Personal Jurisdiction Fairness Factors Test

Personal Jurisdiction: Fairness Factors Test World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson 444 U.S. 286 (1980) Facts: Plaintiffs bought car in NY, then moved to AZ. Sued World-Wide VW for product defect. WWV, a NY corporation, conducted no business in OK – where accident that initiated suit occurred. Procedural History: Woodson is judge in OK who applied the Minimum Contacts test and personal jurisdiction to WWV with foreseeability of stream of commerce. WWV sued to Supreme Court citing no contacts as Issue: Is it enough to consider foreseeability of driving a car in another state to establish personal jurisdiction? Rule of Law: Narrows Minimum Contacts to those who purposefully avail. Holding: Apply the minimum contacts and fairness factors to determine if foreseeable to be brought to suit in the forum. Does NOT meet minimum contacts standard. Reasoning: Foreseeability of Suits v. Foreseeability of Stream of Commerce One can easily see foreseeability of a stream of commerce that the car might make it to OK but does not mean suits are there. Also does not give personal jurisdiction, as WWV did not personally avail them to forum. Fairness Factors Test:      Forum State’s Interest Defendant’s Burden - ***Most Important*** Plaintiff’s Interest Interstate Judicial Systems Shared interests of States in furthering social policies Concept: Minimum Contacts w/ Purposeful Avail, Fairness Factors w/ stream of commerce and foreseeability of law suit. Rule §§: International Shoe, Hanson v. Denckla, _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Personal Jurisdiction: Fairness Factors Test Other Opinions: Brennan – objects to the narrow reading of International Shoe  There are some Minimum Contacts based on the idea of putting something into the stream of commerce. Foreseeability means you could be hauled into court (especially on a very mobile object like a car)  Also seems to apply the Fairness Factors test stating… o State Interest – OK hospital, accident in OK, commerce in OK o Burden of the Defendant – small burden b/c large corporations o Plaintiff’s Interest – easier for them to fight in OK because all the witnesses would be from OK. o Interstate Jurisdiction in Efficient Resolution – o Shared State Interest – protect interstate highway system and laws. Questions: Why do you think Audi and VW of America gave up on the personal jurisdiction point? Why did the Robinsons want Seaway and Worldwide in the case given that Audi and VWA had the deep pockets?  It would keep a NY person on each side of the trial and thus allow for subject matter jurisdiction to remain in Creek County OK, a place known for being lenient to victims against large corporations. Burger King. A very important case, though just discussed in the notes. . (Note in particular the CB’s explanation about the role of Rule 4(k)(1)(A) in determining the federal court’s reach in BK.) Notes and Problems: 1. Consider the case as doctrine, as strategy, and as a guide to future litigation. a. Seaway (NY) and WWV (a NY, NJ, CT) b. Audi (German manufacturer) did not challenge personal jurisdiction, VW of America initially did then dropped the issue. Only two remaining were the two companies based in NY. Court applies jurisdiction to them clarifying International Shoe “ Hence if the sale of a product of a manufacturer or distributor such as Audi or VW is not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to serve, directly or indirectly, the markets of its product in other states, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of those states if its allegedly defective merchandise there has been the source of injury…” c. Application to Hypo: Radio purchased for Car from NY retailer, radio manufactured in Japan and sold throughout US by CA distributor. A car fire was caused by the radio’s defective wiring. Who will be subject to personal jurisdiction?  NY retailer would not be because they do not advertise in OK or have any contacts with the forum state.  CA distributor has minimum contacts with the forum state because purposefully avails themselves through national advertising in the forum state.  Japanese manufacturer has minimum contacts for the same reasons as their distributor. 2. Problem Created – this could have different rulings and inconsistent lawsuits throughout the US. Imagine if a product defect is still with the car but Audi told Seaway and WWV to fix it but do not. If the Robinsons win in OK but Seaway and WWV are not included because of personal jurisdiction. Audi would pay Robinsons but then would sue WWV and Seaway probably in NY to recover loses. A NY court does not have to hold the same finding of product defect awarded in OK. So if they didn’t then Audi has no form of relief against inaction by Seaway and WWV. Procedure as Strategy: *** IMPORANT *** The case was all about keeping two NY defendants and NY residents on opposite sides of the case. This removes diversity jurisdiction and prevents it from going to Federal Court. The Creek County court of OK is way more lenient to product liability claims then would a Federal court in Tulsa OK. Defendants win and then immediately move for diversity jurisdiction. The case is moved to Federal Court in OK which makes more expensive on defendant to bring the suit.  Higher Fees for witnesses to travel to Tulsa  More lenient jury pool in Tulsa