CIVIL PROCEDURE CASE SCENARIO QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS FOR EXAM GUIDE. 2024 UPDATE
1. Austin is a traveling salesman who lives in North Dakota and sells Fuller brushes in
parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota. While end route to deliver
brushes to a Minnesota customer, he is involved in an auto accident in Minnesota
with Healy, a Minnesota citizen. He brings suit against Healy in North Dakota for
his injuries in the accident. Does the court have personal jurisdiction over Healy?
In this case Austin has sued Healy in a state in which Austin has contacts, but
Healy has none. As far as the example tells us, Healy has never been there, has
not formed any deliberate relationship to or performed acts within the state, and
has done nothing to derive benefits from North Dakota. Consequently, she has no
reason to expect to be sued there and has not impliedly swallowed that bitter pill
in exchange for the benefits of in-state activity. She lacks minimum contacts with
North Dakota and may not be sued there on this claim. As this conclusion
suggests, the personal jurisdiction rules are defendant-oriented: The plaintiff's
contacts with the forum state will not do; the court must find some basis for
forcing the defendant, the unwilling litigant, to appear before it. Conversely, if the
defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, it is irrelevant (at least, for
personal jurisdiction purposes) that the plaintiff has none. One might well ask
why Austin should have to go to Healy instead of Healy coming to Austin. If
someone will have to be inconvenienced by the suit, shouldn't it be the defendant
rather than the injured plaintiff? On the other hand, the defendant may be
completely blameless; plaintiffs lose law suits as well as win them. If so, it seems
unfair to add the insult of distant litigation to the injury of being sued in the first
place. Perhaps more importantly, the defendant (unlike the plaintiff, who started
the suit) has not chosen the forum and ought to have some veto power over
unreasonable choices by the plaintiff.
2. As a result of the same accident, Healy brings suit against Austin for her
injuries. She sues in South Dakota. Does the court have jurisdiction over Austin
based on minimum contacts? The South Dakota court will not have personal
jurisdiction over Austin under the minimum contacts test. It is true that Austin
has some contacts with South Dakota because he travels there to sell brushes.
However, International Shoe does not hold that a defendant may be sued in a
state simply because she has some contacts with that state. Shoe holds that a
defendant may, by committing limited acts within a state, submit herself to
jurisdiction for claims arising out of the in-state acts themselves. Here, Healy's
claim is unrelated to Austin's brush sales in South Dakota. Austin had no reason
to believe that he was submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the South Dakota
, CIVIL PROCEDURE CASE SCENARIO QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS FOR EXAM GUIDE. 2024 UPDATE
courts for auto accidents in Minnesota by selling brushes in South Dakota. The
situation would be different if the claim were for faulty brushes sold to a South
Dakota customer. In that case, the claim would arise directly from Austin's
voluntary contacts with the state, and jurisdiction would be proper. However,
Healy may still be able to sue Austin in South Dakota for the auto claim. Ever since
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1 877), it has been permissible to obtain personal
jurisdiction over an individual defendant (that is, a person) by serving her with the
summons in the state where suit is brought. In Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S.
604 (1 990), the Supreme Court concluded that such "transient jurisdiction" is still a
valid means of obtaining jurisdiction over an individual defendant, even if the
defendant is in the state briefly or for reasons unrelated to the litigation. Thus, if
Healy is determined to sue in South Dakota, she may bring suit there and have the
process server await Austin's next sales trip into the state.
3. To be on the safe side, Healy also files suit against Austin in Minnesota.
Does that court have personal jurisdiction over Austin based on minimum
contacts? Healy has gotten it right by suing Austin in Minnesota. Austin's act of
driving in Minnesota provides a minimum contacts basis for a suit against him
there for injuries suffered in the accident. Motorists who use the roads of a
state should realize that this purposeful activity in the forum subjects’ other
drivers to serious risks, that people may be injured and may sue. It would be
unfair to allow drivers to take advantage of Minnesota's highways but not to call
them to account there for accidents they are involved in on those highways.
Even if causing the accident in Minnesota were Austin's only contact with the
state, it would support specific in personal jurisdiction in this case. The "quality
and nature" of this single, purposeful act, and the consequences that may
predictably ensue from it, are so serious as to make it reasonable to force the
driver to return to defend a suit that arises from the accident. This is true
whether Austin causes an accident while in Minnesota on business or in Florida
on vacation.
4. The Volkswagen. Many of the most difficult personal jurisdiction cases
involve commercial contacts, that is, contacts that arise out of business
done in the state, either directly or indirectly, by a corporation acting
outside the state. World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286
(1980), sets out the basic framework for analyzing these cases. The
motorcade of hypotheticals that follows may help you to assess the
ANSWERS FOR EXAM GUIDE. 2024 UPDATE
1. Austin is a traveling salesman who lives in North Dakota and sells Fuller brushes in
parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota. While end route to deliver
brushes to a Minnesota customer, he is involved in an auto accident in Minnesota
with Healy, a Minnesota citizen. He brings suit against Healy in North Dakota for
his injuries in the accident. Does the court have personal jurisdiction over Healy?
In this case Austin has sued Healy in a state in which Austin has contacts, but
Healy has none. As far as the example tells us, Healy has never been there, has
not formed any deliberate relationship to or performed acts within the state, and
has done nothing to derive benefits from North Dakota. Consequently, she has no
reason to expect to be sued there and has not impliedly swallowed that bitter pill
in exchange for the benefits of in-state activity. She lacks minimum contacts with
North Dakota and may not be sued there on this claim. As this conclusion
suggests, the personal jurisdiction rules are defendant-oriented: The plaintiff's
contacts with the forum state will not do; the court must find some basis for
forcing the defendant, the unwilling litigant, to appear before it. Conversely, if the
defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, it is irrelevant (at least, for
personal jurisdiction purposes) that the plaintiff has none. One might well ask
why Austin should have to go to Healy instead of Healy coming to Austin. If
someone will have to be inconvenienced by the suit, shouldn't it be the defendant
rather than the injured plaintiff? On the other hand, the defendant may be
completely blameless; plaintiffs lose law suits as well as win them. If so, it seems
unfair to add the insult of distant litigation to the injury of being sued in the first
place. Perhaps more importantly, the defendant (unlike the plaintiff, who started
the suit) has not chosen the forum and ought to have some veto power over
unreasonable choices by the plaintiff.
2. As a result of the same accident, Healy brings suit against Austin for her
injuries. She sues in South Dakota. Does the court have jurisdiction over Austin
based on minimum contacts? The South Dakota court will not have personal
jurisdiction over Austin under the minimum contacts test. It is true that Austin
has some contacts with South Dakota because he travels there to sell brushes.
However, International Shoe does not hold that a defendant may be sued in a
state simply because she has some contacts with that state. Shoe holds that a
defendant may, by committing limited acts within a state, submit herself to
jurisdiction for claims arising out of the in-state acts themselves. Here, Healy's
claim is unrelated to Austin's brush sales in South Dakota. Austin had no reason
to believe that he was submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the South Dakota
, CIVIL PROCEDURE CASE SCENARIO QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS FOR EXAM GUIDE. 2024 UPDATE
courts for auto accidents in Minnesota by selling brushes in South Dakota. The
situation would be different if the claim were for faulty brushes sold to a South
Dakota customer. In that case, the claim would arise directly from Austin's
voluntary contacts with the state, and jurisdiction would be proper. However,
Healy may still be able to sue Austin in South Dakota for the auto claim. Ever since
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1 877), it has been permissible to obtain personal
jurisdiction over an individual defendant (that is, a person) by serving her with the
summons in the state where suit is brought. In Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S.
604 (1 990), the Supreme Court concluded that such "transient jurisdiction" is still a
valid means of obtaining jurisdiction over an individual defendant, even if the
defendant is in the state briefly or for reasons unrelated to the litigation. Thus, if
Healy is determined to sue in South Dakota, she may bring suit there and have the
process server await Austin's next sales trip into the state.
3. To be on the safe side, Healy also files suit against Austin in Minnesota.
Does that court have personal jurisdiction over Austin based on minimum
contacts? Healy has gotten it right by suing Austin in Minnesota. Austin's act of
driving in Minnesota provides a minimum contacts basis for a suit against him
there for injuries suffered in the accident. Motorists who use the roads of a
state should realize that this purposeful activity in the forum subjects’ other
drivers to serious risks, that people may be injured and may sue. It would be
unfair to allow drivers to take advantage of Minnesota's highways but not to call
them to account there for accidents they are involved in on those highways.
Even if causing the accident in Minnesota were Austin's only contact with the
state, it would support specific in personal jurisdiction in this case. The "quality
and nature" of this single, purposeful act, and the consequences that may
predictably ensue from it, are so serious as to make it reasonable to force the
driver to return to defend a suit that arises from the accident. This is true
whether Austin causes an accident while in Minnesota on business or in Florida
on vacation.
4. The Volkswagen. Many of the most difficult personal jurisdiction cases
involve commercial contacts, that is, contacts that arise out of business
done in the state, either directly or indirectly, by a corporation acting
outside the state. World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286
(1980), sets out the basic framework for analyzing these cases. The
motorcade of hypotheticals that follows may help you to assess the
