Civ pro question-corporation general jurisdiction Forum

[supersplittysplitter]

If a corporation has its headquarters in a state and is subject to the general jurisdiction of that state, for the purposes of 1391(b)(3) is that corporation subject to jurisdiction in every district in that state, or only the district where its headquarters is?

[NoBladesNoBows]

[fbuster]

If a corporation has its headquarters in a state and is subject to the general jurisdiction of that state, for the purposes of 1391(b)(3) is that corporation subject to jurisdiction in every district in that state, or only the district where its headquarters is?

District where the headquarters is + district where the principal place of business + district where contacts arise

[NoBladesNoBows]

[fbuster]

If a corporation has its headquarters in a state and is subject to the general jurisdiction of that state, for the purposes of 1391(b)(3) is that corporation subject to jurisdiction in every district in that state, or only the district where its headquarters is?

District where the headquarters is + district where the principal place of business + district where contacts arise

Careful with this, cause I think you meant place of incorporation rather than headquarters. Headquarters and principal place of business SHOULD be the same, "provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination, i.e., the “nerve center,” and not simply an office where the corporation holds its board meetings (for example, attended by directors and officers who have traveled there for the occasion)." Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 93, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1192, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1029 (2010).

exactly right

[Chrstgtr]

If a corporation has its headquarters in a state and is subject to the general jurisdiction of that state, for the purposes of 1391(b)(3) is that corporation subject to jurisdiction in every district in that state, or only the district where its headquarters is?

District where the headquarters is + district where the principal place of business + district where contacts arise

Careful with this, cause I think you meant place of incorporation rather than headquarters. Headquarters and principal place of business SHOULD be the same, "provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination, i.e., the “nerve center,” and not simply an office where the corporation holds its board meetings (for example, attended by directors and officers who have traveled there for the occasion)." Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 93, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1192, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1029 (2010).

I think there is an argument that it does not need to be. For example Boeing is HQed in Chicago (they have a huge building so I assume they do more than just hold random meetings), is incorporated in Delaware, and does most of its business in Seattle.

[NoBladesNoBows]

[supersplittysplitter]

just to be clear 1391(b)(3) doesn't use the word resides- that's why I thought if a corporation is subject to general jurisdiction in a state then venue would be appropriate in any district in that state (in a b(3) situation).

my confusion with b(3) is it seems to restrict PJ district by district, but I thought states had PJ, and district divisions were irrelevant in terms of jurisdiction.

[NoBladesNoBows]

[supersplittysplitter]

as a related question: if somebody was served with process in the southern district of california for example, for 1391(b)(3) purposes would any district in california be an appropriate venue because personal service confers jurisdiction over the party in the entire state?

I read this article by a W&M professor who said there would only be venue in the district where service occurred... is that right? It seems strange to look at PJ on a district by district basis like this

http://michaelstevengreen.typepad.com/b ... atute.html

[NoBladesNoBows]