Long Arm Statute
California's LAS
Unlimited Long Arm Statute
California, along with a few other states, have long arm statutes that give their courts power over any person or property over which the state can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction. If this is the case, go immediately to due process analysis
Notions of Fair Play and substantial justice
Due process requires that if a defendant is not physically present in a forum state that they have certain “minimum contacts” with the state, such that the maintenance of the suit does not “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (International Shoe v. Washington)
VA LAS (4)
Causing tortious injury in VA by an act or omission outside VA if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in VA;
Factors to Balance in Fairness Test
i. The burden on the defendant
1. Distance, burdensomeness, etc.
ii. The forum state’s interest
1. Is the plaintiff or another party from the state, are there any issues that affect the state directly?
iii. The plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
Plaintiff’s choice, is plaintiff from the state? Is it convenient due to witnesses or evidence located there?
VA's LAS
A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to cause of action arising from the person’s:
Continuous and Systematic
These contacts must be continuous and systematic activities and are rated according to a sliding scale of relatedness to the action that gives more weight to the related contacts and less to unrelated contacts. Int’l Shoe
Stream of Commerce
Sufficient contacts exist where a defendant has targeted the forum with its goods
VA LAS (1)
Purposeful availment
The Supreme Court augmented the minimum contacts rule by stating that the minimum contacts cannot result from the unilateral activity of the plaintiff, and that it is essential that there be some act by which the defendant “purposefully avails” himself to the privileges of conducting activities and invoking the benefits of the forum state. Hanson v. Denckla
Website
Passive site (only info provided)
Semi-Interactive (can communicate, but not buy/sell)
Active/Interactive site (allows 2 way communication; orders)
VA LAS (2)
Reasonably Anticipate being haled into court
The court clarified that the conduct of the defendant and his connection to the state must be such that he reasonably anticipates being haled into court in the forum state, and foreseeablity alone is not enough.
Effects Test
The defendant committed an intentional tort;
The plaintiff felt the brunt of the harm in the forum state, such that the forum can be said to be the focal point of the harm;
and The defendant expressly aimed his tortious conduct at the forum, such that the forum can be said to be the focal point of the tortious activity
VA LAS (3)
Causing tortious injury by an act or omission in VA
Three potential alternatives to purposeful availment
-Stream of commerce
-Website
-Effects Test
Safety Check on Fairness
If the court concludes that defendant meets the minimum contacts test, then they will evaluate if it is reasonable to hale defendant into court there.