Out of State Activities - Civil Procedure - Lecture Slides, Slides of Civil procedure

Download Out of State Activities - Civil Procedure - Lecture Slides and more Slides Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!

specific jurisdiction

out-of-state activities having in-state

effects

World-Wide Volkswagen v.

Woodson

(U.S. 1980)

Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals

(U.S. 1971)

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior

Court

(U.S. 1987)

We have previously explained that the determination of the reasonableness of the exercise of jurisdiction in each case will depend on an evaluation of several factors. A court must consider the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum State, and the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief. It must also weigh in its determination "the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies." (O'Connor II.B)

Additional conduct of the defendant may indicate an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum State, for example, designing the product for the market in the forum State, advertising in the forum State, establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum State, or marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State. But a defendant's awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum State does not convert the mere act of placing the product into the stream into an act purposefully directed toward the forum State. (O'Connor II.A)

The plurality seems to assume that an unwavering line can be drawn between "mere awareness" that a component will find its way into the forum State and "purposeful availment" of the forum's market. Over the course of its dealings with Cheng Shin, Asahi has arguably engaged in a higher quantum of conduct than "[t]he placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more...." Whether or not this conduct rises to the level of purposeful availment requires a constitutional determination that is affected by the volume, the value, and the hazardous character of the components. In most circumstances I would be inclined to conclude that a regular course of dealing that results in deliveries of over 100,000 units annually over a period of several years would constitute "purposeful availment" even though the item delivered to the forum State was a standard product marketed throughout the world. (Stevens, concurring – with White and Blackmun)

J. M c INTYRE MACHINERY, LTD., v.

NICASTRO

(U.S., June 27, 2011)

Kennedy:

“The principal inquiry in cases of this sort is whether

the defendant’s activities manifest an intention to

submit to the power of a sovereign….Sometimes a

defendant does so by sending its goods rather than

its agents. The defendant’s transmission of goods

permits the exercise of jurisdiction only where the

defendant can be said to have targeted the forum;

as a general rule, it is not enough that the defendant

might have predicted that its goods will reach the

forum State.”

“These facts may reveal an intent

to serve the U. S. market, but they

do not show that J. McIntyre

purposefully availed itself of the

New Jersey market.”

Imagine that all of the products

McIntyre sold in the US (through

McIntyre Machinery America) were

sold in NJ but that the facts of the

case were otherwise the same.

Wouldn’t Kennedy still say that

there was no PJ in New Jersey?

Here, the relevant facts found by the New Jersey

Supreme Court show no “regular … flow” or

“regular course” of sales in New Jersey; and there

is no “something more,” such as special state-

related design, advertising, advice, marketing, or

anything else. Mr. Nicastro, who here bears the

burden of proving jurisdiction, has shown no

specific effort by the British Manufacturer to sell

in New Jersey.

(Breyer, concurring)

Breyer: “What might appear fair in the case

of a large manufacturer which specifically

seeks, or expects, an equal-sized distributor

to sell its product in a distant State might

seem unfair in the case of a small

manufacturer (say, an Appalachian potter)

who sells his product (cups and saucers)

exclusively to a large distributor, who resells

a single item (a coffee mug) to a buyer from

a distant State (Hawaii).”