In Personam Personal Jurisdiction over Corporations in a Specific Forum
This page includes a writing template for analyzing this topic and usage notes to guide its application. In general, the template is designed to serve as a starting point for your analysis. It should be adapted to fit the specific facts of your case and your professor’s preferences.
On this page:
Writing Template
Issue
I: The issue is whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Corporation.
Analysis
R: A federal court generally determines personal jurisdiction as if it were a state court in its location, meaning personal jurisdiction can be established either by (1) traditional bases of jurisdiction, or (2) if authorized by statute, by (3) satisfying Due Process requirements for non-residents.
1. Traditional Bases
R: The court may assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on (1) service of process, (2) consent, or (3) domicile. Personal jurisdiction which such bases satisfies the requirements of Due Process.
A: Here, the court likely [has/does not have] person jurisdiction through [service of process/consent/domicile].
a. Physical Service of Process
R: Many states require corporations to designate an agent for service of process as a condition of doing business in the state. Proper service on a registered agent in the forum state can establish jurisdiction.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, Defendant [was/was not] served with process.
b. Consent
R: Corporations can consent to personal jurisdiction in a number of ways, such as by registering to do business in a state and designating an agent for service of process there. Courts have generally held that such registration can amount to implied consent to be sued in the state’s courts, particularly for claims arising from the corporation’s in-state activities. Additionally, consent can be explicit, such as through contractual agreements with a forum selection clause where the corporation agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of a specific state’s courts.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, Defendant [did/did not] consent to personal jurisdiction.
c. Domicile
R: A corporation is considered “domiciled” in two primary locations: (1) the state of incorporation and (2) the state of its principal place of business. These two locations are generally where the corporation is subject to general jurisdiction.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, Defendant [was/was not] domiciled in the forum.
2. Non-Resident Statutory Authorizations
R: If traditional bases do not establish personal jurisdiction, a court may gain jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if authorized through (1) a state long-arm statute or (2) Federal Rule 4(k)(2), so long as it satisfies Due Process Clause requirements.
a. State's Long-Arm Statute
R: Many state long-arm statutes authorize personal jurisdiction over non-residents to the extent allowed by the Due Process Clause. Some states, however, impose restrictions, allowing jurisdiction only for specific activities within the state, such as (1) property ownership, (2) tortious acts, or (3) contractual relationships. In restricted jurisdictions, the court must verify compliance with the statute before moving to due process analysis.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, the forum’s long-arm statute [does/does not] authorize personal jurisdiction over non-residents to the extent permissible under the Due Process Clause.
b. Federal Rule 4(k)(2)
R: When (1) no state court can exercise jurisdiction over the defendant and (2) the claim arises under federal law, Rule 4(k)(2) may authorize jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the Due Process Clause.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, Rule 4(k)(2) [permits/does not permit] the court to exercise personal jurisdiction to the extent permissible under the Due Process Clause.
3. Due Process
R: Due process requirements are satisfied if the non-resident defendant has sufficient (1) minimum contacts with the forum state, and the exercise of jurisdiction (2) does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
a. Minimum Contacts
R: A defendant’s contacts with the forum state must be (1) purposeful and substantial, such that the defendant should (2) reasonably anticipate or foresee being taken to court there, which is established (a) when the cause of action arises out of or closely relates to the defendant’s contact with the forum state, even if the contact is the defendant’s only contact with the forum state (Specific Jurisdiction) or (b) where the defendant’s contacts are continuous and systematic, even if the cause of action does not arise out of or closely relate to the defendant’s contact with the forum state (General Jurisdiction). However, this requires that the corporation’s contacts with the state be so “continuous and systematic” that it is essentially “at home” in the forum.
i. Internet Websites
R: Merely maintaining a website does not subject a defendant to jurisdiction in every forum where the site is accessible. Most courts assess website-based jurisdiction using the Zippo sliding scale, which considers the site’s interactivity with the forum. At one end, passive sites simply provide information and typically do not provide sufficient minimum contacts. Conversely, sites that facilitate business transactions such that they are integral to the defendants business within the forum may satisfy the minimum contacts requirement.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, Defendant’s [has/does not have] sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state.
b. Fair Play and Substantial Justice
R: If minimum contacts are established, the court must confirm that exercising jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Relevant considerations include (1) the forum state’s interest, (2) the defendant’s burden in appearing, (3) judicial efficiency, and (4) shared interests of the states in promoting common social policies.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, maintaining the action [does/does not] offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Conclusion
C: Therefore, the court [does/does not] have personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
Usage Notes
JurisJotter templates synthesize legal principles into a practical format that supports the development of well-structured, point-rich analyses in a timed exam.
The template features (1) headers identifying the overall issue, analysis, and conclusion. If the analysis begins with an umbrella rule that identifies elements, factors, or steps of the analysis, it will be followed by subheaders that signpost the analysis of each component.
The template also features (2) IRAC labels at the beginning of each paragraph. These headers and labels are included for educational purposes, offering guidance on structuring your analysis. Your usage of the headers is optional but can be helpful to readers. We advise against including the IRAC labels in submitted work.
The templates serve as a general guide for writing and should be adapted to align with (1) your specific factual circumstances and (2) your professor’s preferences, particularly if your professor provides explicit formulations of rules or analyses. For example, you may add or subtract an element or modify its language. Regardless of whether your professor provides explicit formulations, (3) this template will assist you in crafting point-rich analyses.
Please note that these templates are writing aids and not finished products. They are efficiently designed for exam essays to demonstrate conceptual understanding; thus, they are not comprehensive outlines with historical context or dicta.
Questions or comments? Reach out at [email protected].