civil procedure personal jurisdiction essay question

• High School
• You don't have any recent items yet.
• You don't have any courses yet.
• You don't have any books yet.
• You don't have any Studylists yet.
• Information

Personal Jurisdiction Writing Exercise - Model Answer

Civil procedure (civpro), south texas college of law houston, recommended for you, students also viewed.

• Civil Procedure Outline
• CIV Pro Flow Chart
• Civ Pro Outline
• Rensberger Civil Procedure I Spring 2022
• 1. Questions & Answers: Civil Procedure, Fifth Edition
• 1 - Recording and Warranty Essay

Related documents

• 1 - Former Final Exam
• Civ pro I outline copy
• Paulsen CIV PRO I Spring 2021
• Womenandlaw pleading and civil procedure expanded outline
• Civil Procedure with Flowcharts 1
• Torts II Outline - Lecture notes 1-18

Related Studylists

Preview text, civil procedure i.

Fall 2022 – Sections B & D

Personal Jurisdiction Writing Exercise – MODEL ANSWER

Erika runs a business called Quality Woodworking, Inc. (“Quality”), through which she crafts handmade wooden cutting boards and distributes them to retailers in various states, including Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida. Quality is incorporated in the state of Delaware and has its principal place of business in Alabama, where Erika resides and plans to stay for the foreseeable future. Quality’s cutting boards have been selling well in the existing markets, so Quality decides to expand to the South Carolina market for the first time. Quality ships 100 cutting boards to Southern Sundries, a retail store in Charleston, South Carolina, and Southern Sundries begins selling the boards to customers. Quality also places advertisements for its cutting boards in a few local Charleston newspapers and on a local Charleston radio station, and it targets some social media advertisements at individuals living in the Charleston area. Quality has no other contacts with South Carolina.

Taylor lives in Charleston but takes a trip to Savannah, Georgia, where she buys one of Quality’s cutting boards in a local retail shop. When Taylor uses the cutting board at her home in Charleston a few weeks later, it snaps in half, causing Taylor to severely injure her hand. Taylor sues both Erika and Quality in state court in South Carolina for negligence in the creation of the cutting board, and she has process served on Erika when she comes to see the cutting board display at Southern Sundries. Is personal jurisdiction over (i) Erika and (ii) Quality Woodworking, Inc. in South Carolina constitutional?

The following is a model answer to the recently assigned Personal Jurisdiction Writing Exercise, which provided the fact pattern above. The model answer demonstrates one way to successfully organize a responsive essay and analyze the legal issues that were involved in the fact pattern. This is not the only way to structure an answer to the question, and the conclusions reached are not necessarily the only permissible conclusions.

The issue here is whether personal jurisdiction over Erika and Quality Woodworking, Inc. (“Quality”) in South Carolina is constitutional under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because there is nothing to indicate that either Erika or Quality owns property in South Carolina, the court will need to obtain in personam personal jurisdiction over the defendants. A court may constitutionally exercise in personam personal jurisdiction via (1) general jurisdiction, (2) specific jurisdiction, or (3) consent to personal jurisdiction. No facts indicate that either defendant has consented to personal jurisdiction, so the court must have either general or specific jurisdiction in this case. Each defendant will be addressed separately because a court must assess and obtain personal jurisdiction over each defendant in a lawsuit individually.

The first subissue is whether the South Carolina state court can constitutionally exercise general jurisdiction over Erika. A court will have general jurisdiction over a nonresident individual if the individual’s contacts with the forum state are so continuous and systematic as to render the individual “essentially at home” in the forum state. The Supreme Court has explained that an individual is “essentially at home” in the state where the person is domiciled. “Domicile” means the state where the individual resides and intends to remain indefinitely. In addition, the Supreme Court has permitted the exercise of general jurisdiction over a nonresident individual via transient or tag jurisdiction: the court may exercise general jurisdiction if the individual is personally served in the forum state, regardless of how long the individual is in that state or their reasons for being there.

Here, the South Carolina court will not have general jurisdiction on the basis of Erika being “at home” in South Carolina because she is not domiciled there. Instead, Erika is domiciled in Alabama because she resides there and does not plan to leave in the foreseeable future—in other words, she intends to remain there indefinitely.

However, the South Carolina court will have general jurisdiction over Erika under transient jurisdiction because Erika was personally served with process while in South Carolina to visit the Southern Sundries retail store. As a result, because general jurisdiction permits personal jurisdiction over a defendant on any suit regardless of its relationship to the defendant’s forum state contacts, no further analysis is required. The South Carolina court may constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over Erika.

QUALITY WOODWORKING, INC.

General Jurisdiction

The next subissue is whether the South Carolina state court can constitutionally exercise general jurisdiction over Quality. A court will have general jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation if the corporation’s contacts with the forum state are so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation “essentially at home” in the forum state. The Supreme Court has explained that a corporation is “essentially at home” in two places: (1) its state of incorporation and (2) the state where it has its principal place of business.

Here, Quality’s state of incorporation is Delaware, and its principal place of business is in Alabama, so Quality is not “essentially at home” in South Carolina. As a result, the South Carolina state court does not constitutionally have general jurisdiction over Quality.

Specific Jurisdiction

The last subissue is whether the South Carolina state court can constitutionally exercise specific jurisdiction over Quality. A court will have specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that exercising jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and (4) the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.

Quality is likely to argue that litigating in South Carolina is burdensome given that its principal place of business is in Alabama. However, the court is likely to reject this argument because modern transportation and communication options make the burden on a corporate defendant to litigate in a nearby state relatively low, especially considering that Quality already ships products into South Carolina for sale. In contrast, Taylor’s interest in litigating in her home forum, where she resides and she suffered the injury from Quality’s product, is high. South Carolina also has a significant interest in providing a forum for its residents who sustain injuries from out-of-state products and for preventing businesses from shipping defective products into its state. The interstate judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution is likely served by litigating in South Carolina as opposed to the potential alternative fora of Delaware, Alabama, or Georgia. Taylor resides in South Carolina and that is where evidence and witnesses related to Taylor’s injuries are likely to be found. In contrast, Delaware has little connection to the dispute other than Quality being incorporated there, and while Alabama and Georgia have connections to the dispute as the places where the defective cutting board was created and sold, these potential fora are less convenient than South Carolina as the plaintiff’s residence and the site of the injury. Finally, the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantial social policies is served by requiring a defendant who targets a state with its products to answer for injuries those products cause in that forum. Consequently, the fair play factors likely favor the exercise of specific jurisdiction here.

For the reasons described, then, the court will likely conclude that it can exercise specific jurisdiction over Quality. Therefore, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over both Erika and Quality by the South Carolina state court is constitutional.

• Multiple Choice

Course : Civil Procedure (CIVPRO)

University : south texas college of law houston.

• More from: Civil Procedure CIVPRO South Texas College of Law Houston 63   Documents Go to course
• More from: Civpro by Diane Truong 21 21 documents Go to Studylist