating and maintaining a Web page that is accessible from anywhere in the world poses new jurisdictional issues. In this 1999 article, Christopher Wolf, an attorney at a Washington D.C. law firm, explains the evolving law on jurisdiction on the Internet. The question is whether a court has personal jurisdiction of an individual just because the individual posts a Website. Mr. Wolf summarizes the law relating to that issue. Look at Mr. Wolf's article entitled "Internet Jurisdiction." below. Read all sections of the article including the conclusion. Answer the following questions: 1. Why is personal jurisdiction an issue for those who post Websites? 2. What are some reasons that a website owner might be concerned with whether a court is able to obtain 'personal jurisdiction' over them? 3. What is normally required for a court to have personal jurisdiction? 4. When is a Court required to use long-arm jurisdiction? 5 Why is long arm jurisdiction an issue for those who create or post Web pages? 6. According to the Wolf article, the courts have imposed an "interactive-passive" test of jurisdiction. Explain that distinction. 7. According to the Wolf article, is advertising on the Web alone enough to confer personal jurisdiction? Internet Jurisdiction The Internet is an interstate and international medium. But does operating a Web Site mean that the operator is subject to personal jurisdiction in courts wherever the Site is accessible? The answer obviously is no. This outline describes the types of activity that likely will permit a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over an Internet actor, consistent with the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Index The Evolving Test for Jurisdiction Interactive Use v. Passive Use The Middle Spectrum: Neither Interactive nor Passive Conclusion The Evolving Test for Jurisdiction Interactive Use v. Passive Use Although no bright-line test exists, most courts have applied an "interactive-passive" distinction when determining personal jurisdiction over someone operating a Web Site. Generally, courts have conferred personal jurisdiction in cases where "interactive" uses of the Internet have taken place within the state. Interactive contact encompasses two-way online communication which fosters an ongoing business relationship, while "passive" contacts are those that simply make information available to interested viewers. A Web Site can be characterized as interactive if business transactions can be conducted over the Internet or if information can be exchanged with users for the purpose of soliciting business. In making an "interactive vs. passive" determination, the greater the commercial nature and level of interactivity associated with the Site, the more likely it is that the Web Site operator is "purposefully availing itself" of the forum state's jurisdiction. Courts generally have declined to assert personal jurisdiction solely on the basis of Web Site advertising. However, courts have exercised jurisdiction over Web Site operation where additional and more active contacts with the forum took place, such as Internet sales to the forum residents, [1] conducting business in the forum state through numerous contacts, [2] or entering into specific dealings with forum residents. [3] In cases where the operator maintains a passive Web Site that merely makes information available for browsing, courts have been hesitant to exercise personal jurisdiction (finding an insufficient basis to assert jurisdiction where the defendant's Web Site simply posted the future availability of his services and never sought to contract with the residents of the forum state). The seminal case in this regard is Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King , 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1997). See, also, Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger , 1997 WL 97097 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). In Bensusan, a trademark infringement case brought by the Blue Note Club in New York against a similarly named club in Missouri, a federal court declined to assert personal jurisdiction in New York because the Web Site operator received no revenue from the forum state, did not advertise in the forum state, and did not even disseminate a telephone contact number to the residents of the forum states. The site only provided general information about shows and ticket sales and its Missouri location, but did not permit on-line purchases. [4] The result in Bensusan supports the principle that the simple creation of a general access Web Site, without more, is an insufficient basis to find "purposeful availment" directed towards a forum state as required by constitutional standards. Bensusan; International Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310 (1945); See also K.C.P.L., Inc. v. Nash , 1998 WL 823657 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (announcing the future availability of services on a Web Site will not subject a Web Site owner to personal jurisdiction absent a showing that the Web Site owner actually sold his products in the forum state) ; Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. , 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that "no court has ever held that an Internet advertisement alone is sufficient to subject the advertiser to jurisdiction in the plaintiff's home state.") The Middle Spectrum: Neither Interactive nor Passive One end of the spectrum of judicial decisions involves holdings that financially-motivated, interactive contacts with a foreign state will give rise to personal jurisdiction; the other end of the spectrum reflects holdings that a strictly passive, informational Web Site will not give grounds to assert jurisdiction. Many cases have fallen in the middle, being neither strictly interactive nor passive. These cases include situations where a defendant operates an informational Web Site, but also allows a user to exchange information with the host computer by providing an e-mail address, a toll-free telephone number or other forms of activity that would enable an ongoing relationship with the user to emerge or the opportunity to solicit business in the future. In these instances, courts have examined a variety of other factors in determining the level of interactivity and the commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web Site. For example, in Rannoch, Inc v. Rannoch Corporation , 52 F. Supp. 2d 681 (E.D. Va. 1999), even an interactive Web Site accessible in Virginia was an insufficient basis upon which to base personal jurisdiction where there was no evidence that the Internet activities were directed at Virginia and no evidence of actual use of the Web Site by Virginia residents. By contrast, in Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instructions Set, Inc. , 937 F. Supp. 161 (D. Conn. 1996), the only activity that the Web Site operator engaged in besides maintaining its Internet Site was providing a toll-free number on the Site. Although seemingly innocuous, the court perceived the toll-free number as an attempt to solicit business in the forum state and extended personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Similarly, in Heroes, Inc. v. Heros Foundation , the district court found that a charity organization purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the forum state by expressly soliciting donations and providing a toll-free number on its Internet Web Site. [5] And, in Minnesota v. Granite Gate Resorts , a criminal case, the court conferred jurisdiction based on the number of "hits" that a Web Site received, the number of different locations within the forum states that accessed the Web Site, and the fact that the Web Site's mailing list included residents of the forum state. [6] However, in a recent copyright infringement case, Mink v. AAAA Development , the Fifth Circuit declined to exercise personal jurisdiction even though the Web Site operator provided a printable mail-in order form, a toll-free number and an e-mail address on their Web Site. [7] Although the Web Site provided an e-mail address that permitted consumers to interact with the company, the court held that the Web Site nonetheless was passive since no orders could be placed on-line, no business was ever conducted over the Internet with forum residents, and no evidence existed that the defendant did anything more than simply respond to e-mails sent by users. The key distinction between Mink and other cases that fall in the middle spectrum seem to hinge on whether a court is willing to view factors such as e-mail addresses and toll-free telephone numbers posted on Web Sites as attempts to transact business with users. Conclusion Absent actual business transactions in the forum state, or evidence that residents are targeted, the distinction between active and passive contact becomes blurred in the context of interactive Web Sites that allow users to exchange information with the host computer. Courts generally have followed a pattern of not extending personal jurisdiction where the Web Site operator simply provides an informational Web Site that can be accessed in the forum state, but which does not serve as a platform for soliciting business or conducting electronic commerce. As the Internet evolves, so will the body of Internet law -- including that relating to personal jurisdiction.

Question: Which of the following is least likely to provide a basis for personal jurisdiction over the defendant? A. Place where defendant committed the tort that’s the subject of the lawsuit B. Plaintiff’s state of residence C. Location of contract negotiations at issue in the lawsuit D. Residence of the defendant

Answer: This is a stupid question b/c plaintiff's state has nothing to do with this question and if you are in law school for a day you know that. Answer C has nothing to do with it either, so there are two correct answers. P.S. Why are you even asking. You should know this!!!!!

Question: According to Wolf's article, is advertising on the web alone enough to confer personal jurisdiction?

Answer: Its his way of thinking

Question: could I file a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction?

Answer: Sure, if you haven't answered, but without more information, it's impossible to know whether you have any chance of success.

Question: Personal jurisdiction by presence in the state alone?? Is it true that the Pennoyer v. Neff precedent is still good law? May a state exercise jurisdiction over a person simply by their temporary physical presence in the state? See Burnam v. Superior Court. I mean this part of Pennoyer v. Neff, not the entire case, as good law.

Answer: To the best of my recollection, Pennoyer was overruled by Shaffer v. Heitner when the court ruled that seized property did not have sufficient contacts with the state to meet the minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction over an individual. However, you seem to be talking about something else from the rest of your question. To the best of my recollection, you can have personal jurisdiction over a defendant if you personally serve the individual in the state where you are bringing suit. So yes, temporary physical presence will establish personal jurisdiction. Addressing your edit: I don't recall Pennoyer really addressing personal service issues other than the fact that they found that personal service was not obtained in that case so they evaluated the ways that in service was obtained. In that case, service was obtained by publication. The defendant only owned property in that state and did not live in that state. The court held that the publishing on a person whose only presence in the state was by property that they owned was not enough to serve by publication. More needed to be done to obtain proper service. At least that is how I remember it. So, in a round about way they say that personal service would have been effective, yes that holding still stands. However, I don't really think anyone would cite that case as precedent in a case where the individual was personally served within the states borders.

Question: Why is personal jurisdiction an issue for those who post Websites?

Answer: There can be many reasons, the primary of which is liability in state defamation or other tort actions.

Question: How is jurisdiction determined for personal injury cases in California? What code section or sections govern jurisdiction in California?

Answer: California exercises jurisdiction over persons and causes of action as far as the United States Constitution and the US Supreme Court allows. It depends on what kind of personal injury. If its a product imported into California that causes harm, then obviously, California will have jurisdiction if a resident is harmed by it in California, or someone is harmed in California. If its a car accident, obviously if it occurs in California, there's jurisdiction. If its a contract with performance due in California, California will exercise jurisdiction provided the defendant could reasonably expect to be brought into court there. Without more facts, though, no one can help you.

Question: Does the Internet have any effect on a court's assertion of personal jurisdiction?

Answer: Yes, it is part of the court's consideration of the "minimum contacts" a business or business person has in the jurisdiction.

Question: Personal jurisdiction - Simple question!? I am trying to clear something up about personal jurisdiction. It's a simple question; help would be much appreciated! Suppose A does not have proper personal jurisdiction over out-of-state resident B, but still brings a claim against B in A's own state. B defaults, and then A brings the suit against B in B's own state. Can A still sue B in B's state? Or can A not sue B in B's state because A originally brought the claim in A's state without proper personal jurisdiction?

Answer: If A has a default judgment in A's own state because B did not appear (because there was no jurisdiction over B), A can attempt to enter the default judgment as a sister-state judgment in B's state. At that point, B's state will require proof of service and jurisdiction over B, which A does not have. So A's default judgment is worthless. A can ignore the first default judgment and sue again in B's state and try to obtain a judgment in B's state. But ethically, A should not have obtained judgment in A's own state and should vacate and dismiss it since A knows that it was obtained without jurisdiction over B.

Question: Closing business : Lawsuit pending? I have a business in X state and a lawsuit is pending in state Y. I have hired a lawyer from state Y who has filed a motion to dismiss. (reason: no personal jurisdiction) . The ruling is pending. My business(LLC )is not doing good and I plan to close it. Can I close a business when a lawsuit is pending? Thanks in advance

Answer: http://WWW.SUEEASY.COM All you need for the best in legal help. Free http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqUPOvG5muY

Question: IL Civil Procedure Help? My Civil Procedure professor is confusing the hell out of me with this Personal Jurisdiction stuff. I kinda get the minimum contacts test, tradititonal notions of fair play and substantial justice, but how does it all fit together. I mean we jumped from pennoyer, to international shoe to asahi to burger king and he's really confusing. Can somebody help put it all together? Or just simplify it cause i think i'm making it to hard.

Answer: Don't worry, personal jurisdiction made us all crazy when we studied it. I mean, geez, when you throw things in like the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and consider that if your ex takes the kids to Nebraska for 3 years and then files for custody THERE, the courts might find it's the children's home state and has jurisdiction to decide custody even though you've never set foot in Nebraska. Of course, that's partly because any rational parent would start a custody case in their own home state the minute the other parent absconded with the kids. If you don't protect your rights, you lose them. You've got the basics, the fair play and substantial justice part, plus you understand about "minimum contacts" so sounds like you're set OK.

Question: i live in a rent control jurisdiction. was i wrongfully evicted?.? a fire in the house i recently rented made it uninhabitable to live in. i was given a 3 day notice in writing. It was not filled in the clerks office or by the courts. the landlord changed locks to the garage I stored my personal belongings. of which was not damaged by fire.

Answer: You can be evicted because the place is now uninhabitable. It's no longer legal for you to live there. But withholding your things is not okay. You don't say where you live or what the 3-day notice said, but generally the notice is not filed with the court or clerk. Contact the rent stabilization agency about this. They will help you understand your rights regarding the notices. Contact your landlord to make arrangements to retrieve your belongings. But unless you can show it was the landlord who set the fire to get you out, all you can really do is move on.

Question: How much power does a mayor have in the city council? Does he have the ability to make a personal decision that overrules all? Can he send out police where needed if he felt that it's necessary? What are his jurisdictions? If a group of people stormed into City Hall and demanded, say, for a search team to go look for a missing person in an area, what would they do? Is this a matter for the police or City Hall?

Answer: It varies by municipality. In some cases the mayor and city council are on equal footing. In other situations the mayor may hold the slight edge in authority. There are other forms of city government where the city manager holds all the sway and the mayor, for all intents and purposes, is primarily ceremonial. In any situation, I firmly believe that if the mayor made a request of law enforcement it would be readily attended to. It's hard to fathom a police chief, or whoever, flat out telling the mayor "no" to an amenable request.