Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is the power of a Court to exercise control over a defendant. Jurisdiction can either be Personal (control over a person or property) or Subject Matter (control over the issue of the case).

'''Subject Matter Jurisdiction’’’

A court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction either because the case involves a Federal question or because there is diversity of citizenship between the parties in the case. To qualify as a Federal question the case must arise under an explicit federal right and remedy unless Congress has determined that there will be no private, federal cause of action for the issue. When there is a question about subject matter jurisdiction, the presumption is against its exercise. Additionally, the federal question must be pleaded in the complaint and not simply raised as a defense. To qualify for Diversity jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity such that no plaintiff is the citizen of the same state as any defendant.

To determine citizenship:
 * 1) Natural Persons – physical presence in a state/ state of residence; intent to return/remain indefinitely
 * 2) Corporations – state of incorporation; principal place of business
 * 3) Associations – where each member resides

In addition to complete diversity, the amount in controversy for the case must exceed $75k

Personal Jurisdiction

Under the traditional basis of personal jurisdiction, a court can gain power to bind a defendant to judgment through physical presence, citizenship, or consent or waiver. Even if a defendant is a not a resident of a forum they can be subject to jurisdiction and service of process while they are physically present within the territory or where they have property in the forum that is either the subject of the lawsuit or being used to satisfy judgment.

In personam – if a defendant is in the forum (or the air space above it) for whatever reason, except a trick or fraud on the part of the parties seeking service, they can be served for suit.

In rem – in a true in rem proceeding the property being seized is the same as the subject of the lawsuit, in a quasi in rem proceeding the property is not the subject of the lawsuit but is being used to satisfy a judgment.

Citizenship – a citizen of the forum state is always subject to personal jurisdiction no matter where they are served

Consent or Waiver – on the basis of a forum selection clause in a contract parties may agree to be bound by the jurisdiction of a particular court. Such clauses will not be upheld if they are not vital to the contract, select a forum that is remote and alien to the parties and suit, or negotiated in bad faith.

Under the modern basis of personal jurisdiction, a non-resident defendant is subject to jurisdiction in any state where a long-arm statute purports to reach them and they have minimum contacts. A long arm statute purports to reach a defendant if either the state’s statute specifically names acts that subject a person to jurisdiction or if the state has a general language statute that extends jurisdiction to the limit allowed by the Constitution. A defendant has minimum contacts with a forum state when they purposefully avail themselves of the benefits and protections of that state. A non-resident must engage in some activity that is specifically directed towards the forum state. This activity must be intentional, substantial, confer a benefit, and give rise to the claim. The courts have held that passive, information-type, websites are not enough to establish jurisdiction over a company but that websites specifically targeted at a forum or that are part of a national advertising campaign with the intent to engage forum state residents in commerce is enough to establish jurisdiction over a foreign company. Once minimum contacts have been established a court will determine whether an exercise of jurisdictions comports to notions of fair play and substantial justice, balancing the plaintiff’s interest in litigating in the forum against the defendant’s interest in avoiding the forum and then considering the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the claim. States are generally presumed to have a strong interest in interpreting their own laws.