1) STATUTORY ANALYSIS
A. Is there a statute giving in personam jurisdiction? i) Is there a traditional basis? (1) Every state – traditional basis ii) If not, is there a statutory provisions proving jurisdiction over out of state defendants (Long Arm)? (1) California Type? (constitutional analysis) (2) Laundry List? (a) “non resident defendant can be sued in our state on a claim that arises from her doing one of the following things….” (b) Specific jurisdiction
2) CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
A. Does one of the traditional basis apply? (PENN) i) If yes, then mention and apply min. contacts (1) Burnham arguments – Scalia pedigree / Brenan need both) ii) If no- mention an go to min contacts
B. Minimum Contact Analysis (SHOE TEST)
i) Relevant Contact
(1) Purposeful availment?
(a) YES like McGee
(i) Solicitation - D reached out to forum by doing business with person there – yes contact
(b) NO like Hansen / WWV
(i) No reaching out - Contact arose from unilateral act of third party – no contact
(2) Foreseeability of being haled?
(a) Sent product there directly / product arrived there by act of party
(i) Tie back to purposeful availment
(b) Product arrived through SOC
(i) Asahi – argue both sides
1. Brennan reasonable anticipation
2. O’Connor reasonable anticipation + intent to serve
ii) Fairness
(1) Relatedness- does claim arise from D action in forum (McGee) – spec.jur.
(2) Inconvenience for D and witnesses – burden on D to show unconstitutional inconvenience (Burger King)
(3) States Interest states interest in providing forum (McGee)
(4) Plaintiffs Interest, Efficiency, Interstate Interest in Shared Substantive Policies
C. Sliding Scale Discussion (?) – Burger King