Jurisdiction Commons^™

By Fair Means: The Inapplicability Of Bristol-Myers Squibb To Flsa Collective Action Lawsuits, Paige Maxa

Washington Law Review

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), passed by Congress in 1938, sets federal workplace standards and protects over 100 million workers in the United States. The FLSA also includes a collective action provision, which allows workers to privately sue their employers for FLSA violations in a unique way. A collective action lawsuit is a distinct form of aggregate litigation that allows an employee to sue their employer for FLSA violations on behalf of other similarly situated employees in one action. Similarly situated employees who wish to join a collective action must affirmatively opt in and consent to participate in the …

Chimeric Contacts And Consent: The Ill-Reasoned Expansion Of Corporate Jurisdictional Exposure, James P. George

William & Mary Business Law Review

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have imposed aspects of general jurisdiction in a way that exposes corporations and possibly other legal actors to litigation in spuriously connected forums. One case—Ford Motor Company v. Montana—reached a fair result but with strained reasoning that will support unfair results. The second case—Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Company—was wrong on the facts and the law, imposing general jurisdiction based on a vaguely worded corporate registration statute validated by a more than century-old precedent based on Pennoyer v. Neff’s limited territorial model.

Both decisions were the result of conceptual corners …

Chimeric Contacts And Consent: The Ill-Reasoned Expansion Of Corporate Jurisdictional Exposure, James Paul George

Faculty Scholarship

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have imposed aspects of general jurisdiction in a way that exposes corporations and possibly other legal actors to litigation in spuriously connected forums. One case-Ford Motor Company v. Montana-reached a fair result but with strained reasoning that will support unfair results. The second case-Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Company-was wrong on the facts and the law, imposing general jurisdiction based on a vaguely worded corporate registration statute validated by a more than century-old precedent based on Pennoyer v. Neff's limited territorial model. Both decisions were the result of conceptual corners the Supreme Court has created …

Let's Get Personal: Due Process And Personal Jurisdiction As A New Path Forward For Extraterritoriality, Samy Abdelsalam

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has put fundamental principles of federalism and state sovereignty under attack. Legislation and lawsuits in states nationwide aim to limit the rights of American citizens to travel freely between states in search of medical care. Further, these measures have extraterritorial reach, legally entangling the rights of private citizens in other states who provide medical care even while fully within their own state borders. Scholars have analyzed this development through various doctrinal lenses, including the Dormant Commerce Clause. But these frameworks fail to adequately protect those who are unfortunate enough …

The Role Of Foreseeability In Jurisdictional Inquiry: Tyson V. Whittaker & Son, Inc., Philip M. Coffin Iii

Maine Law Review

When defining the extent of their jurisdiction over nonresident defendants, state courts must be ever mindful of the principle that "all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny. In deciding jurisdictional issues against this background of Supreme Court decisions, many courts have had considerable difficulty in ascertaining the precise extent of the amorphous and discretionary standards set forth in International Shoe and subsequent cases. In the recent decision of Tyson v. Whitaker & Son, Inc., the Maine Supreme Judicial Court was put to this task in deciding whether …

Keep The Home Fires Burning: The Enduring Embers Of Pennsylvania Fire, Jack B. Harrison

Texas A&M Law Review

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ford Motor Co. in 2021, what characterized the Court’s personal jurisdiction jurisprudence was a desire to restrict access to the courts for plaintiffs seeking redress for injuries and to protect large corporate defendants by limiting the available jurisdictions in which they could be sued. For example, in Daimler, the Court rejected the traditional understanding of general jurisdiction based on a defendant corporation’s activities within the forum state and, in so doing, turned years of lower court decisions developing the understanding of general jurisdiction on its head.

However, more recently, the Court has …

There’S No Place Like Essentially At Home: General Jurisdiction Over Individuals Apart From Domicile And Presence, Jeffrey L. Rensberger

Arkansas Law Review

In personal jurisdiction, an intellectual siloing has prevented some courts from using a basis of jurisdiction over individuals that is available for corporations. This Article explores this question. Jurisdiction in such a case turns on whether general jurisdiction based on a large number of unrelated contacts--contacts-based general jurisdiction--applies to individuals as well as to corporations. The short answer is that despite hesitancy in the cases, such jurisdiction has historically been invoked and this is a correct result as a matter of due process doctrine. One aim of this Article is to dispel the doubt on this point that unnecessarily persists. …

Remote Work's Complication Of Companies' Personal Jurisdiction Standings: Morphing The Historical Analysis To Fit Modern Remote Work Characteristics, Lindarose Piccolo

American University Business Law Review

Personal jurisdiction ensures that the proper forum adjudicates civil disputes to prevent burdening a defendant with litigating in inconvenient forums. International Shoe Co. v. Washington established that defendants must have minimum contacts with the forum state such that exercise of jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice. Following International Shoe, many cases have provided examples of the minimum contacts that would establish personal jurisdiction.

However, the ability for employees to work remotely from their homes using technological devices and software has exponentially increased over the past five years. Because of the increased ability to work remotely from anywhere in …

Doe V. Geller And Personal Jurisdiction Over Internet Activities, Elizabeth Kruse

Texas A&M Law Review

Personal jurisdiction is fundamental in American jurisprudence since it gives a court the power to bind parties with its ruling. Despite this subject’s mundane veneer, the concept is so complicated that it has inspired thousands of academic articles. A brief search on Westlaw under Law Reviews & Journals for the term “personal jurisdiction” yields nearly 10,000 results, while Lexis+ yields 14,662 for the same term. Even so, as the nature of human interaction has changed from in person, to in writing, to over the phone, and, most recently, to over the internet, the doctrine of personal jurisdiction has accommodated. Recent …

Comity & Federalism In Extraterritorial Abortion Regulation, Jensen Lillquist

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and held that states may regulate abortion in whatever manner they wish. In the wake of Dobbs, commentators and laypersons have focused primarily on its implications for reproductive rights and other fundamental rights—such as gay marriage. Less often discussed are the questions that arise regarding state extraterritorial jurisdiction. Since Dobbs, a patchwork of laws has developed: pro-life states have placed greater restrictions on abortion, while pro-choice states have sought to expand abortion access. Questions have arisen regarding whether and to what extent states may regulate the …

Traditional Notions Of Fair Play And Substantial Justice?: The Interplay Between Remote Work, State Regulations, And Personal Jurisdiction, Kathryn M. Couture

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Internet, Personal Jurisdiction, And Daos, Matthew R. Mcguire

Washington and Lee Law Review

Global connectivity is at an all-time high, and sovereign state law has not fully caught up with the technological innovations enabling that connectivity. TCP/IP—the communications protocol allowing computers on different networks to speak with each other—wasn’t adopted by ARPANET and the Defense Data Network until January 1983. That’s only forty years ago. And the World Wide Web wasn’t released to the general public until August 1991, less than thirty-five years ago. The first Bitcoin block was mined on January 3, 2009, less than fifteen years ago.

Legal doctrine doesn’t develop that fast, especially in legal systems heavily based around judicial …

Running On Empty: Ford V. Montana And The Folly Of Minimum Contacts, James P. George

Faculty Scholarship

Jurisdictional contests are in disarray. Criticisms date back to the issuance of International Shoe Co. v. Washington but the breakdown may be best illustrated in two recent Supreme Court opinions, the first rejecting California’s “sliding scale” that mixes general and specific contacts, the second using the discredited sliding scale to hold Ford amenable in states where accidents occurred.

California’s sliding scale is one variety of the contacts-relatedness tests, used in lower courts to have general contacts bolster weaker specific contacts. Some states—Montana and Minnesota for example—use the opposite extreme requiring a causal connection in defendant’s forum contacts, often using foreseeability …

Ford V. Where Are We?: The Revival Of The Sliding Scale To Govern The Supreme Court's New "Relating To" Personal Jurisdiction, Zois Manaris

William & Mary Law Review

This Note proposes a test to govern “relating to” specific jurisdiction, a variation on a theme to those familiar with the doctrine: a “sliding scale” approach to contacts and relatedness, accompanied by a separate assessment of reasonableness factors the Supreme Court has outlined in previous cases to serve as a check on the sliding scale. Part I of this Note explains the “sliding scale” approach, its unpleasant first interaction with the Court, and its revival by the Ford majority. Part II defines this Note’s proposed test and demonstrates its consistency with Supreme Court precedent. Finally, Part III applies this Note’s …

Beyond Bristol-Myers : Personal Jurisdiction Over Class Actions, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court threatens a sea change in the relationship between personal jurisdiction and aggregate litigation. The most crucial concern has been what the decision means for class actions. Must a court subject the claims of every unnamed class member to separate jurisdictional scrutiny? If so, it could be impossible for a plaintiff who sues in her home state to represent class members outside that state; instead, the Constitution would permit multi-state or nationwide class actions only in states where the defendant is subject to general jurisdiction. For claims against a …

Nonparty Jurisdiction, Aaron D. Simowitz, Linda J. Silberman

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The Supreme Court's recent decisions on personal jurisdiction, including its 2021 decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, have all focused on the adjudication of plenary claims. In seven years, the Court has decided six major cases on personal jurisdiction in that context. However, these precedents also appear to guide lower courts in areas outside the traditional focus of personal jurisdiction doctrine but where personal jurisdiction is nonetheless necessary. For example, a court must have personal jurisdiction over a nonparty witness in order to compel the witness to testify or to produce documents. A court must …

Ford's Underlying Controversy, Christine P. Bartholomew, Anya Bernstein

Faculty Scholarship

Personal jurisdiction—the doctrine that determines where a plaintiff can sue—is a mess. Everyone agrees that a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant with sufficient in-state contacts related to a plaintiff’s claim. This Article reveals, however, that courts diverge radically in their understanding of what a claim is. Without stating so outright, some courts limit the claim to a cause of action or its elements, while others understand it to encompass the controversy underlying the litigation. What is worse, few have noticed that these discrepancies even exist, much less explained why. This Article does just that. We show that …

The Cost Of Doing Business? Corporate Registration As Valid Consent To General Personal Jurisdiction, Matthew D. Kaminer

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Every state has a statute that requires out-of-state corporations to register with a designated official before doing business there, but courts disagree on what impact, if any, those statutes can or should have on personal jurisdiction doctrine. A minority of states interpret compliance with their registration statutes as the company’s consent to general personal jurisdiction, meaning it can be sued on any cause of action there, even those unrelated to the company’s conduct in that state. The United States Supreme Court upheld this “consent by registration” theory over 100 years ago, but since then has manifested a sea change in …

Consent By Registration: The "Back-Door Thief", Nate Arrington

Arkansas Law Review

Consider this personal jurisdiction quandary: A growing Arizona company wants to start expanding into other states. The company is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Arizona. It decides to make the leap and begins registering to do business in a few surrounding states, including New Mexico. The registration seems straightforward and does not mention anything about jurisdiction. After the registration, but before conducting any business in New Mexico, a Kentucky resident decides to sue the Arizona-based corporation. The suit is based on an alleged tort occurring in Utah, and the plaintiff files the lawsuit in …

Machine Learning And The New Civil Procedure, Zoe Niesel

Faculty Articles

There is an increasing emphasis in the legal academy, the media, and the popular consciousness on how artificial intelligence and machine learning will change the foundations of legal practice. In concert with these discussions, a critical question needs to be explored-As computer programming learns to adjust itself without explicit human involvement, does machine learning impact the procedural practice of law? Civil procedure, while sensitive to technology, has been slow to adapt to change. As such, this Article will explore the impact that machine learning will have on procedural jurisprudence in two significant areas-service of process and personal jurisdiction.

The Article …

Standards Of Review In Texas, W. Wendell Hall, Ryan G. Anderson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

#Personaljurisdiction: A New Age Of Internet Contacts, Zoe Niesel

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Personal Jurisdiction: The Transnational Difference, Austen L. Parrish

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This Article engages with some of the key debates that have emerged among international Iaw and civil procedure scholars by examining the flurry of recent transnational cases that have become a common feature on the U.S. Supreme Court's docket. It makes three principal contributions. First, it explains how the recent decisions involving persona jurisdiction should be understood within, and partly limited to, their international contexts. Disputes in involving non-resident foreign defendants raise different considerations than those involving defendants in the United States, and this Article canvasses those differences. If a concern previously was that courts gave too short shrift to …

Plaintiff Personal Jurisdiction And Venue Transfer, Scott Dodson

Michigan Law Review

Personal jurisdiction usually focuses on the rights of the defendant. This is because a plaintiff implicitly consents to personal jurisdiction in the court where the plaintiff chooses to file. But what if the defendant seeks to transfer venue to a court in a state in which the plaintiff has no contacts and never consented to personal jurisdiction? Lower courts operate on the assumption that in both ordinary venue-transfer cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and multidistrict-litigation cases under § 1407(a), personal-jurisdiction concerns for plaintiffs simply do not apply. I contest that assumption. Neither statute expands the statutory authorization of federal-court …

Access To Justice, Rationality, And Personal Jurisdiction, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

After more than twenty years of silence, the Supreme Court has addressed personal jurisdiction six times over the last six Terms. This Article examines the Court’s recent decisions in terms of their effect on access to justice and the enforcement of substantive law. The Court’s new case law has unquestionably made it harder to establish general jurisdiction—that is, the kind of jurisdiction that requires no affiliation at all between the forum state and the litigation. Although this shift has been justifiably criticized, meaningful access and enforcement can be preserved through other aspects of the jurisdictional framework, namely (1) the basic …

Personal Jurisdiction Over Orb-Web Corporations: A Re-Routed Approach For "Change In The Navigation Of Time", Vidhya Iyer

Global Business Law Review

The law of personal jurisdiction lies at the heart of all litigation. Our courts must recognize the rights of individuals as well as the rights of corporations. The motto placed at the entrance of the United States Supreme Court—"Equal Justice Under Law"—ensures the promise of equal justice under the law to all persons. It expresses the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States (the "Court") as the highest tribunal for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States and functions as a guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. From the …

Solving The Nonresident Alien Due Process Paradox In Personal Jurisdiction, Robin J. Effron

Michigan Law Review Online

Personal jurisdiction has a nonresident alien problem. Or, more accurately, personal jurisdiction has two nonresident alien problems. The first is the extent to which the specter of the nonresident alien defendant has overshadowed-if not unfairly driven-the discourse and doctrine over constitutional personal jurisdiction. The second is that the constitutional right to resist personal jurisdiction enjoyed by the nonresident alien defendant in a civil lawsuit is remarkably out of alignment with that same nonresident alien's ability to assert nearly every other constitutional right. Neither of these observations is new, although the first problem has drawn far more scholarly attention than the …

Personal Jurisdiction And Aliens, William S. Dodge, Scott Dodson

Michigan Law Review

The increasing prevalence of noncitizens in U.S. civil litigation raises a funda-mental question for the doctrine of personal jurisdiction: How should the alienage status of a defendant affect personal jurisdiction? This fundamental question comes at a time of increasing Supreme Court focus on personal juris-diction, in cases like Bristol–Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, Daimler AG v. Bauman, and J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro. We aim to answer that question by offering a theory of personal jurisdiction over aliens. Under this theory, alienage status broadens the geographic range for mini-mum contacts from a single state to the whole nation. …

Minimum Virtual Contacts: A Framework For Specific Jurisdiction In Cyberspace, Adam R. Kleven

Michigan Law Review

As the ubiquity and importance of the internet continue to grow, courts will address more cases involving online activity. In doing so, courts will confront the threshold issue of whether a defendant can be subject to specific personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, has yet to speak to this internet-jurisdiction issue. Current precedent, when strictly applied to the internet, yields fundamentally unfair results when addressing specific jurisdiction. To better achieve the fairness aim of due process, this must change. This Note argues that, in internet tort cases, the “express aiming” requirement should be discarded from the jurisdictional analysis and that …

Personal Jurisdiction And The Web, Joseph S. Burns, Richard A. Bales

Maine Law Review

Courts have struggled in determining precisely when a defendant should be subject to suit in a particular forum based on his or her Web activity. Although most jurisdictions have applied some form of the “minimum contacts” test, the test has been applied inconsistently. A new standard is needed to resolve personal jurisdiction disputes arising out of Web activity. This Article examines the ways in which modern courts have attempted to resolve personal jurisdiction issues based on Web activity, as well as the inconsistencies that have resulted from the inherent difficulty in conceptualizing the Web.