Personal Jurisdiction in Law

<p>A defendant can be served anywhere in the world if constitutional. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A defendant's deliberate engagement in activities within a state that can lead to jurisdiction. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Answer (A), Motion to dismiss for insufficient process (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Allows for a collateral attack through Rule 60(b)(4) (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It must ensure its own jurisdiction in every case. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Citizenship of the parties (B), Amount in controversy (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Potential federal ingredient test (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Federal statutes and treaties (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The presence of parties from different states (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>At any time, as there is no time limit for relief (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The federal law issue must be conclusively resolved (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Minimal diversity is sufficient (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>$75K (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Post-filing changes in party citizenship (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It should not significantly disrupt the balance between courts (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The claim must relate to a unified theme regarding the defendant. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It establishes a direct relationship between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's harm. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Location of the plaintiff’s residence (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Defendant’s activities must be so continuous and systematic that it is essentially at home. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The stronger the plaintiff's showing on certain prongs, the lower the burden on the defendant. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Proving a subsidiary is an alter-ego of a corporation is typically challenging. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Entails a deliberate connection with the forum state by the defendant. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Tie situation (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>What the plaintiff actually knew (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>If legally certain that the plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional minimum (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>When they are claims of one plaintiff against one defendant (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Single defendant facing multiple joint claims (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>No plaintiff can share a state with any defendant (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A US citizen suing another US citizen from the same state (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The plaintiff's claim as long as recovery isn't legally certain to be less (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Either-viewpoint rule (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>§1331, §1332, and §1367 (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>When it includes only state law claims (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Home state defendant exception (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Claims not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They sever and remand the non-federal claims to state court (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To the federal district court for the district where the action was filed (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The presence of a federal question or diversity jurisdiction (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>§1441(c)(2) (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

A state law that allows a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.

Federal rules governing the jurisdiction of federal courts over out-of-state defendants; includes borrowing state laws and federal authorization.

The degree of contact a defendant must have with a state for a court in that state to have personal jurisdiction over them.

A defendant's voluntary act or action targeting or benefitting from a state's market.

A landmark Supreme Court case that established the minimum contacts test for personal jurisdiction.

A motion to dismiss a case for lack of process or improper service.

A motion to dismiss filed for insufficient process.

A challenge to a judgment that hasn't been raised when the original case was filed.

Rule allowing a motion to vacate a void judgment.

A federal court's authority to hear a particular type of case.

Federal courts have authority to hear cases based on the U.S. Constitution, laws, or treaties.

Part of the U.S. Constitution establishing federal court jurisdiction, especially for federal question cases.

Rule requiring a federal court to independently ensure subject-matter jurisdiction exists.

A test to determine if a case has a necessary federal issue to be heard in federal court.

Federal court jurisdiction based on the opposing parties being from different states AND the amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

In diversity cases, no plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant.

The minimum monetary value a case must exceed to meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction; must exceed $75,000.

Thematic relatedness in a lawsuit arises when all claims share a common theme. Examples are cases involving related products or issues, making them easier to potentially consolidate for efficient court proceedings.

A lawsuit's causal relatedness ties claims together based on a direct or indirect cause-and-effect relationship. Bristol Myers case establishes such connection.

In legal proceedings, the burden of proving the reasonableness of a defendant’s actions shifts to the defendant after the plaintiff establishes certain criteria.

These factors (Asahi case) determine if a court should exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, taking into account things like the defendant's burden, forum state interest, and administrative efficiency.

Establishing general jurisdiction involves assessing whether a court has power over a defendant due to their substantial and permanent activities or ties within the court's territory.

A legal test defining when a business is considered 'at home' in a state, establishing when the state court holds jurisdiction over the company.

A test to determine if supplemental jurisdiction exists over additional claims in federal court. It requires that the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim.

Common nucleus of operative fact. A test to determine if supplemental jurisdiction exists over additional claims in federal court. It requires that the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim. The term is synonymous with Gibbs test.

The ability of a defendant to move a case from state court to federal court.

This section outlines the general rule for removal: A civil action brought in state court can be removed to federal court if the federal court has original jurisdiction.

This section limits removal based on diversity jurisdiction when the defendant is a citizen of the same state as the forum state. This is a 'home state defendant' exception.

This section limits supplemental jurisdiction in diversity jurisdiction cases. It prevents a plaintiff from using supplemental jurisdiction to bring claims against a defendant who isn't already subject to the court's jurisdiction.

This section allows federal courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction if the claims raise complex or novel issues of state law, or if the state law claims predominate. This is a discretion of the district court.

Allows removal of a case even if some claims aren't within the federal court's jurisdiction, as long as at least one claim is within the original or supplemental jurisdiction.

A test to determine if a plaintiff's claim meets the jurisdictional minimum ($75,000) in a federal court. It considers both how much a reasonable person would have known (objective) and what the plaintiff actually knew (subjective).

A test used to determine whether a plaintiff's claim meets the jurisdictional minimum. It looks at if it's absolutely clear that the plaintiff can't recover more than $75,000. If so, the case likely won't be heard in federal court.

Combining multiple claims to reach the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum. This can be done for claims from one plaintiff against one defendant, but there are limitations for multiple parties.

Claims held by multiple parties together, where the total value of the claim determines if jurisdiction is met, regardless of the number of parties involved.

No. For diversity jurisdiction to apply, if either side includes a foreign national, the other side must consist of only U.S. citizens.

A rule focused on the plaintiff's perspective to determine the amount in controversy. The court considers the value of the claim from the plaintiff's point of view.

A rule that considers the amount in controversy from the perspective of either the plaintiff or defendant, whichever is higher, to evaluate if the minimum is met.