1

Agenda for 23rd Class• Admin

– Name plates– Handouts

• Slides• Internet Jurisdiction

– No TA office hours after this week– Prof. Klerman office hours for rest of semester

• T 11/24. 1-2PM• M 12/2. 3:30-4:30PM• W 12/2. 3:30-4:30PM• Th 12/3. 3:30-4:30PM

– Review class• Th 12/10 10-noon?

• Personal Jurisdiction– Review of International Shoe & Hanson v. Denkla – World Wide Volkswagen– McIntyre

2

Assignment• Read Yeazell 112-118 (Burger King)• Blackboard Questions

– Personal Jurisdiction Q4 and Q5• Questions to think about / Writing Assignment for Group 5

– Briefly summarize Burger King– Yeazell pp. 117ff. Q1, 2– Suppose you buy Duck Boots mail order from LL Bean and pay with a

check. They send you the boots, but your check bounces. LL Bean sues you in Maine, where it is headquartered. Does the Maine court have jurisdiction over you?

• Read Handout (internet jurisdiction)• Questions to think about / Writing Assignmetnt for Group 6

– Briefly summarize Revell– Handout Problems 2-18 to 2-20 (last page of Internet Juris. Handout)

3

Review of Personal Jurisdiction I• International Shoe

– Don’t analyze in personam jurisdiction over corporations by asking if corporation is “present” in state

– Instead analyze “minimum contacts”– Very substantial contacts give rise to general jurisdiction

• Corporation can be sued even if lawsuit is not related to contacts with state

• State of incorporation or headquarters• Perhaps where has physical presence (factory, office, shops), lots of

employees and/or does lots of business– More sporadic contacts give rise to specific jurisdiction

• Corporation can be sued only if lawsuit is related to contacts with state

• Hanson v Denkla– Contacts only count if defendant purposefully availed itself of the

benefits of the forum– Jurisdiction cannot be established by the unilateral acts of the plaintiff.– Minimum contacts analysis is (almost?) exclusively analysis of defendant

contacts

4

World-Wide Volkswagen• Briefly summarize World Wide Volkswagen• Yeazell pp. 109ff 1c, 4e• Did the plaintiffs in World-Wide Volkswagen sue in federal or

state court? How can you tell from the opinion itself (not Yeazell’s notes)?

• What is a writ of prohibition? Why did the defendants seek one?• Who is Woodson? How did he get in the case?• Would the case have come out differently if the Robinsons had

gotten into an accident in New Jersey and sued in a New Jersey court, but the facts were otherwise the same?

• Suppose the Robinsons had purchased their Audi in California from Pacific Audi in Torrance, had gotten into an accident in California, and sued Audi, Volkswagen of America, Pacific Volkswagen (the regional distributor, based in Nevada) and Pacific Audi in a California court. Would the California court have jurisdiction over all, some, or none of the defendants? Note that there is a passage in the opinion which directly addresses this question. Is it dicta?

Cons v Manuf.In CA

Yes Probably Probably Stream of Commerce Question

Cons v Retailer in CA

Yes Yes

Cons v Manuf.In OR

Yes Yes Yes

Cons v Distrib.In NV

Probably

Cons v Distrib.in CA

Probably

Cons v Manuf.In NV

No No No Probably

6

Stream of Commerce• Product manufactured in A, sold to distributor in B, and sold to consumer by

retailer in C• White dicta in World-Wide Volkswagen (stream of commerce)

– There is jurisdiction over mfg in C, if sale is “not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the mfg or distributor to serve, directly or indirectly the market for its products” in C

• O’Connor plurality opinion in Asahi (1987) (stream of commerce plus)– Jurisdiction over mfg in C if White’s criteria satisfied AND “additional

conduct of the defendant [indicates] an intent or purpose to serve the market” in C, e.g.

• Designing the product for C• Advertising in C• Establishing channels for providing regular advice to consumers in C• Marketing product through distributor who has agreed to serve as the

sales agent in the forum state– mfg has direct contractual relationship with retailer in state C?

• No majority opinion on stream of commerce in Asahi– Majority agreed that no jurisdiction in California over indemnity suit

between foreign manufacturer and foreign part supplier, when California plaintiff had settled with foreign manufacturer, because inconsistent with “fair play and substantial justice,” even if purposeful availment could be satisfied.

7

McIntyre I• Briefly summarize McIntyre• Yeazell pp. 131ff Qs 1- 4• How would McIntyre have been decided under White’s view of

the “stream of commerce” theory as expressed in his opinion in World-Wide Volkswagen

• How would McIntyre have been decided under O’Connor’s “stream of commerce” plus theory

• How is Kennedy’s view of jurisdiction based on the “stream of commerce” different from White’s and O’Connor’s? In what cases would they reach the same result? In what cases different results?

8

McIntyre II• Suppose the California courts and juries are relatively generous to product

liability plaintiffs, but Nevada courts and juries are relatively stingy. A Chinese company which is breaking into the US market is considering two distributors, one based in California and another based in Nevada. The two distributors seem roughly equal in quality and price. Which distributor would you advise the Chinese company to select. Why?

• Suppose Washington state is suffering from high unemployment. Its legislators would like to find a way to expand employment by encouraging Chinese manufacturers to choose distributors based in Washington state. You are an adviser to a Washington state legislator. What changes would you suggest that Washington state make to its laws?

• If you were on the Supreme Court, in what situations would you allow those injured by products to sue the manufacturer? Would you adopt White’s Stream of Commerce theory? O’Connor’s Stream of Commerce plus? Kennedy’s theory in McIntyre? Some other rule?

9

Next Class• Personal Jurisdiction

– Contracts– Torts where action in one state and injury in another– Internet– Relatively easy, because just applications of purposeful availment

standard