Can some smart individuals elaborate on Min Contacts?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
sangr
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:45 pm

Can some smart individuals elaborate on Min Contacts?

Postby sangr » Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:52 am

hey guys

I'm trying to put It all together and I got confused
I'm up to asahi and there are two tests for PJ for non residents. assuming there is a long arm statute

1. min contacts
2. fair and justice

here's where I'm confused.

purposeful avail meant, foreseeability of being brought suit, expectation of product being sold.

how do these exactly fit into minimum contacts? is there order of importance? is there one that is everything? or do they all go into taking account min contacts with equal force?

confused

any help from individuals more knowledgeable on this topic would be great!!!

thanks

User avatar
TTH
Posts: 10378
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 1:14 am

Re: Can some smart individuals elaborate on Min Contacts?

Postby TTH » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:16 am

Well, it's not really two tests. The test is minimum contacts, and the standard is "Does D have sufficient contacts in this state such that bringing him into court here does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?"

So, there are facts relating to the facts of the contacts, like purposeful availment and foreseeability. Then there are things relating to fairness, like burden on the defendant and the state's interest in protecting its citizens.

Asahi is an example of minimum contacts analysis for a subset of PJ cases, stream of commerce cases. It doesn't factor into your general contacts analysis (although on your exam, your PJ question-or one of them-will be a stream of commerce issue). So, when the case involves someone putting stuff out into the market, you're basically going to treat it like a jurisdictional split. IF O'Connor's approach is followed, then A) did the stuff get to the forum state and B) are there enough of the fairness factors from Asahi to bring the D into court. IF Brennan, then the flow of goods is enough.

This is probably unhelpful. Someone less far removed from first year civ pro should chime into clean up my bullshit.

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Can some smart individuals elaborate on Min Contacts?

Postby manofjustice » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:13 am

TTH wrote:Well, it's not really two tests. The test is minimum contacts, and the standard is "Does D have sufficient contacts in this state such that bringing him into court here does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?"

So, there are facts relating to the facts of the contacts, like purposeful availment and foreseeability. Then there are things relating to fairness, like burden on the defendant and the state's interest in protecting its citizens.

Asahi is an example of minimum contacts analysis for a subset of PJ cases, stream of commerce cases. It doesn't factor into your general contacts analysis (although on your exam, your PJ question-or one of them-will be a stream of commerce issue). So, when the case involves someone putting stuff out into the market, you're basically going to treat it like a jurisdictional split. IF O'Connor's approach is followed, then A) did the stuff get to the forum state and B) are there enough of the fairness factors from Asahi to bring the D into court. IF Brennan, then the flow of goods is enough.

This is probably unhelpful. Someone less far removed from first year civ pro should chime into clean up my bullshit.


Looks good to me. Just: don't forget about general jurisdiction. And be clear that the "jurisdictional split" question is governed by the opinions in McIntyre.

Also, specific jurisdiction ==> personal jurisdiction is a shit storm, and I am amazed the SCOTUS has had to dedicate so much energy into this question. CivPro should be a statute class taught by power point. Why every case I read in this class is a SCOTUS case is obviously attributable to an error by the Framers. If only they spent a couple more days...

User avatar
TTH
Posts: 10378
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 1:14 am

Re: Can some smart individuals elaborate on Min Contacts?

Postby TTH » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:28 pm

It cracks me up that law students have to spend so much time in their first class and undergo so much frustration about a legal concept that will really hardly ever come up in practice.

User avatar
Gamecubesupreme
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:54 pm

Re: Can some smart individuals elaborate on Min Contacts?

Postby Gamecubesupreme » Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:58 pm

TTH wrote:It cracks me up that law students have to spend so much time in their first class and undergo so much frustration about a legal concept that will really hardly ever come up in practice.


We spent almost 2 weeks on Pennoyer back in 1L.

User avatar
noleknight16
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:09 am

Re: Can some smart individuals elaborate on Min Contacts?

Postby noleknight16 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:02 pm

TTH wrote:Well, it's not really two tests. The test is minimum contacts, and the standard is "Does D have sufficient contacts in this state such that bringing him into court here does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?"

So, there are facts relating to the facts of the contacts, like purposeful availment and foreseeability. Then there are things relating to fairness, like burden on the defendant and the state's interest in protecting its citizens.

Asahi is an example of minimum contacts analysis for a subset of PJ cases, stream of commerce cases. It doesn't factor into your general contacts analysis (although on your exam, your PJ question-or one of them-will be a stream of commerce issue). So, when the case involves someone putting stuff out into the market, you're basically going to treat it like a jurisdictional split. IF O'Connor's approach is followed, then A) did the stuff get to the forum state and B) are there enough of the fairness factors from Asahi to bring the D into court. IF Brennan, then the flow of goods is enough.

This is probably unhelpful. Someone less far removed from first year civ pro should chime into clean up my bullshit.


Sounds about right to me but I'm just a 1L trying to learn this crap

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: Can some smart individuals elaborate on Min Contacts?

Postby uvabro » Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:42 pm

does this really not come up a lot in practice? i know pennoyer is a waste, but say you're in P.I., don't you want the home field advantage for your client in a product liability case or class action?

sangr
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:45 pm

Re: Can some smart individuals elaborate on Min Contacts?

Postby sangr » Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:54 pm

thanks guys

I have one question though, so the analysis is more important than the answer. what does that mean?

so is this statement even needed? "in this cases there is a single and isolated case that related to the cause of action". it's part of the test but is it needed?

I guess the meat of the specific jD test is in the other stuff.

can anyone give a sample of what they might say without stating the rules too much? the most succinct, literally ThE shortest effective answer one could give in a exam?

User avatar
20130312
Posts: 3842
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: Can some smart individuals elaborate on Min Contacts?

Postby 20130312 » Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:42 am

Be careful that this is what your prof wants. Mine specifically broke it into three parts:

Minimum contacts
Claim arises out of said contacts
Fair and reasonable

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: Can some smart individuals elaborate on Min Contacts?

Postby uvabro » Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:30 pm

sangr wrote:thanks guys

I have one question though, so the analysis is more important than the answer. what does that mean?

so is this statement even needed? "in this cases there is a single and isolated case that related to the cause of action". it's part of the test but is it needed?

I guess the meat of the specific jD test is in the other stuff.

can anyone give a sample of what they might say without stating the rules too much? the most succinct, literally ThE shortest effective answer one could give in a exam?

There's a case with someone accepting insurance payments from a state and being subject to there. If they are purposefully availing themselves to the state, and getting constant benefit then 1 contact may be enough. If u sell a tv in CA, and accept a payment plan getting a check each month youd likely be subject to j. The threshold seems to be purposeful and consistency. Gray is an exception and theres no clear cut role except incorporated state and domicile which is why the arguments are key. Make sure to consult the long arm statute before assessing min contacts. W no statute its all irrelevant.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], KissMyAxe, ValeVale and 5 guests