Civ Pro question Forum

[rustyyoda]

With doing the International Shoe test, and assessing the "reasonableness" prong, we are supposed to explore the five reasonableness factors from World Wide Volkswagen (burden on the defendant, plaintiff's interest in convenient and effective relief, etc). My question is, how do you actually go about assessing these? I understand what they mean, but for instance, it seems like the plaintiff always has an interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief. It seems that plaintiff's choose the forums which are convenient to them for that reason. So what is there to talk about? In a hypo where an Oregon corporation is suing defendants from Vermont, for instance, how would you assess the reasonableness?

[stargazin]

Yeah, I agree with you about the plaintiffs usually that is the case. Burden on defendant may vary though based the defendant's particular situation. The forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute is a big one. If most of the victims are in the forum state or the claim involves something that affects the state in a big way, then the state will have a bigger interest. Is it efficient to have the action in that state (is all the evidence there, etc). And so on. I think it's kind of a catch-all thing.

[SportsFan]

Also curious about this. I normally BS some stuff but I'm wondering what "good" analysis of this would be.

[sconnielaw13]

When discussing reasonableness you are going to first want to lay out the law. Discuss how Asahi and Burger Kings take on Reasonableness (as it relates to minimum contacts). Then you lay out the five factors that are discussed in the cases. Then you simply discuss each of the five factors and the various view points under the five factors. For example, given the facts you could argue that the burden on the D might be minimal because of this, but it could be viewed as substantial because of this. Here you may analogize or distinguish the facts from those of the other cases. Ultimately, after you discuss all the factors you have to determine whether or not it is reasonable. Iit is probably not going to be clear whether it is reasonable or not. You just need to be make a argument for both sides and then conclude with which one you think is correct and move on.

[rustyyoda]

So here's a list that I've been trying to come up with for each factor:

I think burden on defendant is pretty straightforward. We can talk about distance, cost, problems with movable/non-movable evidence, taking juries to the scene, etc.

Plaintiff's interest seems straightforward. if they suffered physical harm, you can easily talk about the inconvenience of making them travel. You can also talk about evidence availability.

The forum state's interest in adjudication would focus on things like were citizens of that state harmed, how is this going to impact the behavior of citizens and corporations of that state, whether the claim involves something that affects the state

The interstate judicial system's interest in efficient resolution seems like it would focus on evidence availability, costs, issues like making one state judge interpret the law of another state, etc

My professor says social policy is almost never a consideration, except in narrow cases like immigration disputes. She said in things like contract disputes or pure economic harm there will rarely be an applicable social policy consideration.

If you could touch on one or two considerations laid out above, would that be a sufficient reasonableness analysis, assuming of course that you come to an ultimate conclusion about which way you feel it should go?