Contacting Firm as a OL (old) / Personal JX (new topic) Forum

[rando]

By the way for the reasonableness you forgot purposeful interjection and alternative forum...There are seven, remember that. It was a good review though, thank you. What I meant was - there is International Shoe vs. WA and a couple of other cases and pretty much everyone is going back to those cases and citing them for new decisions, so after a while you get the gist of the Shoe pretty well.

Of course there are different school of thought, take stream of commerce minus which they adopted at Wisconsin, but you cant deny there are general jusridfiction guidelines, which would be what I would test on as a professor, since if there are no rules the question is exactly what you are learning in law school . Thinking like a lawyer, I know, but apart from that.

Starting to sound more reasaonble. I did this civ pro crap well over a year ago so I am hardly the authority on it anymore. Regardless, mr. aphill i think the consensus is not to go to law school planning on transferring. But you will do as you will. I hope you don't regret it.

[APHill]

well, any self-respecting school will not ask you to list the factors at the exam, but will give you a case to apply your knowledge to, that is a given.

for the 5/7 factors. do you care to explain this?

http://openjurist.org/141/f3d/1316

[APHill]

does it override burger king?

[rando]

well, any self-respecting school will not ask you to list the factors at the exam, but will give you a case to apply your knowledge to, that is a given.

for the 5/7 factors. do you care to explain this?

http://openjurist.org/141/f3d/1316

No problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asahi_Meta ... rior_Court

Pissing contest. Give it a break. And Steve, refuting an opinion with wikipedia? And AP, 9th circ vs. Scotus is a no-no.


By the way, quasi in rem above, unfair. Not particularly relevant to what you guys were fighting over.

[rando]

Re: wikipedia—I was lazy. Plus it was an attempt to make it clear for him.

haha. i know. it cites directly to the case, not a LR source, but whatever.
BTW, if you look at the seven factors of Panavision, that isn't even relevant to what we're talking about. They're seven factors of reasonableness.

Why I am interjecting myself into your per. jur. massacreing of a 0L when i have better things to do?

[APHill]

why is panavision citing 7 factors then and refers back to Burger King stating those 7 factors were established in Burger King? Were they stupid and decided to add a couple of extra factors for measure?

[Z3RO]

Jesus Christ. Am I ready for law school?

[rando]

Re: wikipedia—I was lazy. Plus it was an attempt to make it clear for him.

haha. i know. it cites directly to the case, not a LR source, but whatever.
BTW, if you look at the seven factors of Panavision, that isn't even relevant to what we're talking about. They're seven factors of reasonableness.

Why I am interjecting myself into your per. jur. massacreing of a 0L when i have better things to do?

Well.. I think we are arguing what factors are enumerated under the reasonableness test. And that there are only 5. The 9th Cir, in Panavision, appears to incorrectly lump the "plus" of the stream of commerce plus theory into reasonableness (as opposed to foreseeability, where it should be) and then pulls this alternative forum out of.. well I don't know where they pull it out of... but it's not from the Supreme Court.

god if i'm going to interject i should read.

[APHill]

cool - i guess we sometimes post simultaneously so my question is answered by the post posted at the same time.

[APHill]

betasteve, what does Drunken Sheriff do on here (if you are a mod as I assume) and what is your class rank if not a secret?

[APHill]

betasteve, what does Drunken Sheriff do on here (if you are a mod as I assume) and what is your class rank if not a secret?

Moderators just do menial shit like ban spammers and the occasional people that get way, way off topic or offensive, or are otherwise extremely detrimental to the forum. Class rank is very, very good. I won't say specifically in the open, but if you really want to know, you can PM me.

very very good sounds like you are up up up in there, lol. no wonder, you are definitely covering all your bases in the answers. well, good luck in biglaw or wherever else you are trying to go to.

[rando]

betasteve, what does Drunken Sheriff do on here (if you are a mod as I assume) and what is your class rank if not a secret?

Moderators just do menial shit like ban spammers and the occasional people that get way, way off topic or offensive, or are otherwise extremely detrimental to the forum. Class rank is very, very good. I won't say specifically in the open, but if you really want to know, you can PM me.

Have the sheriff shut down the poor man's law preview spam thread... good times

[patrickd139]

I am talking about suing non-resident defendant.

General jurisdisction - defendant must have consistent and systematic contacts with the state. Action does not have to be based on defendant's contacts with the state.
Special jurisdiction - 1. defendant must purposefully avail himself of the forum 2. the action must be based on defendant's actions related to the forum 3. exercising jurisdiction over the defendant must be fair
False?

First, don't forget presence in the state, even if it is the first time. You are in the state, you get served, bam—Court has personal JX. (Small exceptions apply)
General: Mainly correct. Pretty easy.
Specific JX: There must be minimum contacts, the suit must arise from those contacts, and asserting the jurisdiction must be reasonable.
To meet minimum contacts, you must personally avail yourself of the forum in such a way that it would be foreseeable for you to be haled into that jurisdiction to defend suit. Two ways here you could determine if it was foreseeable, either through the stream of commerce doctrine (aware product is going to get to forum and injury results there), or a stream of commerce plus doctrine (stream of commerce elements, plus that you targeted the forum). The Stream of commerce plus is empirically the majority, but it's JX dependent.
Suit must arise from the contacts: Pretty easy stuff... but remember, can arise simply by function of law.
Reasonableness: Asking whether the exercise of JX is reasonable... Must weigh factors such as, the burden on the ∆, the interest of the forum state, the interest of ∏ in obtaining relief, the orderly and efficient resolution of controversies/administration of the law, and the shared substantive policies of the states in the nation.

Here's our take (by my prof, who, quite literally, wrote the book "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure")

Personal jurisdiction is a menu of options

Service in state: if you're present in the forum state, you can be served for any cause of action. (The gold standard.)
Attaching property: if you own property in the forum state, the state may place a lien on that property and adjudicate any lawsuit up to that value against the defendant, no matter the defendant's presence or contacts. This includes In Rem jurisdiction, quasi-In Rem jurisdiction types I and II. (No longer good law, post-Shaffer v. Heitner, in which quasi-In Rem jurisdiction type II was placed within the contacts-based JX framework.)
Domicile: if you maintain residence in a forum state, you may be sued there for any cause of action, no matter if the transaction arose in or out of that state.
Consent: either party may always consent to personal jurisdiction. There are many ways that one may also imply consent. (See Rule 12(h)(1) of the FRCP.)
Status: in certain contexts (i.e. divorce, or child custody situations), certain levels of personal jurisdiction are deemed.
Contacts-based JX: by reaching out to the forum state (determined by vectors, not simple, contact), general or specific personal JX may be established. General jurisdiction can be established by systematic and continuous contacts in the forum state. General jurisdiction supports all causes of action.
Specific jurisdiction can be established by minimum contacts in no fewer than 6 different ways (that we were taught in class; at least two of which are plurality decisions with no clear standard established by SCOTUS). Causes of action filed based on specific jurisdiction must arise out of or relate to the contacts on which said jurisdiction is predicated.
Both specific and general jurisdiction are theoretically rebuttable if the jurisdiction does not conform to SCOTUS's notions of fair play and substantial justice (which balances the π interest in obtaining relief, the forum state's interest in seeing its laws upheld/applied, and the burden on the ∆).

That's the abbreviated version.

Read as many cases as you'd like. But as BetaSteve and I have just proven, your professor will interpret these cases in such a vastly different manner that it's [strike]probably[/strike] a useless exercise.

[APHill]

what if you are flying from NYC to LA and while flying over Kansas you are being served with papers to a Kansas district federal court (for example purposes, there might not be a federal court in Kansas I guess)?

Let us assume that no general or specific jurisdiction exists. Do they have personal jurisdiction over you?

[jack duluoz]

Mod, move this to the gunner section. thanks.

[270910]

betasteve, what does Drunken Sheriff do on here (if you are a mod as I assume) and what is your class rank if not a secret?

Moderators just do menial shit like ban spammers and the occasional people that get way, way off topic or offensive, or are otherwise extremely detrimental to the forum. Class rank is very, very good. I won't say specifically in the open, but if you really want to know, you can PM me.

very very good sounds like you are up up up in there, lol. no wonder, you are definitely covering all your bases in the answers. well, good luck in biglaw or wherever else you are trying to go to.

OK. I'm going to say this once, as slowly and clearly as I can. I really hope it sinks in. If it doesn't, well, you won't be alone.

You mention being impressed with beta steve's answers on what the law is. You discussed what the law is. You learned a bit. You may or may not remember it.

Beta steve, who I fully believe is an intelligent and success law student, likely derived none of his success from the abilities displayed in this thread. Learning the law, by and large, isn't hard. Minimum contacts, fairness, don't burden anyone. Done. Check. Easy money. Put it on a flash card, tattoo it on your chest, repeat it as you jump rope every morning.

But here's the secret: A LOT of people who didn't tattoo/flash card/jump rope civ pro 24/7 did extremely well on their exams. Some top of the class well. And a LOT of people who DID tattoo/flash card/jump rope civ pro did terrible on their exams.

Stop and really think about that for a second. Does it mean extreme amounts of studying hurts you? Absolutely not. Does it mean you'll do better if you don't study? No!

But it means you're thinking about it the wrong way, and that wrong way of thinking has a chance of not just causing you to fail but also causing you to be miserable.

You do NOT win by knowing the most law. You don't win by knowing the most law soonest. You don't win by remembering the case names, you don't win by memorizing all of the squibs. You don't win by being able to recite your outline from scratch.

OK? So now you're probably wondering "fine, disco_barred, how DO I succeed in law school if it's not by out-studying my peers?" You're probably skeptical. I would be too - in fact, I was! Studying hard is great. It yielded dividends in the past. Hard work and determination got most of us the opportunity to start at a great law school.

But once you are IN law school, it's just not enough. Not enough by half. It's so insufficient that if you know what IS sufficient you don't really need either hard work or dedication. Once you get the secret, you can phone it in and be on top of the class.

I know, it sounds unbelievable. I don't expect for a second that reading this will cause you to change your habits or your mind. But it's true.

Only two skills matter in law school:

The first skill knowing enough law not to embarrass yourself. I'll grant that if you COMPLETELY blow off reading, class, and outlining you won't have a leg to stand on.

The second skill is being able to effectively communicate your capacity to think like a lawyer in writing, under a time limit, when presented with a novel fact pattern.

And guess what? Reading your casebooks cover-to-cover 20 times before you get to law school might kind-of sort-of help #1, but you could be the fucking gand poo-bah of skill number one and still be bottom 10% without enough of skill number two.

[mikeytwoshoes]

you mean it would not be good or bad? I am only worried about if it would be bad, but otherwise if it is not likely to do any good I still want to take a cjance and try to get in touch.

Douchey response: learn to spell "chance" first.

Less douchey response: Law firms and law schools really do care about things like spelling and punctuation.

Real response: If you contact a firm as a 0L, welcome to ultimate gunner status.

[mikeytwoshoes]

Tagging my question on to this thread because it’s a similar topic…

In my work experience I have made several contacts with lawyers and firms that happen to be in the area of where I’ll be going to school. A few that I’ve worked with extensively have repeatedly said “make sure you contact us when you get in the area.”

Would doing so be breaking the rules of not contacting firms as a 1L? Even though I’d be contacting people I already know?

(Sorry if this seems like a stupid/paranoid question – just don’t want to do anything that I view as innocent enough but could be a legal faux pas.)

I would err on the side of not breaking rules that might ruin your career.

I'm an 0L myself, so what do I know?

WTF is an zero-L?

[mikeytwoshoes]

what if you are flying from NYC to LA and while flying over Kansas you are being served with papers to a Kansas district federal court (for example purposes, there might not be a federal court in Kansas I guess)?

Let us assume that no general or specific jurisdiction exists. Do they have personal jurisdiction over you?

Probably be decided under Burnham v. Superior Court. Burnham basically affirms Pennoyer re: personal presence sufficient for personal JX. Airspace technically is state's sovereign area, or at least assuming that for the argument. However, probably no personal JX by analogizing to inducement or involuntary presence in a forum, which will not give rise to personal JX.

Sounds right. Next issue, venue--this is almost impossible to determine.

He doesn't live in the state. The plane could be in any jurisdiction in the state when P serves D. Do we just pick a random district?

[mikeytwoshoes]

I am talking about suing non-resident defendant.

General jurisdisction - defendant must have consistent and systematic contacts with the state. Action does not have to be based on defendant's contacts with the state.
Special jurisdiction - 1. defendant must purposefully avail himself of the forum 2. the action must be based on defendant's actions related to the forum 3. exercising jurisdiction over the defendant must be fair
False?

First, don't forget presence in the state, even if it is the first time. You are in the state, you get served, bam—Court has personal JX. (Small exceptions apply)
General: Mainly correct. Pretty easy.
Specific JX: There must be minimum contacts, the suit must arise from those contacts, and asserting the jurisdiction must be reasonable.
To meet minimum contacts, you must personally avail yourself of the forum in such a way that it would be foreseeable for you to be haled into that jurisdiction to defend suit. Two ways here you could determine if it was foreseeable, either through the stream of commerce doctrine (aware product is going to get to forum and injury results there), or a stream of commerce plus doctrine (stream of commerce elements, plus that you targeted the forum). The Stream of commerce plus is empirically the majority, but it's JX dependent.
Suit must arise from the contacts: Pretty easy stuff... but remember, can arise simply by function of law.
Reasonableness: Asking whether the exercise of JX is reasonable... Must weigh factors such as, the burden on the ∆, the interest of the forum state, the interest of ∏ in obtaining relief, the orderly and efficient resolution of controversies/administration of the law, and the shared substantive policies of the states in the nation.

Here's our take (by my prof, who, quite literally, wrote the book "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure")

Personal jurisdiction is a menu of options

Service in state: if you're present in the forum state, you can be served for any cause of action. (The gold standard.)
Attaching property: if you own property in the forum state, the state may place a lien on that property and adjudicate any lawsuit up to that value against the defendant, no matter the defendant's presence or contacts. This includes In Rem jurisdiction, quasi-In Rem jurisdiction types I and II. (No longer good law, post-Shaffer v. Heitner, in which quasi-In Rem jurisdiction type II was placed within the contacts-based JX framework.)
Domicile: if you maintain residence in a forum state, you may be sued there for any cause of action, no matter if the transaction arose in or out of that state.
Consent: either party may always consent to personal jurisdiction. There are many ways that one may also imply consent. (See Rule 12(h)(1) of the FRCP.)
Status: in certain contexts (i.e. divorce, or child custody situations), certain levels of personal jurisdiction are deemed.
Contacts-based JX: by reaching out to the forum state (determined by vectors, not simple, contact), general or specific personal JX may be established. General jurisdiction can be established by systematic and continuous contacts in the forum state. General jurisdiction supports all causes of action.
Specific jurisdiction can be established by minimum contacts in no fewer than 6 different ways (that we were taught in class; at least two of which are plurality decisions with no clear standard established by SCOTUS). Causes of action filed based on specific jurisdiction must arise out of or relate to the contacts on which said jurisdiction is predicated.
Both specific and general jurisdiction are theoretically rebuttable if the jurisdiction does not conform to SCOTUS's notions of fair play and substantial justice (which balances the π interest in obtaining relief, the forum state's interest in seeing its laws upheld/applied, and the burden on the ∆).

That's the abbreviated version.

Read as many cases as you'd like. But as BetaSteve and I have just proven, your professor will interpret these cases in such a vastly different manner that it's [strike]probably[/strike] a useless exercise.

Be careful with the proposition that if you are served in the forum state, then the court has personal jurisdiction. While generally true, the court will not have jurisdiction if P lures D into the forum state and serves her. The crux of the matter is what it means to lure a person into the forum state. If I send her a letter telling her that the post office wrongly forwarded a letter from Yale Law--a thick one--and that she can pick it up at my house. It would seem that i am trying to lure her. If I send her a random magazine and a map of the forum state, wtf knows?

[patrickd139]

Here's our take (by my prof, who, quite literally, wrote the book "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure")

Personal jurisdiction is a menu of options

Service in state: if you're present in the forum state, you can be served for any cause of action. (The gold standard.)
Attaching property: if you own property in the forum state, the state may place a lien on that property and adjudicate any lawsuit up to that value against the defendant, no matter the defendant's presence or contacts. This includes In Rem jurisdiction, quasi-In Rem jurisdiction types I and II. (No longer good law, post-Shaffer v. Heitner, in which quasi-In Rem jurisdiction type II was placed within the contacts-based JX framework.)
Domicile: if you maintain residence in a forum state, you may be sued there for any cause of action, no matter if the transaction arose in or out of that state.
Consent: either party may always consent to personal jurisdiction. There are many ways that one may also imply consent. (See Rule 12(h)(1) of the FRCP.)
Status: in certain contexts (i.e. divorce, or child custody situations), certain levels of personal jurisdiction are deemed.
Contacts-based JX: by reaching out to the forum state (determined by vectors, not simple, contact), general or specific personal JX may be established. General jurisdiction can be established by systematic and continuous contacts in the forum state. General jurisdiction supports all causes of action.
Specific jurisdiction can be established by minimum contacts in no fewer than 6 different ways (that we were taught in class; at least two of which are plurality decisions with no clear standard established by SCOTUS). Causes of action filed based on specific jurisdiction must arise out of or relate to the contacts on which said jurisdiction is predicated.
Both specific and general jurisdiction are theoretically rebuttable if the jurisdiction does not conform to SCOTUS's notions of fair play and substantial justice (which balances the π interest in obtaining relief, the forum state's interest in seeing its laws upheld/applied, and the burden on the ∆).

That's the abbreviated version.

Read as many cases as you'd like. But as BetaSteve and I have just proven, your professor will interpret these cases in such a vastly different manner that it's [strike]probably[/strike] a useless exercise.

Be careful with the proposition that if you are served in the forum state, then the court has personal jurisdiction. While generally true, the court will not have jurisdiction if P lures D into the forum state and serves her. The crux of the matter is what it means to lure a person into the forum state. If I send her a letter telling her that the post office wrongly forwarded a letter from Yale Law--a thick one--and that she can pick it up at my house. It would seem that i am trying to lure her. If I send her a random magazine and a map of the forum state, wtf knows?

Good catch. I should have inserted the word "voluntarily" into the service in state category above. Gin + moot court = civ pro mistakes, apparently.

[mikeytwoshoes]

Here's our take (by my prof, who, quite literally, wrote the book "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure")

Personal jurisdiction is a menu of options

Service in state: if you're present in the forum state, you can be served for any cause of action. (The gold standard.)
Attaching property: if you own property in the forum state, the state may place a lien on that property and adjudicate any lawsuit up to that value against the defendant, no matter the defendant's presence or contacts. This includes In Rem jurisdiction, quasi-In Rem jurisdiction types I and II. (No longer good law, post-Shaffer v. Heitner, in which quasi-In Rem jurisdiction type II was placed within the contacts-based JX framework.)
Domicile: if you maintain residence in a forum state, you may be sued there for any cause of action, no matter if the transaction arose in or out of that state.
Consent: either party may always consent to personal jurisdiction. There are many ways that one may also imply consent. (See Rule 12(h)(1) of the FRCP.)
Status: in certain contexts (i.e. divorce, or child custody situations), certain levels of personal jurisdiction are deemed.
Contacts-based JX: by reaching out to the forum state (determined by vectors, not simple, contact), general or specific personal JX may be established. General jurisdiction can be established by systematic and continuous contacts in the forum state. General jurisdiction supports all causes of action.
Specific jurisdiction can be established by minimum contacts in no fewer than 6 different ways (that we were taught in class; at least two of which are plurality decisions with no clear standard established by SCOTUS). Causes of action filed based on specific jurisdiction must arise out of or relate to the contacts on which said jurisdiction is predicated.
Both specific and general jurisdiction are theoretically rebuttable if the jurisdiction does not conform to SCOTUS's notions of fair play and substantial justice (which balances the π interest in obtaining relief, the forum state's interest in seeing its laws upheld/applied, and the burden on the ∆).

That's the abbreviated version.

Read as many cases as you'd like. But as BetaSteve and I have just proven, your professor will interpret these cases in such a vastly different manner that it's [strike]probably[/strike] a useless exercise.

Be careful with the proposition that if you are served in the forum state, then the court has personal jurisdiction. While generally true, the court will not have jurisdiction if P lures D into the forum state and serves her. The crux of the matter is what it means to lure a person into the forum state. If I send her a letter telling her that the post office wrongly forwarded a letter from Yale Law--a thick one--and that she can pick it up at my house. It would seem that i am trying to lure her. If I send her a random magazine and a map of the forum state, wtf knows?

Good catch. I should have inserted the word "voluntarily" into the service in state category above. Gin + moot court = civ pro mistakes, apparently.

Even if you inserted "voluntarilly" the proposition would be less than true. If you lure someone into the forum state, they still have to voluntarily follow. Who cares though? 9/10 cases either use the Penoyer standard between two people domiciled in the same state or contacts based jurisdiction.

[APHill]

you mean it would not be good or bad? I am only worried about if it would be bad, but otherwise if it is not likely to do any good I still want to take a cjance and try to get in touch.

Douchey response: learn to spell "chance" first.

Less douchey response: Law firms and law schools really do care about things like spelling and punctuation.

Real response: If you contact a firm as a 0L, welcome to ultimate gunner status.

Man, I bet if at a law firm at some time I am going to have a typo or miss a comma while IM'ing with my boss I will probably get fired for bad English. Sounds about right.