Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's "power to bring a person into its adjudicative process." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 930 (9th ed.2009). Northern Grain Marketing, LLC v. Greving, 743 F. 3d 487 (7th Cir. 2014).
There are two types of personal jurisdiction: specific and general. Specific or conduct-linked jurisdiction, [ ] "depends on an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum state and is therefore subject to the State's regulation." Id. at 2851 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). By contrast, general jurisdiction exists only when a corporation's contacts with a state are "so 'continuous and systematic' as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State." Id. A court with general jurisdiction over a corporation may adjudicate all claims against that corporation — even those entirely unrelated to the defendant's contacts with the state. Sonera Holding BV v. Cukurova Holding AS, 750 F. 3d 221 (2nd Cir. 2014).
Personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in a federal-question case requires a two-step inquiry. Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161, 168 (2d Cir.2013). First, we determine whether the defendant is subject to jurisdiction under the law of the forum state [ ]. Second, we consider whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant comports with the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Id. Sonera Holding BV v. Cukurova Holding AS, ibid.
The federal constitutional limits of a court's personal jurisdiction in a diversity case are found in the Fourteenth Amendment's due-process clause, see Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 464, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985), which "protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful 'contacts, ties, or relations,'" id. at 471-72, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 319, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)). Northern Grain Marketing, LLC v. Greving, ibid.
A forum state's courts may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonconsenting, out-of-state defendant unless the defendant has "certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)). "The nature of the defendant's contacts with the forum state determines the propriety of personal jurisdiction and also its scope — that is, whether jurisdiction is proper at all, and if so, whether it is general or specific to the claims made in the case." Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 701 (7th Cir.2010). If the defendant has "'continuous and systematic' contacts with a state," the defendant is subject to general jurisdiction there in any action, even if the action is unrelated to those contacts. Id. (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984)). Northern Grain Marketing, LLC v. Greving, ibid.
We have established a five-factor test to determine the sufficiency of a non-resident defendant's contacts with the forum state. Dever, 380 F.3d at 1073. The five factors are: 1) the nature and quality of contacts with the forum state; 2) the quantity of the contacts; 3) the relation of the cause of action to the contacts; 4) the interest of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents; and 5) convenience of the parties. Id. at 1073-74 (quoting Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Maples Indus., Inc., 97 F.3d 1100, 1102 (8th Cir. 1996)). We give significant weight to the first three factors. Id. at 1074. Fastpath, Inc. v. Arbela Technologies Corp., 760 F. 3d 816 (8th Cir. 2014).
The Supreme Court recently considered the requirements to establish general jurisdiction in Daimler AG v. Bauman, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014). The Court observed that the proper consideration when determining general jurisdiction is whether the defendant's "'affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.'" Id. at 761 (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011)) (alteration in original). The Court held that for a corporation, "the place of incorporation and principal place of business" are where it is "at home" and are thus paradigm bases for jurisdiction. Id. at 760. It is, therefore, incredibly difficult to establish general jurisdiction in a forum other than the place of incorporation or principal place of business. See id.; Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 411-12, 418, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). Monkton Ins. Services, Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F. 3d 429 (5th Cir. 2014).
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 51 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that discuss and interpret the doctrine of personal jurisdiction. The selection of decisions spans from 2012 to the date of publication.