Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
22. May the State A federal court hear the action?
Ten years before the tenant filed the lawsuit, the landlord inherited a small farm in State A from his father. The landlord has never visited the farm or been physically present in State A. The landlord's farm is valued at $50,000.
A tenant living in State A sued a landlord from State B in a single count complaint filed in the federal district court of State A. The complaint alleged that while the tenant was living in an apartment building owned by the landlord in State B, the landlord breached his duty to keep the premises secure and a break-in occurred, causing the tenant $90,000 in property damages.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Personal jurisdiction is the court's power to enforce a judgment against a party. Because plaintiffs are considered to have consented to personal jurisdiction by filing a cause of action in a particular forum, questions generally arise in the context of the defendant.
Personal jurisdiction analysis involves two questions, including whether:
(i) the state's long-arm statute grants jurisdiction; and
(ii) the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause of the Constitution allows the court to enforce a judgment against the defendant.
There are multiple ways to satisfy the second step of the analysis, including establishing that the defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state or owns property in the state related to the claim. In Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court may not assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who owns land in the state without also conducting a minimum contacts analysis. Thus, a defendant who owns property in the forum that is entirely unrelated to the cause of action may not be subject to jurisdiction unless minimum contacts are established.
D is correct. The federal court in State A must have both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit. As to subject-matter jurisdiction, the parties are completely diverse (the tenant is from State A and the landlord is from State B) and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (the tenant is seeking $90,000 in damages).
However, the federal court in State A does not have the power to hear the lawsuit because it does not have personal jurisdiction over the landlord. The mere presence of property within a state, which is unrelated to the lawsuit, and no other contacts with the forum, is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process. Under Shaffer, because the landlord is a non-resident defendant who owns property in the forum that is unrelated to the cause of action, and has no minimum contacts, the court does not have personal jurisdiction.
A is incorrect. The parties' diversity is relevant to establishing the court's subject-matter jurisdiction, but the court must also have personal jurisdiction to hear the case. The landlord's farm is not a basis for establishing personal jurisdiction because the property is unrelated to the action and the landlord does not have minimum contacts with State A.
B is incorrect. This choice addresses subject-matter jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction, which is the dispositive issue. Personal jurisdiction demands more than owning unrelated property in a forum without minimum contacts. Moreover, this choice mischaracterizes the amount in controversy requirement. The plaintiff must be seeking an amount of damages in excess of $75,000. The value of the defendant's property is irrelevant to the amount in controversy requirement.
C is incorrect. The value of the farm does not affect the court's power to assert jurisdiction over the landlord. The dispositive facts are that the farm is unrelated to the cause of action and minimum contacts do not exist because the landlord has never been to the forum.