Wednesday audio--Section A, Section B. Essay # 6 posted at noon. Essays 7 and 8 will post next Monday, April 15 and be due outside my office on Monday, April 22. We will tack on 10 minutes tomorrow and one class next week. Double sessions this Friday. Review these pages in the old edition of Glannon on property cases.
Here is the text of FN 19 in Daimler (the FN is at the end of the 2d full ¶ on p. 173), which we discussed in class:
We do not foreclose the possibility that in an exceptional case, see, , described at 10–12, and n. 8,a corporation’s operations in a forum other than its formal place of incorporation or principal place of business may be so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that State. But this case presents no occasion to explore that question, because Daimler’s activities in California plainly do not approach that level. It is one thing to hold a corporation answerable for operations in the forum State, see , at 23, quite another to expose it to suit on claims having no connection whatever to the forum State.
A helpful way to think about general v. specific jurisdiction and the difference between Ford and Daimler. General jurisdiction means the defendant has contacts with the forum, but those contacts have nothing to do with the claim, because everything the defendant did having to do with the claim took place somewhere other than the forum. Specific jurisdiction means the defendants have contacts with the forum that have something to do with the claim (how much goes to the difference between give rise and relate to). So Daimler had contacts with California, but those contacts had nothing to do with the claim; everything Daimler (allegedly) did as to the claim occurred in Argentina. Ford had contacts with Minnesota, but those contacts connected (remotely, but still) to Minnesota because the accident occurred there. Had the plaintiff in the Minnesota case, having been injured in Minnesota sued in North Dakota, that would be general jurisdiction.
Finish the remaining sections of Personal Jurisdiction--Property, Service, Consent and Review. Consider:
• How should the Shoe analysis address the concerns that Breyer raisies on pp. 138-39 in Nicastro?
• What was the claim in Shaffer? How do property-based claims fit in the Shoe analysis? What type of property case was Shaffer (in Glannon's framework)? Be sure to look at the Glannon work (and the Blog overview of PJ) so you can understand Shaffer.
• A (OH) sues X (IA) in California; the court enters judgment for A. X owns property in New York. Can A enforce the California judgment by suing in New York and attaching that New York property?
• How is personal jurisdiction analyzed for a non-US citizen? What about for a US citizen sued in another country?
• State law requires entities to register to do business in the state and provides that registration constitutes submission to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state for all purposes. Valid?
Be ready to analyze jurisdiction in the following case, walking through the full analysis we have on the board: Clemens v. McNamee:
Clemens (TX), a former MLB pitcher, sues McNamee (NY), his former personal trainer for defamation in Texas state court. McNamee removes and moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
McNamee made a series of statements about administering performance-enhancing drugs to Clemens. He made the statements to MLB investigators in New York and to a reporter from Sports Illustrated during an interview in New York. The statements described administering the drugs to Clemens in New York and Toronto while playing for teams in those cities.
McNamee and Clemens had a long-standing relationship. Over the years McNamee traveled to Texas more than 35 times to work with and train Clemens.
Texas has the same catch-all long-arm statute as California.
Prep all of Venue, Change of Venue, Forum Non Conveniens--note the several statutory provisions to really parse and arrange to see how they fit together. Also see FN 6 in Atlantic Marine (the note is attached to the end of the first sentence of Part III.A).
Factors relating to the parties’ private interests include “relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, (internal quotation marks omitted). Public-interest factors may include “the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; [and] the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court must also give some weight to the plaintiffs’ choice of forum. See Norwood v. Kirkpatrick.
• What is the difference between improper venue and change of venue--in terms of how they are raised, what they argue, and the appropriate remedy?
• What is the difference between § 1404 and forum non conveniens? How are they the same? What are the three steps in the analysis?
• Look at VOA: Is venue proper in ND Cal?
