2. Inconvenience and burden on D 3. State interest in adjudicating-relationship of activity or parties to state 4. Liberty interests of the parties 5. Sovereignty interests of states 6. Shared states interests in furthering substantive policies McIntyre v. Nicastro (2011) Facts: D is a foreign Corp. that produced a large metal sheering machine that was sold in the US through a distributor that was completely owned by D D attended conventions in other states but never in NJ, where the plaintiff was injured by the machine (NO more than four machines ended up in NJ) Holding: majority held that even though D had purposefully availed itself of the US, it did NOT purposefully avail itself of NJ and could NOT be subject to PJ there One machine is NOT sufficient to support minimum contacts Strong dissent believes D wanted its products to go anywhere they could, purposefully tried to reach as many customers as possible, and the machine ending up in NJ was neither fortuitous nor random NO GJ, but why not SJ based on accident arising with that one contact with the state? Subjection to jurisdiction may be the price to pay for doing international business If subject to US law, why not NJ law? If the issue is fairness, HOW is it unfair to sue in state court but NOT in federal court? What is the result of Asahi and McIntyre? Manufacturers of component parts who do NOT direct the product to the forum state and sell the product elsewhere are NOT subject to jurisdiction If manufacturer sells product through a distributor, it will ONLY be subject to jurisdiction for claims arising in the states where it directed the goods Factors to consider in asserting personal jurisdiction under minimum contacts test: Burden on State’s interest in adjudicating interest in convenient relief ’s Interstate judicial efficiency Shared interests of states in furthering substantive policies (1985) Burger King v. Rudzewicz D was in a 20 year contract agreement with a FL corporation which he broke (5) criteria may show of jurisdiction when there are less Holding: reasonableness minimum contacts than are normally required Parties had a continuous contractual relationship which was purposefully activity with the forum state directed D that he could be haled to court in FL should have known
2. Inconvenience and burden on D 3. State interest in adjudicating-relationship of activity or parties to state 4. Liberty interests of the parties 5. Sovereignty interests of states 6. Shared states interests in furthering substantive policies McIntyre v. Nicastro (2011) Facts: D is a foreign Corp. that produced a large metal sheering machine that was sold in the US through a distributor that was completely owned by D D attended conventions in other states but never in NJ, where the plaintiff was injured by the machine (NO more than four machines ended up in NJ) Holding: majority held that even though D had purposefully availed itself of the US, it did NOT purposefully avail itself of NJ and could NOT be subject to PJ there One machine is NOT sufficient to support minimum contacts Strong dissent believes D wanted its products to go anywhere they could, purposefully tried to reach as many customers as possible, and the machine ending up in NJ was neither fortuitous nor random NO GJ, but why not SJ based on accident arising with that one contact with the state? Subjection to jurisdiction may be the price to pay for doing international business If subject to US law, why not NJ law? If the issue is fairness, HOW is it unfair to sue in state court but NOT in federal court? What is the result of Asahi and McIntyre? Manufacturers of component parts who do NOT direct the product to the forum state and sell the product elsewhere are NOT subject to jurisdiction If manufacturer sells product through a distributor, it will ONLY be subject to jurisdiction for claims arising in the states where it directed the goods Factors to consider in asserting personal jurisdiction under minimum contacts test: Burden on State’s interest in adjudicating ’s interest in convenient relief Interstate judicial efficiency Shared interests of states in furthering substantive policies Burger King v. Rudzewicz (1985) D was in a 20 year contract agreement with a FL corporation which he broke Holding: (5) criteria may show reasonableness of jurisdiction when there are less minimum contacts than are normally required Parties had a continuous contractual relationship which was purposefully directed activity with the forum state D should have known that he could be haled to court in FL
Civ%20Pro%20Outline(2).docx