Can someone explain the policy behind minimum contacts? Forum

[Breezin]

If all fairness factors favor PJ over the D in a certain state, why does specific PJ analysis require that the D have "minimum contacts" with the forum?

[ph14]

If all fairness factors favor PJ over the D in a certain state, why does specific PJ analysis require that the D have "minimum contacts" with the forum?

That's kind of Brennan's view, although he doesn't go nearly that far and says they still need some minimum contacts. Just thinking about it functionally, all the fairness factors are extremely unlike to favor PJ over the D in a certain state without him having any minimum contacts. But even if they do, O'Connor's opinion in Asahi says they need to meet both prongs (minimum contacts + FPSJ), while Brennan might be a bit more forgiving on minimum contacts if FPSJ is for PJ over the D.

The whole point is that minimum contacts are to ensure it wouldn't be unfair for the defendants to litigate there ("traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice")

[shock259]

Due Process.

[Dicta in a Box]

The whole point is that minimum contacts are to ensure it wouldn't be unfair for the defendants to litigate there ("traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice")

This.

[swilson215]

Just thinking about it functionally, all the fairness factors are extremely unlike to favor PJ over the D in a certain state without him having any minimum contacts.

This, too.

[FUBAR]

For full credit your analysis should include: (1) sufficient minimum contacts; (2) nexus; and (3) Asahi factors of reasonableness and substantive justice (i.e. fairness).

Good luck.