Also known as: specific jurisdiction · specific in personam jurisdiction
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A court's authority to adjudicate claims against a nonresident defendant when the claims arise out of or relate to the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum state. The contacts must create a substantial connection such that the defendant could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. The exercise of jurisdiction must also comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Serena Soto, a resident of State X, and three nonresident plaintiffs sued Sierra Solutions in State X court after suffering injuries from a product sold nationwide. Sierra Solutions had extensive contacts with State X that supported jurisdiction over Soto's claim. The court dismissed the nonresidents' claims because their injuries occurred outside State X and bore no connection to any Sierra Solutions activity in the forum.
Steven Silva bought a vehicle in State Y and sued Silverline Industries there after an accident caused by a defect. Silverline Industries advertised heavily in State Y, maintained dealerships, and supplied replacement parts to State Y customers. The court upheld specific personal jurisdiction even though Silva's particular vehicle had not been designed or first sold in State Y.
Sasha Stone, a State Z resident, purchased a life insurance policy from Southland Foods after the company solicited her through an agent in State Z. After the company denied her claim, Stone sued in State Z court. The court exercised specific personal jurisdiction because the suit arose directly from the company's deliberate solicitation and maintenance of the contract in the forum.
Sophia Singh, a State W resident, used Spectrum Financial's website to book travel services after the site displayed State W-specific rates, accepted reservations from State W users, and provided driving directions from State W. Singh sued in State W court for breach of contract. The court found specific personal jurisdiction because the website's interactive features purposefully targeted forum residents and the claim arose from those contacts.
Zippo Manufacturing Company is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Bradford, Pennsylvania, where it manufactures Zippo tobacco lighters. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Sunnyvale, California. Dot Com operates an Internet website and news service and holds the domain names zippo.com, zippo.net, and zipponews.com. Dot Com's website provides information about the company, advertisements, and an online application for its Internet news service. The service offers three membership levels, with paid subscribers receiving passwords to access newsgroup messages stored on servers in California after submitting personal information and paying by credit card. Approximately 3,000 of Dot Com's 140,000 paying subscribers reside in Pennsylvania. Dot Com has also entered into agreements with seven Internet access providers in Pennsylvania, two of which are in the Western District, allowing their subscribers to access the news service. These contacts occurred through the Internet, as Dot Com maintains no offices, employees, or agents in Pennsylvania. Manufacturing filed a five-count complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging trademark dilution, infringement, and false designation under federal law, as well as state law claims, based on Dot Com's use of the word "Zippo" in its domain names, website, and newsgroup message headers. Dot Com moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case.
Seth Shapiro and other out-of-state drivers sued a tire manufacturer in State V court after accidents occurring entirely outside the state. The manufacturer maintained substantial operations in State V but the claims bore no relation to those operations. The court declined specific personal jurisdiction because the accidents and purchases had no connection to the forum.
In April 2004, a bus carrying young soccer players from North Carolina overturned on a road outside Paris, France, killing two 13-year-old boys, Julian Brown and Matthew Helms. Their parents, acting as administrators of the boys' estates, filed a wrongful-death suit in the Superior Court of Onslow County, North Carolina, alleging negligence in the design, construction, testing, and inspection of a tire that failed during the trip. The defendants were The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, an Ohio corporation, and three of its indirect subsidiaries incorporated and operating in Luxembourg, Turkey, and France. Goodyear USA maintained plants in North Carolina and did not contest personal jurisdiction, but the foreign subsidiaries moved to dismiss, asserting that North Carolina lacked authority over them. The foreign subsidiaries manufactured tires primarily for European and Asian markets, with tires differing in size and construction from those sold in the United States. They maintained no place of business, employees, or bank accounts in North Carolina, did not design, manufacture, advertise, or sell products there, and the specific Goodyear Regional RHS tire involved in the accident was never distributed in the state, although a small percentage of other tires they produced reached North Carolina through other Goodyear affiliates. The trial court denied the subsidiaries' motion to dismiss. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling after finding that the subsidiaries' placement of tires into the stream of commerce supported the exercise of general jurisdiction. The North Carolina Supreme Court denied discretionary review. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Skylar Sullivan sued a foreign parent corporation in State U court for injuries sustained abroad. The parent had no direct contacts with State U, though its subsidiary conducted business there. The court refused specific personal jurisdiction because the claim did not arise from any contacts fairly attributable to the parent itself.
In 2004, twenty-two residents of Argentina filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft, a German public stock company headquartered in Stuttgart that manufactures Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Germany. The complaint alleged that Daimler's Argentinian subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz Argentina, collaborated with state security forces during Argentina's 1976–1983 Dirty War to kidnap, detain, torture, and kill MB Argentina workers, including plaintiffs or persons closely related to them. The complaint asserted claims under the Alien Tort Statute, the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, and California and Argentina law. Jurisdiction over Daimler was predicated on the California contacts of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, another Daimler subsidiary incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Jersey. MBUSA serves as Daimler's exclusive importer and distributor in the United States, purchasing vehicles from Daimler in Germany and distributing them to independent dealerships throughout the nation, including California. MBUSA maintains a regional office in Costa Mesa, a Vehicle Preparation Center in Carson, and a Classic Center in Irvine. MBUSA's California sales accounted for 2.4 percent of Daimler's worldwide sales. A General Distributor Agreement between Daimler and MBUSA established MBUSA as an independent contractor that buys and sells vehicles for its own account and has no authority to make binding obligations for Daimler. Daimler moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. After allowing jurisdictional discovery on the agency allegations, the District Court granted the motion in November 2005 and reaffirmed the dismissal in February 2007, concluding that Daimler's own contacts with California were too sporadic and that MBUSA's contacts could not be attributed to Daimler. The Ninth Circuit initially affirmed but, on rehearing, reversed in 2011, holding that MBUSA was Daimler's agent for jurisdictional purposes and that its California contacts supported the exercise of general jurisdiction over Daimler. Daimler petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc, which the Ninth Circuit denied over the dissent of eight judges. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2013 to decide whether Daimler is amenable to suit in California for claims arising from events occurring entirely outside the United States and unrelated to any activity in California.
The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant purposefully directed activities at the forum state, that the claim arises out of or relates to those activities, and that the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable under the circumstances.
Supporting sources
…jurisdiction pursuant to Florida’s long-arm statute did not violate the Due Process Clause. Pp. 471–487. (a) A forum may assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant where an alleged injury arises out of or relates to a defendant’s contacts with the forum. The constitutional touchstone is whether the defendant purposefully…
…two types of personal jurisdiction: “specific” or “case-linked”
…over a defendant in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum, the State is exercising "specific jurisdiction" over the defendant. See Von Mehren & Trautman,
…manufactured.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 32. : Cf. D. C. Code § 13-423(a)(4) (2001) (providing for specific jurisdiction over defendant who “caus[es] tortious injury in the [forum] by an act or omission outside the [forum]” when, in addition, the defendant “derives substantial revenue from goods used or…
…jurisdiction exists in this case, it must be specific
No. A single contract may suffice when it involves deliberate solicitation, ongoing performance in the forum, and future consequences there, but a contract alone without additional forum-directed activity is usually insufficient.
Supporting sources
Yes. Jurisdiction exists when the manufacturer has created and exploited a market in the forum through advertising, dealerships, and parts distribution, and the claim relates to those contacts even if the individual unit reached the plaintiff by another route.
Supporting sources
Specific personal jurisdiction is limited to claims that arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum. General personal jurisdiction allows suit on any claim when the defendant's contacts are so continuous and systematic that the defendant is essentially at home in the forum.
Supporting sources
It can when the site specifically targets forum residents through features such as localized rates, reservations, marketing, and directions, and the claim arises from those interactive contacts.
Supporting sources