noleknight16 wrote:How does this look in response to a really basic Personal Jurisdiction brief hypo??
"F buys a car from Little Rock Cars-R-Us, telling the salesman, S, that he needs the car to get back home to Florida. S sells him a very used car. After crossing the border into Florida, F adjusts his seat back and the engine ejects into Wakullah Springs. F sues Little Rock Cars-R-Us in Florida. Does the court have personal jurisdiction over Little Rock Cars-R Us?"
The first step in a personal jurisdiction analysis is to determine whether or not there is a proper state long-arm statute that allows the defendant to be subject to jurisdiction. If there is a proper long arm statute, then the statutory inquiry is met and we move onto the Due Process test and if not, then there is no personal jurisdiction No; if there is a long-arm statute, that's what you have to follow. If there is not, or the long-arm statue simply goes to the constitutional limits, then you move onto a constitutional analysis anyway; it doesn't mean there's no PJ.
Assuming a proper long arm statute exists, the next step is to look at the Constitutional Due Process test. There is no indication of the traditional basis in Pennoyer being metthe Holding in Shaffer was that ALL PJ questions are done with Int'l Shoe (that's what our prof told us I think). A Pennoyer-like personal service question came up in Burnham, and SCOTUS just re-affirmed in a plurality that in-forum personal service always works, so we then turn to the minimum contacts test set forth in International Shoe. In determining if there was a contact, we must determine whether or not Little Rock Cars R Us purposefully availed themselves of the forum state (FL) and whether or not a lawsuit being brought in the Florida was foreseeable. Here, there is no indication that Little Rock Cars R Us deliberately reached out to and targeted Florida residents to buy cars from them through methods such as advertising. With respect to foreseeability, Little Rock Cars R Us likely reasonably foresaw itself being brought in a lawsuit in the state of Florida No, a "wandering plaintiff" does not count as foreseeability - it's not foreseeability just because you know your product will end up there, because the dealer didn't purposefully avail himself through his own affirmative act (check Denckla). Also check World-Wide Volkswagon (wandering plaintiff) and McIntyre v. Nicastro (stream of commerce/foreseeability). This is because F explicitly told the salesman that he needed to get back to his home in Florida and that the specific use of the car was to bring it back home to Florida.
Because Little Rock Cars R Us did not purposefully avail themselves of the forum state, it likely did not establish minimum contacts and therefore Florida does not have personal jurisdiction over them
Since this is a pretty obvious hypo, I don't continue onto type of jurisdiction (general or specific) and Fairness, correct? You should bring everything else up and dispose of it quickly, like "No general jursidiction b/c no continuous and systematic contacts with FL" but if it were grey whether or not it counted as purposeful availment, I'd move onto those final 2 steps?
I'd say you should double-check your BLL steps/outline to make sure you got those cases down. Also, personal jurisdiction is probably the only area of civ pro where knowing the cases really helps - you have facts to compare to and use, and cite for bonus points. Do whatever it is your prof whats you to say though; mine's likely just wanting me to say things in a different way.
Also feel free to correct me if I'm wrong; I ain't no Ginsburg.