Steps in analyzing specific and general jurisdiction

Specific jurisdiction (“case specific”)

“Case specific” means that there is a relationship between the contacts and the claim that can justify the assertion of PJ.

General jurisdiction (“all purpose”)

“All purpose” means that there is not a relationship between the contacts and the claim, but the D’s contacts with the forum state are nevertheless so extensive that they justify the assertion of PJ.

STEP ONE:

Purposeful availment

Required for specific and general jurisdiction

This asks about the nature of the defendant’s contacts, whether or not they constituted some sort of benefit to the D (ask whether there was a quid pro quo created by D’s contact(s)).

• A single contact may be enough (facts of Hess as reimagined in Shoe).
• Systematic & continuous contacts are even better. This was the scenario in Int’l Shoe.

Note: In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California (2017), the Supreme Court held that specific jurisdiction required “an ‘affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.’” (quoting Goodyear, 564 U. S., at 919) (emphasis added). That means that contacts with other states are irrelevant.

D must still purposefully avail itself of privileges & benefits of FS (WWVW) but the level of purposeful availment required is much higher.

The kind of purposeful availment required for general jurisdiction is much higher.

• General jurisdiction will never exist based on isolated contacts.
• Systematic and continuous contacts are required, but by themselves are not enough.
• The defendant must also be “at home” in the forum state as noted below, which can be 1) corporate PPOB; 2) place of incorporation; 3) an individual’s domicile; or 4) fallback general jurisdiction (below).
• Fallback general jurisdiction: In extraordinary circumstances general jurisdiction can exist in other places that are akin to # 1-3 (“fallback” general jurisdiction), but such places will be rare indeed.

STEP TWO:

Contacts with FS give rise to the claim

Required for specific jurisdiction

This looks to the relationship between the defendant’s forum state contacts and the claim. Note that in Bristol-Myers Squibb (2017) (“BMS“), the Supreme Court held 8-1 that the relevant in-state contacts are those giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim. So in BMS, the D sold a drug, Plavix, all over the country. The plaintiffs included residents of California (the forum state) and a bunch of other states. The California court did have PJ over the California plaintiff’s claims, but not over the out-of-state plaintiffs’ claims. The court held that defendant’s California contacts did not give rise to the out-of-state plaintiffs’ claims. The fact that the defendant’s California contacts were similar to contacts the defendant had in other states (i.e., selling Plavix all over the country) were not enough.

Regarding the nature of the “giving rise” test, courts may vary in their approach:

• Evidence test: D’s FS contacts are also evidence relevant to the claim.

Example: D drives to Mass. and gets into a car accident. D’s Mass. contacts (driving in Mass.) show purposeful availment and will be used to prove D was negligent.

• But-for test: If D had never made the contact, there would have never been a claim. Put differently, “but for” the contact, the claim would never have occurred.

Example: If D had never driven to Mass., he would never have engaged in his alleged negligence in that state.

Why? By definition, general jurisdiction does not arise from the contacts. That’s why it’s called “all purpose” jurisdiction.

Keep in mind: If you have a fact pattern which involves systematic & continuous contacts that do give rise to the claim, then it is more likely an example of specific jurisdiction. Systematic & continuous contacts that give rise to the claim would be Box B from the MC table.

STEP THREE:

Reasonableness factors

Required for specific jurisdiction

Note the burden-shifting: Once PA is shown (Step One), then court presumes reasonableness. That means the burden regarding this factor has shifted to D, and D has the burden of showing a “compelling case” of unreasonableness (BK).

Also note that a strong showing of reasonableness (Step Three) can boost a weak showing of contacts (Step One), as long as those contacts exist (BK).

Factors to examine:

• Primary factor: D’s burden (i.e., hardship) in defending in FS
• FS interest
• P interest
• Judicial efficiency
• Substantive policy

Why? In Daimler FN 20, the Court held that courts do not analyze the reasonableness factors in a general jurisdiction scenario.