CT Bar Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under the 'stream of commerce' theory of specific personal jurisdiction, what additional factor did Justice O'Connor's plurality in Asahi Metal require beyond mere placement of a product into commerce?
- Evidence that the defendant directed its product toward the forum state (Correct answer)
- Proof that the product caused injury in the forum state
- A contractual relationship with a forum resident
- Registration to do business in the forum state
Correct answer: Evidence that the defendant directed its product toward the forum state
Justice O'Connor's Asahi plurality held that placing a product into the stream of commerce is insufficient alone; the defendant must also have engaged in additional conduct purposefully directing the product toward the forum.
Question 2: A Connecticut court has in rem jurisdiction over a dispute concerning a piece of real property located in Connecticut even if neither party is a Connecticut resident. What is the constitutional basis for this jurisdiction?
- The situs of the property provides a sufficient connection to the forum (Correct answer)
- Implied consent by purchasing property in Connecticut
- The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
- Minimum contacts established by the purchase transaction
Correct answer: The situs of the property provides a sufficient connection to the forum
In rem jurisdiction is constitutionally grounded in the state's power over property situated within its borders, regardless of the parties' domicile.
Question 3: When a federal court in Connecticut sits in diversity and must apply Connecticut's long-arm statute, what is the court required to do under Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins?
- Apply Connecticut's long-arm statute as a state court would interpret it (Correct answer)
- Apply the federal long-arm statute because procedural rules are federal
- Apply whichever statute provides broader jurisdiction
- Defer to the plaintiff's choice of which statute to invoke
Correct answer: Apply Connecticut's long-arm statute as a state court would interpret it
Under Erie, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law, and Connecticut's long-arm statute governs the reach of personal jurisdiction as a matter of state law.
Question 4: A defendant is served with process while passing through Connecticut airport solely to change planes. Under Burnham v. Superior Court, is this sufficient for Connecticut courts to exercise personal jurisdiction?
- Yes, because tag jurisdiction based on physical presence in the state is constitutionally valid (Correct answer)
- No, because mere transient presence is insufficient after International Shoe
- Yes, but only if the cause of action arose in Connecticut
- No, because airports are federal enclaves exempt from state jurisdiction
Correct answer: Yes, because tag jurisdiction based on physical presence in the state is constitutionally valid
Burnham confirmed that transient or 'tag' jurisdiction—serving a defendant physically present in the state—remains constitutionally valid regardless of the minimum contacts analysis.
Question 5: Connecticut's long-arm statute, C.G.S. § 52-59b, authorizes personal jurisdiction over a non-resident who 'transacts any business' in Connecticut. Which of the following best satisfies this standard?
- Negotiating and signing a contract in Connecticut for services to be performed in Connecticut (Correct answer)
- Sending a single unsolicited advertisement to a Connecticut resident
- Owning stock in a Connecticut corporation
- Having a Connecticut resident as a co-defendant in another lawsuit
Correct answer: Negotiating and signing a contract in Connecticut for services to be performed in Connecticut
Transacting business under § 52-59b requires purposeful conduct in Connecticut directed toward the formation or performance of contractual obligations, which negotiating and signing an in-state contract satisfies.
Question 6: Which U.S. Supreme Court decision established that a corporation's general personal jurisdiction is typically limited to its place of incorporation and principal place of business?
- Daimler AG v. Bauman (Correct answer)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown
Correct answer: Daimler AG v. Bauman
Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) held that general personal jurisdiction over a corporation is proper only where it is 'at home,' typically its state of incorporation and principal place of business.
Question 7: A plaintiff files suit in Connecticut state court but the cause of action arose entirely from events in Massachusetts, and the defendant is a Massachusetts resident. The defendant timely removes to federal court. What is the most likely result regarding personal jurisdiction?
- The federal court applies the same Connecticut jurisdictional analysis that the state court would have applied (Correct answer)
- The federal court automatically has broader nationwide personal jurisdiction
- The removal cures any personal jurisdiction defect that existed in state court
- The defendant waives personal jurisdiction objections by removing the case
Correct answer: The federal court applies the same Connecticut jurisdictional analysis that the state court would have applied
Upon removal, the federal court steps into the shoes of the state court and applies the same personal jurisdiction analysis, including Connecticut's long-arm statute, as the originating state court would have.
CT Bar Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction 2
Under the 'stream of commerce' theory of specific personal jurisdiction, what additional factor did Justice O'Connor's plurality in Asahi Metal require beyond mere placement of a product into commerce?