4. May the State A federal court exert personal jurisdiction over the homeowner?

«Personal jurisdiction» is the court's power to enforce a judgment against a party, typically 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.

A long-arm statute grants a court the authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant on the basis of his actions in the forum state. The long-arm statute must give the court the ability to «reach» outside its jurisdiction and be able to enforce a judgment against a non-resident.

If the answer to the first question is no and the state's long-arm statute does not grant the court authority to enforce a judgment against the defendant, the analysis ends. See McGee v. International Life, 355 U.S. 220 (1957) (holding that a non-resident defendant's single transaction within a forum may support personal jurisdiction, this is insufficient if the state's long-arm statute does not support jurisdiction over the defendant).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4(k)(1)(A) directs federal courts to analyze personal jurisdiction as if it were a state court of the state in which it is located. Further, service of process may be made only within the territorial limits of the state in which the district court sits or anywhere else permitted by the long-arm of the state where the district court sits.

FRCP 4(k)(1)(B) also provides a special 100-mile bulge provision that allows for out-of-state service even if the local law does not permit this. When the provision applies, it allows service anywhere, even across a state boundary, within a 100-mile radius of the federal courthouse where the suit is pending. The bulge provision applies only where out-of-staters will be brought in as additional parties to an already-pending action.

C is correct. Pursuant to the FRCP, federal courts must analyze personal jurisdiction as if it were a court of the state in which it is located. Here, the facts state that State A's long-arm statute would not grant a state court in State A jurisdiction, so the federal court in State A would also lack authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over the homeowner.

A is incorrect. This is an incorrect application of the law. FRCP 4(k)(1)(A) directs federal courts to analyze personal jurisdiction as if it were a court of the state where it is located. Therefore, for a federal court in State A, State A's long-arm statute is directly relevant to this analysis. As stated above, the court would lack personal jurisdiction because the long-arm statute does not allow it.

B is incorrect. A federal court may have an additional «100 mile» bump for purposes of service of process only with regard to a party joined under FRCP 14 or FRCP 19. Thus, this rule does not apply to the homeowner, an original defendant, in this case.

D is incorrect. Erie only arises when there is no controlling federal statute or Rule on point. State A's long-arm statute is applicable pursuant to the FRCP, which means this is not an Erie problem.