Civ Pro. Long Arm Statute - Significance of enumerated sub Forum

[RelativeEase]

What is significant about a state that has enumerated subsections in their long arm statute and a section conferring jurisdiction to the extent the constitution allows?

eg

A. a court may have juris. over non resident...arising from...

1. doing busi
2. committing tort....

B. In addition we have PJ to extent Const. allows?

[vertex]

What is significant about a state that has enumerated subsections in their long arm statute and a section conferring jurisdiction to the extent the constitution allows?

eg

A. a court may have juris. over non resident...arising from...

1. doing busi
2. committing tort....

B. In addition we have PJ to extent Const. allows?

This is an excellent question. My best guess is that it "helps" the courts in doing the minimum contacts analysis. Obviously, minimum contacts is a requirement independent from the long-arm statute, but if a court sees something specifically enumerated in the long-arm statute, they're a little more likely to find minimum contacts since the defendant was "on notice" that he could be haled into court for that reason.

Frankly, I think that reason is kind of dumb. Few defendants know or care what the content of a state long-arm statute says. Nonetheless, if a court is looking for a reason to find minimum contacts, and the case is on the edge, a specifically enumerated, redundant point in the long-arm statute might be enough to push them over the edge.

[jess]

.

[vertex]

It's just to satisfy due process. In states like mine (Florida), it's possible to have jurisdiction via the long-arm statute that violates due process. There is a two part test. First, you figure out if there is long-arm jurisdiction over a non-resident. Then, once that is satisfied, you figure out if you satisfy the minimum contacts requirement and make sure it doesn't violate fair play and substantial justice.

As an example: there was an internet defamation case my class reviewed that satisfied the tortious conduct in forum state subsection of the long-arm statute as internet defamation needs to only identify a FL plaintiff and be accessed in FL. However, the court decided that due process was violated due to zero contacts with FL, unfairness, unreasonable burden, etc.

I think you're misunderstanding his question. He wants to know why a long-arm statute would enumerate something (like tortious conduct) and also have the catch-all (this long-arm goes to the limits of due process). He's asking because it doesn't make any sense to do that since you could just have the catch-all.

Minimum contacts is, as you note, a separate thing that has to be satisfied, but if the long-arm says it goes to the limits of due process, the minimum contacts and long-arm analysis collapse into one step. In that scenario, why redundantly enumerate specific types of conduct when you also have the catch-all? I think this is what OP is asking.

[RelativeEase]

why redundantly enumerate specific types of conduct when you also have the catch-all? I think this is what OP is asking.

Exactly. The only thing i can come up with is it might demonstrate a state's interest in deciding certain claims...but it doesn't seem like a very weighty argument.