Also known as: lacking personal jurisdiction · no personal jurisdiction
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A defense asserting that a court lacks authority to exercise power over a particular defendant because the defendant lacks sufficient contacts with the forum or because service of process was defective. The defense must be raised in the first responsive pleading or pre-answer motion or it is waived under the Federal Rules. Courts evaluate the defense by examining general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction, and traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Lattice Systems, a California corporation, was sued in New York federal court by a New York plaintiff over a contract performed entirely in California. Lattice Systems filed a pre-answer motion asserting lack of personal jurisdiction because it had no offices, employees, or sales in New York. The court must address the motion before reaching the merits because the defense was properly preserved.
Lumen Capital, a Delaware holding company, was sued in California by Argentine plaintiffs for events that occurred entirely in Argentina. Lumen Capital had a subsidiary that sold products in California, but the parent itself was not at home in the state. The court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because the subsidiary's contacts could not be attributed to the parent.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Logan Lane, a New Jersey resident, was served with process while briefly visiting California on vacation. The plaintiff sued Lane in California state court for an unrelated accident that occurred in New Jersey. The court upheld jurisdiction because physical presence in the forum at the time of service satisfies due process.
Lola Langley purchased a cruise ticket containing a Florida forum-selection clause. After an injury on the ship, she sued the cruise line in Washington state court. The court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because the clause was enforceable and required litigation in Florida.
Liam Larson sued a Scottish aircraft manufacturer in California for a crash that occurred in Scotland. The manufacturer moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer. The court transferred the case to Pennsylvania under section 1404(a) even though personal jurisdiction over the defendant was questionable in California.
Leonard Lowe, a Florida trustee, was sued in Florida by Delaware beneficiaries over a Delaware trust. The trust assets and administration occurred entirely in Delaware. The court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because the trustee had not purposefully directed any activities toward Florida.
A defendant must raise the defense in the first pre-answer motion or in the answer, whichever comes first. Failure to do so waives the defense under Rule 12(h)(1). The defense cannot be raised for the first time after the initial responsive filing.
Supporting sources
No. A court may transfer a case for convenience even if it lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The transferor court's lack of personal jurisdiction does not defeat the power to transfer under 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a).
Supporting sources
Yes. A director who obtains dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is wholly successful in the proceeding as to that director. The corporation must therefore indemnify the director for reasonable expenses incurred in the defense.
Supporting sources
…in all respects. The Florida decree was held not binding for purposes of full faith and credit because the Florida court had no personal jurisdiction over the trust companies and no jurisdiction over the trust res. The issues for our decision are, first, whether Florida erred in holding that it had jurisdiction over the nonresident…