Civil
Procedure Class Notes
We were in Burger
King, the last of the specific jurisdiction cases.
Why
does Yeazell save this case for last?
The case sort of “blends” minimum contacts with fair
play analysis, even though the court itself says that these are two
separate tests.
The
question: should
Minimum
contacts as a threshold
We’re
two years before Asahi,
which reasserts this threshold test.
However, the Court also says if there’s lots of fair play, the minimum
contacts required might be less.
How
could we argue that there are no contacts in this case? What do we know about Rudzewicz? He never went to
So
you can make a good argument for no contacts.
Why
would there be contacts? Rudzewicz and
his partner signed a 20-year franchise agreement with Burger King. Does the time period of the contract
matter? Yes. It’s not an isolated, one-time transaction. There shall be repeated contacts over a 20-year
period. It’s foreseeable that conflicts
may arise between the parties and that a lawsuit may be brought in
What
else? World-Wide talked about “networks”
of businesses where there is a free flow of information, products, and
services. Does this franchise model work
the same way? A franchise works more
independently from its franchisor than a Volkswagen dealer with respect to the
manufacturer and distributor.
The
contract itself says that it will be construed in accordance with the laws of
the state of
There
are other things besides personal jurisdiction that courts decide before a
trial, or in other words, before judging the case on its merits. The court looks at choice of law and venue in
addition to jurisdiction. Usually, none
of these is much of a challenge, but there will, of course, be some hard cases.
In
a dispute, you can mutually choose what laws will govern the dispute, as long
as there is some connection between the laws chosen and the parties.
There
may also be a forum selection clause in a contract, where the parties agree
ahead of time where suit will be brought in case there are any disputes.
It
turns out in
So,
were there minimum contacts? They had a
long contract with Burger King. They
negotiated with Burger King in
How
do we distinguish Burger King from the other cases we’ve looked at
lately? It is the fact that getting sued
in
There’s
one thing we know for sure from this case:
Simply making a contract
with an out-of-state defendant is not enough to create sufficient contacts.
Why
does the Supreme Court find that there is no jurisdiction over Seaway in World-Wide,
and yet there is jurisdiction over Rudzewicz in Burger King? How do we distinguish? Unlike Seaway, which has absolutely no
contact with
The
Court describes Rudzewicz as a sophisticated businessman, though this level of
sophistication is unimportant. The
important thing is that he didn’t negotiate the contract with Burger King
himself, but rather he had legal counsel who negotiated his contract for him.
Stevens
says that Burger King could be settled merely on fairness grounds (he
says it’s unfair) and that it’s unnecessary to do the minimum contacts test.
What
should Mr. Rudzewicz have done? He should
have sued Burger King in