Personal Jurisdiction on

A quick review of Civ Pro I

General PJ: Where Defendant has systematic and

continuous contacts with the forum state.

Specific PJ: Where Defendant has “certain

minimum contacts” with the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

Due Process Analysis 3-Part Test (Mohasco):

(1) D must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum or causing a consequence in the forum.

(2) The cause of action must arise from D’s contacts with the forum.

(3) D’s acts or the consequences caused by him must have a substantial enough connection with the forum to make the exercise of jurisdiction over D reasonable.

Purposeful Availment Based on Interactivity of Website (Zippo)

3 levels of interactivity: (1) Purely passive sites: informational only(2) Active sites: users clearly transact

business(3) Hybrid sites: users exchange information

with the host computer

Under Zippo, Internet auctions (eBay) are more than a passive website, and will support a finding of purposeful availment.

Dedvukaj v. Maloney (E.D. Mich. 2006)

D = NY seller

Dedvukaj v. Maloney (cont.)

P = MI buyer

Dedvukaj v. Maloney (cont.)

Forum = MI District Court

Action for breach of K, fraud, and misrepresentation

PJ?

MI Long-Arm Statute

“The existence of any of the following relationships… enable a court of record to exercise limited personal jurisdiction over the individual…” (1) The transaction of any business within the

state.(2) The doing or causing an act to be done, or

consequences to occur, in the state resulting in an action for tort.

[…](5) Entering into a contract for services to be

rendered or for materials to be furnished in the state by the defendant.

Dedvukaj v. Maloney (cont.)

Due Process requirement: D must have adequate “minimum

contacts” with the forum.

3-Part Test (Mohasco):(1) Purposeful availment(2) Suit must arise out of D’s activities with

the forum(3) PJ must be reasonable: D’s acts/

consequences must have a substantial connection with the forum

Dedvukaj v. Maloney (cont.)

“Defendants are not random sellers on eBay cleaning out their attic or selling knick-knacks out of their garage. Defendants appear to be highly sophisticated sellers with an extensive offering of merchandise and a volume of business that requires a warehouse.”

MacNeil v. Trambert (Ill. App. 2010)

D = CA seller

P = IL buyer

Forum = IL

MacNeil v. Trambert (cont.)

“…Trambert placed the vehicle for sale on eBay, had no control over who ultimately purchased it […]”

“[…] and, once the item was purchased, had limited contacts with MacNeil.”

“Therefore, Trambert’s conduct directed at this forum did not rise to the level of purposeful availment...”

MacNeil v. Trambert (cont.)

Purposeful availment based on “the level of interactivity and the commercial nature of the information exchanged”?

No. “One-time deal.”

The Effects Doctrine

Erwin v. Piscitello (E.D. Tenn. 2007)

D = TX seller

1962 Impala; “mint”

Erwin v. Piscitello (cont.) P = TN buyer

1962 Impala; “less-than-mint”

Erwin v. Piscitello (cont.)

Purposeful availment

“Defendant knowingly interacted with a Tennessee resident, he “hard-sold” the Impala to Plaintiff, and he misrepresented the Impala's mint condition.”

Erwin v. Piscitello (cont.)

The Effects Test (Calder)

“Plaintiff's misrepresentation and fraud claims stem from Defendant's acts of calling into Tennessee and representing the Impala was something it was not.”