How Personal Jurisdiction Determines Where You Can Be Sued

Understanding the legal process of where you can legally be sued involves learning about the concept of personal jurisdiction. Along with subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction confirms that courts hear cases in a proper forum.

This article defines personal jurisdiction and explains how it determines where you can be sued. If you want to file a lawsuit or need defense against one, speak with a litigation attorney. They can review your case and which court would be appropriate.

Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Courts in the United States must have two kinds of jurisdiction to hear a case:

• Subject matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear a certain type of claim.
• Personal jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority over the person or entity who is a party to the case.

Both types ensure courts adhere to the protections of the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment describe these protections. They influence the level and type of court that should hear your case, such as a state court versus a federal court.

How To Determine Personal Jurisdiction

The following are the critical criteria for how the court asserts personal jurisdiction. They ensure that plaintiffs sue defendants in the proper forum based on their connections or activities in that state.

Presence in Service of Process

Being served with a copy of the summons and complaint while present in the forum state is enough to give a court specific jurisdiction over the person served in that state. That means that even if you were only passing through the state for a few minutes, the other party can sue if they properly served the summons. The Supreme Court agreed on this principle in Burnham v. Superior Court of California 495 U.S. 604 (1990).

Domicile or Principal Place of Business

Domicile or residence in a state is enough to give courts general jurisdiction over you. This means that even if the incident occurred in another country or state, a party can file a case against you in the state where you established residency.

This also applies to wherever you establish your principal place of business. A business may have both a place of incorporation and a separate place of primary operation. For example, you may have registered an LLC in Delaware, but you mainly provide services in Pennsylvania as a registered agent of the state. State laws determine whether registration creates personal jurisdiction via the principle of consent.

Consent

You can also consent to a court having personal jurisdiction over you. Consent comes in two primary forms: express and implied.

You give express consent by appearing before the court and submitting yourself to its authority. This means that even if a court otherwise didn’t have power over you, you can grant the court that power by showing up.

Consent can also be implied, and one of the most common forms of implied consent is driving on that state’s roads. Courts consider you to have given implied consent to the laws regulating roads. Thus, a court has personal jurisdiction over you if you have a car accident on the road in that state.

Minimum Contacts

A court can also have personal jurisdiction over you if you maintain sufficient contact with the state where a court resides. Courts examine whether this contact was intentional rather than random or accidental. This legal doctrine is known as purposeful availment.

What Are the Three Types of Personal Jurisdiction?

To understand how courts determine their authority over persons or property involved in a legal dispute, it is crucial to learn about the three types of personal jurisdiction:

• In Personam
• In Rem
• Quasi In Rem

The sections below describe the primary test courts use to determine whether you’ve established enough minimum contacts with a state.

What Is In Personam Jurisdiction?

In personam jurisdiction allows the court to exercise authority over a person or entity based on their connections with the state or the forum.

It often requires the defendant to have sufficient minimum contacts, ties, or interaction with the state that comprises that court’s jurisdiction. This contact with the state should be enough that the person could reasonably foresee being sued there.

The Supreme Court set forth a basic test to determine whether a person has established minimum contact with that state. The following are some of the notable case laws.

Continuous, Systematic Contacts and Related Lawsuits

Jurisdiction is permissible when the defendant engages in continuous and systematic activity in the forum. The cause of action relates to that activity. 

See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984).

Continuous, Systematic Contacts and Unrelated Lawsuits

A court may still assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant out of state. This is possible if the defendant has certain minimum contacts in the state to the degree they are “essentially at home” in it. Filing a suit against them does not go against fair play and substantial justice. This rule applies even if the cause of action of the suit is not related to those activities that the defendant does in that state. 

See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011).

Sporadic or Casual Activity and Unrelated Lawsuits

If a defendant’s activity is only sporadic or casual, a court does not have personal jurisdiction over a cause of action unrelated to that sporadic activity. 

See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

Sporadic or Casual Activity and Related Lawsuits

If a defendant’s activities in the state are sporadic or there are only minimum contacts, but the activity directly relates to the lawsuit, a court may also assert its jurisdiction.

In Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985), the Court examined whether a contract is enough to constitute a “contact” for asserting personal jurisdiction. The Court rejected that a contract alone is enough to establish minimum contacts for jurisdiction purposes. However, mechanical tests were also discouraged when assessing this issue. Here, the Court emphasized that it is crucial to consider the nature of the tract. This includes future consequences, prior negotiations, and the actual course of dealing with the parties.

What Is In Rem Jurisdiction?

In rem jurisdiction, the court can exercise jurisdiction over any real or personal property within its territory. These cases often involve the rights and status of the property itself. An example is cases involving disputes over the title or ownership of a property.

In rem, actions are binding against everyone, even those not parties to the action. This means the court decision applies to people present or not in the lawsuit. For instance, an action to quiet title is a pure in rem action. The court bars everyone from challenging the owner’s title to the property.

What Is Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction?

Like a case in rem, quasi in rem involves a court asserting authority over real or personal property within its jurisdiction. However, unlike in rem, quasi in rem is only binding against the parties to the lawsuit. A court can hear quasi in rem actions if the property is within its jurisdiction, even if it lacks in personam jurisdiction over the defendant.

For example, consider Garfein v. McInnis. A plaintiff entered a contract with a defendant to buy a real property. The defendant is a resident of Connecticut, and the real property subject to the agreement is located in New York. Then, the defendant committed a breach of contract. The plaintiff sued the defendant for specific performance in a state court in New York.

In this case, the Court acknowledged that the civil procedure does not bring the person of the nonresident defendant in the state court’s jurisdiction. But it empowered the state court in New York to order a specific performance.

Long Arm Jurisdiction

A long-arm statute enables the court to establish personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. The court may establish long-arm jurisdiction if there is a minimum contact between the defendant and the state.

In a landmark case, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), the Supreme Court established the rule for meeting the minimum contact requirements. It stated that the defendant should engage in continuous and systematic activity within the state and that the cause of action should arise from such systematic and continuous activity.

In another case, Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987), the Supreme Court clarified that the minimum contact test is not always enough to assert jurisdiction. It stressed that the Court should consider various factors before exercising jurisdiction.

A court’s consideration includes:

• The state’s interest in hearing the case
• The interest of the plaintiff in receiving relief in the home state
• The burden over the defendant
• The efficiency of resolving the case in the state

These considerations ensure that the court reasonably and fairly exercises its jurisdiction.

Can a Contract Determine Personal Jurisdiction?

Yes, a contract may contain a forum selection clause that establishes personal jurisdiction. Agreeing to the terms of the contract means you also consent to that jurisdiction.

This consent would apply even if other courts could otherwise have jurisdiction. If the contract is enforceable, you’d waive your ability to challenge the court’s jurisdiction. That limitation can change if you can prove that the contract or clause is unenforceable.

This is an especially common factor in lawsuits between consumers and businesses. For example, the user agreement of a software program you use might only allow you to bring claims in a New Jersey civil court. Businesses often use these clauses to choose an ideal venue, such as a court close to where its legal office is located.

Seek Legal Advice From an Attorney

The complex landscape of civil procedure and state laws can be overwhelming. This is especially true if you face legal actions across state lines.

Learning when and where you can be sued is crucial to protect your rights effectively. Consulting with an attorney is helpful if you are dealing with matters related to personal jurisdiction.

An experienced attorney can provide helpful legal advice regarding:

• Navigating the minimum contact requirements you should establish for the court to assert jurisdiction over your case.
• Assessing the possibility of transferring or dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
• Understanding and challenging the grounds of personal jurisdiction in your case.

They can also offer you tailored advice for your specific situation. Do not hesitate to seek legal advice. Contact a litigation and appeals attorney for expert assistance.