Personal jurisdiction (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Personal jurisdiction is the power of a court to require that a party (usually the defendant) or a witness come before the court. The court must have personal jurisdiction to enforce its judgments or orders against a party.
Personal jurisdiction is to be distinguished from subject-matter jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment concerning a certain subject matter. Personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, and notice are the three requirements for a valid judgment.
Contents |
[edit] Methods of acquiring personal jurisdiction
In a civil case, personal jurisdiction over a defendant is obtained by service of a summons. Personal jurisdiction over a witness is obtained by service of a subpoena. Service can be accomplished by personal delivery of the summons or subpoena to the person or an authorized agent of the person. Service may also be made by substituted means; for example, in many jurisdictions, service of a summons can be made on a person of suitable age and discretion at the residence or place of business of the defendant. Jurisdiction over corporations can often be obtained through a government body authorized to receive such process. In some jurisdictions the Clerk of the Court may be authorized to accept legal process for persons who cannot otherwise be found.
Traditionally, in civil proceedings in the United States, the defendant was required to be physically present, at the time he or she was served with a summons, in the state where the court sits. Over the years, the reach of personal jurisdiction was expanded by judicial interpretations and legislative enactments. For example, states in the United States have statutes that govern obtaining personal jurisdiction over out-of-state motorists who are involved in accidents within a state. In addition, the states have enacted provisions for "long arm jurisdiction," by which the courts can exercise jurisdiction over a business entity or individual located outside the state, if (for example) the out-of-state entity or individual regularly does business in the state or transacted business with the plaintiff within the state.
[edit] Constitutional limits
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that constitutional requirements of due process limit the state courts' exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresidents.
In general, to be subject to personal jurisdiction, a defendant that was not personally served with process within the state must have a sufficient level of personal or business contacts with the state in which the court sits that the defendant could reasonably expect to be sued there. These contacts are generally referred to by the term of art "minimum contacts". Generally speaking, a party is subject to personal jurisdiction in a state if the party has purposely availed itself of the resources of protection of the state. See. e.g., Pennoyer v. Neff and International Shoe v. Washington.
Normally, the personal jurisdiction of a United States District Court is concurrent with the personal jurisdiction of the courts of the state in which it sits. In some circumstances, however, statutes and rules of court allow the federal District Courts to exercise nationwide personal jurisdiction or to exercise personal jurisdiction over foreign persons or entities based on their contacts with the United States as a whole.
The Due Process Clause has been construed to place limits on the assertion of personal jurisdiction over a defendant to a lawsuit, limiting the locations where that defendant may be brought into court. This is of particular relevance in cases involving business transactions conducted across state lines, where the defendant may not have set foot in the other state, but still conducted affairs with the other state's residents through correspondence, the shipment of goods, or indirect agents. These limits also apply to jurisdiction over foreign defendants in U.S. courts.
According to the minimum contacts standard, simply put, the defendant's actions determine where he can be sued, rather than the actions or movement of the plaintiff. Courts are still working out how this applies to lawsuits regarding Internet activity and business, though some courts appear to be in agreement that the "passive" posting of a website is not enough to establish widespread jurisdiction wherever someone wants to sue the web author over the contents.
A court in one state must have a means of notifying the resident of another (or of a foreign country), to comply with the notice requirement of due process. This is typically done through "long-arm statutes" that provide for service of process upon the defendant in another jurisdiction through agents located or sent there. Because out-of-state defendants can't always be located easily, some state or local laws may allow for service by publication. An example of this would be printing a notice of the lawsuit in a newspaper published where the defendant is believed to reside. Because the failure of a defendant to appear in court results in a default judgment against him, such measures must be sufficiently calculated to give actual notice to the defendant to satisfy due process.
[edit] General and specific jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction in the United States is divided into two categories. A court may exercise jurisdiction if it finds either general or specific jurisdiction over a party. General jurisdiction exists when a party has extensive ("continuous and systematic") dealings with the forum administered by the court. Specific jurisdiction is present when a party performed some activity in the territory without which the present action before the court could not have been brought.
[edit] Internet Jurisdiction
When determining the jurisdiction of an Internet company, courts have used the "purposeful availment" test to determine whether a company can be sued in a specific jurisdiction. Specifically, courts have looked at 3 factors: availment of a company to another jurisdiction, whether an act was done in another jurisdiction, and whether the jurisdiction is reasonable for the defendant to expect to defend himself there.
The courts that use this test include Cybersell v Cybersell (where the court held a Florida company had no jurisdiction in Arizona for a Trademark infringement/dilution claim as the Cybersell (Fla) website merely displayed information), Zippo Manufacturing v Zippo.com (where the court looked at the nature of the website and held that sending out a newsgroup email to 3,000 California residents was enough availment to be subject jurisdiction in Caifornia) and Down Jones v Gutnick (where the court held that the WSJ who defamed Gutnick was subject to jurisdiction in Gutnick's country of Australia, as the WSJ availed themselves to Australian law by defaming a resident there.
