Top Law Schools

I have this in my notes: "In diversity cases, a federal court has exactly the same amount of personal jurisdiction the state court would have."

Assuming this is correct, is this simply because the state's long-arm statute is potentially outcome determinative? It seems simple enough, but I can't shake the feeling that I am missing something.

jkay wrote:I have this in my notes: "In diversity cases, a federal court has exactly the same amount of personal jurisdiction the state court would have."

Assuming this is correct, is this simply because the state's long-arm statute is potentially outcome determinative? It seems simple enough, but I can't shake the feeling that I am missing something.

Yes, you must first look to the state's long-arm statute in a diversity PJ analysis, so that is why your notes say that.

And then, presumably, that state's high court interpretation of their own long-arm statute?

Basically, we are going to have to answer a question about PJ in a state court and in diversity. Assuming that both would be in the same state, the federal analysis of personal jurisdiction would theoretically be exactly the same as the state analysis, including case law, yes?

Rule 4(k)(1)(A) of the F.R.C.P. essentially allows a federal court to use the long-arm statute of whatever state it's in.

This might be what your notes were referring to.

jkay wrote:And then, presumably, that state's high court interpretation of their own long-arm statute?

Basically, we are going to have to answer a question about PJ in a state court and in diversity. Assuming that both would be in the same state, the federal analysis of personal jurisdiction would theoretically be exactly the same as the state analysis, including case law, yes?

The interpretation of long arm statute by the state's highest court is binding upon the federal courts therefore making the power of both courts co-extensive..