Can some smart individuals elaborate on Min Contacts? Forum

[sangr]

hey guys

I'm trying to put It all together and I got confused
I'm up to asahi and there are two tests for PJ for non residents. assuming there is a long arm statute

1. min contacts
2. fair and justice

here's where I'm confused.

purposeful avail meant, foreseeability of being brought suit, expectation of product being sold.

how do these exactly fit into minimum contacts? is there order of importance? is there one that is everything? or do they all go into taking account min contacts with equal force?

confused

any help from individuals more knowledgeable on this topic would be great!!!

thanks

[TTH]

Well, it's not really two tests. The test is minimum contacts, and the standard is "Does D have sufficient contacts in this state such that bringing him into court here does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?"

So, there are facts relating to the facts of the contacts, like purposeful availment and foreseeability. Then there are things relating to fairness, like burden on the defendant and the state's interest in protecting its citizens.

Asahi is an example of minimum contacts analysis for a subset of PJ cases, stream of commerce cases. It doesn't factor into your general contacts analysis (although on your exam, your PJ question-or one of them-will be a stream of commerce issue). So, when the case involves someone putting stuff out into the market, you're basically going to treat it like a jurisdictional split. IF O'Connor's approach is followed, then A) did the stuff get to the forum state and B) are there enough of the fairness factors from Asahi to bring the D into court. IF Brennan, then the flow of goods is enough.

This is probably unhelpful. Someone less far removed from first year civ pro should chime into clean up my bullshit.

[manofjustice]

Well, it's not really two tests. The test is minimum contacts, and the standard is "Does D have sufficient contacts in this state such that bringing him into court here does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?"

So, there are facts relating to the facts of the contacts, like purposeful availment and foreseeability. Then there are things relating to fairness, like burden on the defendant and the state's interest in protecting its citizens.

Asahi is an example of minimum contacts analysis for a subset of PJ cases, stream of commerce cases. It doesn't factor into your general contacts analysis (although on your exam, your PJ question-or one of them-will be a stream of commerce issue). So, when the case involves someone putting stuff out into the market, you're basically going to treat it like a jurisdictional split. IF O'Connor's approach is followed, then A) did the stuff get to the forum state and B) are there enough of the fairness factors from Asahi to bring the D into court. IF Brennan, then the flow of goods is enough.

This is probably unhelpful. Someone less far removed from first year civ pro should chime into clean up my bullshit.

Looks good to me. Just: don't forget about general jurisdiction. And be clear that the "jurisdictional split" question is governed by the opinions in McIntyre.

Also, specific jurisdiction ==> personal jurisdiction is a shit storm, and I am amazed the SCOTUS has had to dedicate so much energy into this question. CivPro should be a statute class taught by power point. Why every case I read in this class is a SCOTUS case is obviously attributable to an error by the Framers. If only they spent a couple more days...

[TTH]

It cracks me up that law students have to spend so much time in their first class and undergo so much frustration about a legal concept that will really hardly ever come up in practice.

[Gamecubesupreme]

It cracks me up that law students have to spend so much time in their first class and undergo so much frustration about a legal concept that will really hardly ever come up in practice.

We spent almost 2 weeks on Pennoyer back in 1L.

[noleknight16]

Well, it's not really two tests. The test is minimum contacts, and the standard is "Does D have sufficient contacts in this state such that bringing him into court here does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?"

So, there are facts relating to the facts of the contacts, like purposeful availment and foreseeability. Then there are things relating to fairness, like burden on the defendant and the state's interest in protecting its citizens.

Asahi is an example of minimum contacts analysis for a subset of PJ cases, stream of commerce cases. It doesn't factor into your general contacts analysis (although on your exam, your PJ question-or one of them-will be a stream of commerce issue). So, when the case involves someone putting stuff out into the market, you're basically going to treat it like a jurisdictional split. IF O'Connor's approach is followed, then A) did the stuff get to the forum state and B) are there enough of the fairness factors from Asahi to bring the D into court. IF Brennan, then the flow of goods is enough.

This is probably unhelpful. Someone less far removed from first year civ pro should chime into clean up my bullshit.

Sounds about right to me but I'm just a 1L trying to learn this crap

[uvabro]

does this really not come up a lot in practice? i know pennoyer is a waste, but say you're in P.I., don't you want the home field advantage for your client in a product liability case or class action?

[sangr]

thanks guys

I have one question though, so the analysis is more important than the answer. what does that mean?

so is this statement even needed? "in this cases there is a single and isolated case that related to the cause of action". it's part of the test but is it needed?

I guess the meat of the specific jD test is in the other stuff.

can anyone give a sample of what they might say without stating the rules too much? the most succinct, literally ThE shortest effective answer one could give in a exam?

[20130312]

Be careful that this is what your prof wants. Mine specifically broke it into three parts:

Minimum contacts
Claim arises out of said contacts
Fair and reasonable

[uvabro]

thanks guys

I have one question though, so the analysis is more important than the answer. what does that mean?

so is this statement even needed? "in this cases there is a single and isolated case that related to the cause of action". it's part of the test but is it needed?

I guess the meat of the specific jD test is in the other stuff.

can anyone give a sample of what they might say without stating the rules too much? the most succinct, literally ThE shortest effective answer one could give in a exam?

There's a case with someone accepting insurance payments from a state and being subject to there. If they are purposefully availing themselves to the state, and getting constant benefit then 1 contact may be enough. If u sell a tv in CA, and accept a payment plan getting a check each month youd likely be subject to j. The threshold seems to be purposeful and consistency. Gray is an exception and theres no clear cut role except incorporated state and domicile which is why the arguments are key. Make sure to consult the long arm statute before assessing min contacts. W no statute its all irrelevant.