Long-arm jurisdiction

Last updated

Long-arm jurisdiction is the ability of local courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreign ("foreign" meaning out of jurisdiction, whether a state, province, or nation) defendants, whether on a statutory basis or through a court's inherent jurisdiction (depending on the jurisdiction). This jurisdiction permits a court to hear a case against a defendant and enter a binding judgment against a defendant residing outside the jurisdiction concerned.

Contents

At heart, the constraints on long arm jurisdiction are concepts of international law, and the principle that one country ought not exercise state power over the territory of another unless some recognized exception applies. In municipal law, the authority of a court to exercise long-arm jurisdiction must be based upon some action of the defendant which subjects him or her to the jurisdiction of the court.

United States

Jurisprudence

The United States Supreme Court, in International Shoe v. Washington [1] and later on in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson , [2] has held that a person must have minimum contacts with a State, in order for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state. As the Court noted in the latter case,

As has long been settled, and as we reaffirm today, a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum State.... The concept of minimum contacts, in turn, can be seen to perform two related, but distinguishable, functions. It protects the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system. [3]

In 1987, the Supreme Court, in its ruling in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court , [4] laid down a five-factor test to determine whether "traditional notions of fair play" would permit the assertion of personal jurisdiction, under the reasonableness requirement, [5] over an out-of-state defendant:

  1. What is the burden on the defendant?
  2. What are the interests of the forum state in the litigation?
  3. What is the interest of the plaintiff in litigating the matter in that state?
  4. Does the allowance of jurisdiction serve interstate efficiency?
  5. Does the allowance of jurisdiction serve interstate policy interests?

There was discussion as to the Court's wisdom in not employing Asahi as a way to articulate "a similarly limited position [as in World-Wide Volkswagen] for the United States within the international community." [6]

The issue of general (as opposed to specific) jurisdiction of US courts was addressed in Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall , [7] Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown [8] and Daimler AG v. Bauman , [9] where the last held that, outside of "an exceptional case," [10] general jurisdiction will generally be limited to the places where a corporation is incorporated and its principal place of business. In Daimler, Justice Ginsburg noted that specific jurisdiction is supposed to be the norm while "general jurisdiction has come to occupy a less dominant place in the contemporary scene." [11] The risks that a more expansive view of general jurisdiction would pose to international comity were recently dealt with in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. [12] and Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority . [13]

Foreign governments

The circumstances by which a foreign government may sue or be sued in federal and state courts are narrowed by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

State laws

In the United States, some states' long-arm statutes refer to specific acts, for example torts or contract cases, which a court may entertain. Other states grant jurisdiction more broadly. [14] California's Code of Civil Procedure , for example, states:

410.10. A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States. [15]

New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules [16] has, among other things, asserted the following:

§ 302. Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries
(a) ...As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary, or his executor or administrator, who in person or through an agent:
1. transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state... [17]

The extent of jurisdiction granted under this authority has expanded in recent jurisprudence of the New York Court of Appeals:

  • In June 2006, in Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. v. Montana Board of Investments, [18] it was held that an out-of-state entity's use of the Bloomberg Messaging System to communicate with a firm based in New York was sufficient to establish jurisdiction. [19]
  • In November 2012, in Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL , [20] it was held that a non-U.S. bank’s use of a correspondent account to effect wire transfers on behalf of a non-U.S. client was sufficient to form a basis for personal jurisdiction.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for where service of a summons outside the district will provide personal jurisdiction over a party.

(k) Territorial Limits of Effective Service.

(1) In General. Serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant:

(A) who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located;

(B) who is a party joined under Rule 14 or 19 and is served within a judicial district of the United States and not more than 100 miles from where the summons was issued; or

(C) when authorized by a federal statute.

(2) Federal Claim Outside State-Court Jurisdiction. For a claim that arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if:

(A) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction; and

(B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws.

Canada

The jurisdiction of Canadian courts has been standardized to a great degree through jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court of Canada, most notably in the 2012 ruling in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda . [21] It ruled that jurisdiction must be established primarily on the basis of objective factors that connect the legal situation or the subject matter of the litigation with the forum. In a case concerning a tort, the following factors are presumptive connecting factors that, prima facie , entitle a court to assume jurisdiction over a dispute:

  • the defendant is domiciled or resident in the province;
  • the defendant carries on business in the province;
  • the tort was committed in the province; and
  • a contract connected with the dispute was made in the province.

It was also held that a Canadian court cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless the defendant invokes forum non conveniens . The decision to raise this doctrine rests with the parties, not with the court seized of the claim. If a defendant raises an issue of forum non conveniens, the burden is on him or her to show why the court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction and displace the forum chosen by the plaintiff. [22] [23] [24]

See also

Related Research Articles

Personal jurisdiction is a court's jurisdiction over the parties, as determined by the facts in evidence, which bind the parties to a lawsuit, as opposed to subject-matter jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over the law involved in the suit. Without personal jurisdiction over a party, a court's rulings or decrees cannot be enforced upon that party, except by comity; i.e., to the extent that the sovereign which has jurisdiction over the party allows the court to enforce them upon that party. A court that has personal jurisdiction has both the authority to rule on the law and facts of a suit and the power to enforce its decision upon a party to the suit. In some cases, territorial jurisdiction may also constrain a court's reach, such as preventing hearing of a case concerning events occurring on foreign territory between two citizens of the home jurisdiction. A similar principle is that of standing or locus standi, which is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

In the U.S. legal system, service of process is the procedure by which a party to a lawsuit gives an appropriate notice of initial legal action to another party, court, or administrative body in an effort to exercise jurisdiction over that person so as to force that person to respond to the proceeding before the court, body, or other tribunal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diversity jurisdiction</span> U.S. court jurisdiction over persons of different states or nationalities

In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives United States federal courts the power to hear lawsuits that do not involve a federal question. For a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit, two conditions must be met. First, there must be "diversity of citizenship" between the parties, meaning the plaintiffs must be citizens of different U.S. states than the defendants. Second, the lawsuit's "amount in controversy" must be more than $75,000. If a lawsuit does not meet these two conditions, federal courts will normally lack the jurisdiction to hear it unless it involves a federal question, and the lawsuit would need to be heard in state court instead.

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a party, particularly a corporation, may be subject to the jurisdiction of a state court if it has "minimum contacts" with that state. The ruling has important consequences for corporations involved in interstate commerce, their payments to state unemployment compensation funds, limits on the power of states imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the sufficiency of service of process, and, especially, personal jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Minimum contacts</span>

Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state. The United States Supreme Court has decided a number of cases that have established and refined the principle that it is unfair for a court to assert jurisdiction over a party unless that party's contacts with the state in which that court sits are such that the party "could reasonably expect to be haled into court" in that state. This jurisdiction must "not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice". A non-resident defendant may have minimum contacts with the forum state if they 1) have direct contact with the state; 2) have a contract with a resident of the state; 3) have placed their product into the stream of commerce such that it reaches the forum state; 4) seek to serve residents of the forum state; 5) have satisfied the Calder effects test; or 6) have a non-passive website viewed within the forum state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Notice</span> Legal concept to make a party aware of a legal process affecting them

Notice is the legal concept describing a requirement that a party be aware of legal process affecting their rights, obligations or duties. There are several types of notice: public notice, actual notice, constructive notice.

<i>Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye, [1990] 3 SCR 1077 is the leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the enforcement of extraprovincial judgments. The Court held that the standard for enforcing a default judgment from a different province is not the same as if it were from another country; rather the Court adopts the test from Indyka v Indyka, [1969] 1 AC 33 (HL) and Moran v Pyle National (Canada) Ltd, [1975] 1 SCR 393 where there must be a "real and substantial connection" between the petitioner and the country or territory exercising jurisdiction.

Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985), is a notable case in United States civil procedure that came before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing personal jurisdiction.

In law, the venue is the location where a case is heard.

<i>World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson</i> 1980 United States Supreme Court case

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case involving strict products liability, personal injury and various procedural issues and considerations. The 1980 opinion, written by Justice Byron White, is included in the first-year civil procedure curriculum at nearly every American law school for its focus on personal jurisdiction.

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987), decided on February 24, 1987, was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court decided whether a foreign corporation, by merely being aware that its products could end up in the forum state and into the American "stream of commerce" which later caused injuries, satisfied the minimum contact necessary to satisfy jurisdictional due process requirements. The court was unanimous in the result, but issued a fractured decision with Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor writing for a plurality of the court.

Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases refers to a growing set of judicial precedents in American courts where personal jurisdiction has been asserted upon defendants based solely on their Internet activities. Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having "purposely availed" himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer. Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions, and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be "haled" into court.

<i>Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain</i> 2004 United States Supreme Court case

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Alien Tort Statute and the Federal Tort Claims Act. Many ATS claims were filed after the Second Circuit ruling in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala created a new common law cause of action for torture under the ATS: "For purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become—like the pirate and slave trader before him—hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind." The Court in Sosa does not find there is a similar cause of action for arbitrary arrest and detention. They wrote that finding new common law causes of action based on international norms would require "a substantial element of discretionary judgment", and explain that the role of common law has changed since ATS was enacted meaning the Court will "look for legislative guidance before exercising innovative authority over substantive law".

International litigation, sometimes called transnational litigation, is the practice of litigation in connection with disputes among businesses or individuals residing or based in different countries.

Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether a state court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state who is served with process while temporarily visiting the state. All nine justices unanimously agreed that this basis for personal jurisdiction—known as "transient jurisdiction"—is constitutionally permissible. However, the Court failed to produce a majority opinion, as the members were sharply divided on the reasons for the decision, reflecting two fundamentally different approaches to how due-process issues are to be analyzed. Justice Scalia wrote the lead opinion, joined in whole or part by three other Justices. Justice Brennan wrote an opinion joined by three other Justices. Justices White and Stevens wrote separate opinions.

<i>Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.</i> Case in American intellectual property law

Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, is a case in American intellectual property law involving personal jurisdiction in the context of internet contacts.

<i>Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that has brought greater certainty to the question of a real and substantial connection in the assumption of civil jurisdiction by Canadian courts in matters concerning the conflict of laws.

<i>Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.</i> 2013 United States Supreme Court case

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court found that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act. According to the Court's majority opinion, "it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices" to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality when all the alleged wrongful conduct takes place outside the United States.

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court answered whether an American court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company based on the fact that a subsidiary of the company acts on its behalf in the jurisdictional state. The court held that an American company cannot be sued for conduct occurring outside the United States and American courts do not have jurisdiction of such a claim.

BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Montana courts lacked personal jurisdiction over a railroad that was not incorporated in Montana and did not have its principal place of business in Montana, even though the railroad had more than 2,000 miles of track and 2,000 employees within Montana. It was the first Supreme Court case argued before a Court that included newly appointed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

References

  1. ↑ International Shoe v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310 (1945)
  2. ↑ World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson , 444 U.S. 286 (1980)
  3. ↑ World-Wide Volkswagen, pp,291–292
  4. ↑ Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court , 480 U.S. 102 (1987)
  5. ↑ Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court
  6. ↑ Peter S. Levitt (1987). "The extraterritorial assertion of long-arm jurisdiction and the impact on the international commercial community: A comment and suggested approach" (PDF). University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law . University of Pennsylvania Law School. 9 (4): 713–739. Retrieved 17 January 2013.
  7. ↑ Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall , 466 U.S. 408 (1984)
  8. ↑ Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown , No. 10-76 , 564 U.S. 915 (2011)
  9. ↑ Daimler AG v. Bauman , No. 11-965 , 571 U.S. 117 (2013)
  10. ↑ as in Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co. , 342 U.S. 437 (1952)
  11. ↑ William Baude (January 14, 2014). "Opinion recap: A stricter view of general jurisdiction". SCOTUSblog.
  12. ↑ Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. , No. 10-1491 , 569 U.S. 108 (2013)
  13. ↑ Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority , No. 11-88 , 566 U.S. 449 (2012)
  14. ↑ "Long-Arm Statutes: A Fifty-State Survey" (PDF). VEDDER, PRICE, KAUFMAN & KAMMHOLZ, P.C. 2003. Retrieved 2012-04-20.
  15. ↑ "California CCP, s. 410.10". Archived from the original on 2013-06-17. Retrieved 2013-01-17.
  16. ↑ "New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, ss. 301, 302, 313" . Retrieved 2013-01-17.
  17. ↑ N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1)
  18. ↑ Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. v. Montana Board of Investments, 4338 (N.Y.2006-06-06).
  19. ↑ Mark A. Berman. "The 'Long-Arm' Statute: Instant Messaging May Confer Personal Jurisdiction on Defendant". Ganfer & Shore, LLP. Retrieved 2013-01-17.
  20. ↑ Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 183 (N.Y.2012-11-20).
  21. ↑ Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision available at LexUM and CanLII
  22. ↑ Paul B. Schabas; Ryder L. Gilliland; Erin Hoult; Max Shapiro (2012-04-19). "Supreme Court Clarifies Law of Assumed Jurisdiction Over Foreign Defendants". Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP. Archived from the original on 2012-07-21. Retrieved 2012-04-19.
  23. ↑ Larry Lowenstein; Andrea Laing; Mary Paterson; Robert Carson (2012-04-19). "Supreme Court of Canada Revamps the Test for Jurisdiction over Foreign Defendants". Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt . Retrieved 2012-04-19.
  24. ↑ Robert Wisner & Laura Stefan (2012-04-19). "Restraining the long arm of Ontario courts: Supreme Court of Canada clarifies private international law". McMillan LLP . Retrieved 2012-04-19.
  25. ↑ Chen, Chieh (26 March 2023). "Fighting Beijing's long arm of repression". RFA. Retrieved 18 April 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.