Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's power over a particular defendant (in personam jurisdiction) or an item of property (in rem or in limited cases, quasi in rem jurisdiction). It is distinct from a courts power to hear cases involve a specific topic, known as Subject Matter Jurisdiction. If a court does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant or property, then the court cannot bind the defendant to an obligation or adjudicate any rights over the property.

In personam jurisdiction is when the forum has power over the person of a particular defendant. In rem jurisdiction is when the court has power to adjudicate the rights to a particular item of property. Quasi in rem jurisdiction is when the court has the power to determine whether particular individuals own specific property within the court's control.

The most common type of personal jurisdiction is in personam personal jurisdiction. There are two kinds of in personam personal jurisdiction, general and specific jurisdiction.

General personal jurisdiction
General Jurisdiction refers to the court's power over a person or company for any issue. Thus, the Court is said to have general jurisdiction over a party where the Court's jurisidction is not limited to a specific issue. A company may be sued for any reason in any jurisdiction where it is incorporated or has its center of operations. A court may also have general jurisdiction over a party if it has systematic and continuous contacts with the state where the suit is being brought.

Specific personal jurisdiction
In contrast, specific personal jurisdiction allows a defendant to be sued in a forum only on the basis of the defendant's contacts with the forum. A court can establish specific jurisdiction over a defendant only if he or she has "certain minimum contacts"  with a particular forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction  "does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.  Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

The determination of whether a court has specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident party involves a two-part analysis. See Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network Productions, Inc., 902 F.2d 829 (11th Cir.1990); see also Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla.1989). First, the court must determine whether the applicable state Long Arm Statute governing personal jurisdiction is satisfied. Next, the court must determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the court comports with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See ''Future Tech. Today, Inc. v. OSF Healthcare Systems'', 218 F.3d 1247,1249 (11th Cir.2000). The federal due process constitutional analysis requires that the nonresident has sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state so that “maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” International Shoe, 326 U.S. 310; see also Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d 253, 256 (11th Cir.1996).

Miami Breakers Soccer Club, Inc. v. Women's United Soccer Ass'n, 140 F.Supp.2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2001).

Minimum Contacts

 * Following International Shoe, courts have generally applied a three-part test in evaluating minimum contacts sufficient for jurisdiction:
 * The nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections;
 * The claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities; and
 * Exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.

The Internet and Personal Jurisdiction
Internet cases with an out-of-state defendant will often require the plaintiff to assert specific personal jurisdiction.

Where a civil action has been brought based on a defendant's Internet activities, courts have generally declined to assert personal jurisdiction solely on the basis of web advertising. Instead, courts have looked for more active contacts with a forum, such as Internet sales to the forum residents, conducting business in the forum state through numerous contacts, or entering into specific dealings with forum residents. CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996). The actual number of visitors to a defendant's website from citizens of the forum state has also sometimes been considered in an analysis of minimum contacts.

The "sliding scale" or "Zippo" test
In Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., a Federal Court held that "the likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet. This sliding scale is consistent with well developed personal jurisdiction principles." ''Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.'', [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2622455915709061368 952 F. Supp. 1119] (W.D. Pa. 1997).

The "sliding scale" or "Zippo" Test has been generally accepted as the standard in Federal Courts and in Florida in deciding personal jurisdiction in Internet cases. Such cases are now primarily decided based on a determination of the website's "interactivity". Courts have held that the greater the commercial nature and level of interactivity associated with the website, the more likely it is that the website operator has "purposefully avail[ed] itself" of the forum state's jurisdiction. Miami Breakers Soccer Club, Inc. v. Women's United Soccer Ass'n, 140 F.Supp.2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2001).

Interactivity is measured through an examination of the website's features and intended uses. A passive web site only makes information available to those interested in viewing the web site in foreign jurisdictions whereas an active web site allows for those interested in foreign jurisdictions to enter into contracts over the Internet with the defendant. Miami Breakers Soccer Club, Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d 1325. Websites are thus effectively divided into three categories: websites that conduct business over the Internet, websites where users exchange information with the host computers, and websites that do little more than present information. Websites that do business over the Internet will likely be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts in states where the website is accessible, while websites that simply present information will not. Purposeful availment for the third type is determined by the level of interactivity and its commercial nature.

Challenging Personal Jursidciton
A defendant wishing to contest the allegations of the complaint concerning jurisdiction or to raise a contention of minimum contacts must file affidavits in support of his position. The burden is then placed upon the plaintiff to prove by affidavit the basis upon which jurisdiction may be obtained. In most cases, the affidavits can be harmonized, and the court will be in a position to make a decision based upon facts which are essentially undisputed. ''Gleneagle Ship Mgmt. Co. v. Leondakos'', 602 So.2d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 1992)

Where the affidavits present a factual dispute, the trial court should conduct a limited evidentiary hearing in order to determine the jurisdictional issue. Limited discovery on jurisdictional issues will assist the trial court in answering the question of whether to grant or deny jurisdiction. While a plaintiff should not file a frivolous complaint alleging personal jurisdiction, averments made in good faith may not always rise to assertions which could be made under oath. Thus, a plaintiff should be able to conduct limited discovery on the jurisdictional question in order to gather facts and file an opposing affidavit. Such discovery which should not be broad, onerous or expansive, nor should it address the merits of the case. Also, where possible, the discovery should be carried out so as to minimize expense to the defendant. ''Gleneagle Ship Mgmt. Co.'', 602 So.2d at 1284.

Waiver
Challanges to the court's Personal Jurisdiction are waived if not raised on a Motion to Dismiss or as an Affirmative Defense. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140. A party is free to assert defenses or take other defensive actions in a motion while maintaining a personal jurisdiction defense. M.T.B. Banking Corp. v. Bergamo Da Silva, 592 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) It is only when a party requests affirmative relief from the court that personal jurisdiction is waived. See Kimbrough v. Rowe, Case::479 So.2d 867, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (assertion of a joint venture is a defense and not a request for affirmative relief); Heineken v. Heineken, Case::683 So.2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (request for attorney's fees incurred while asserting defense of personal jurisdiction does not constitute a request for affirmative relief which would waive the defense); ''cf. Department of Revenue ex rel. Godoy v. Castro'', Case::786 So.2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (defendant's motion for blood test in paternity action was a request for affirmative relief waiving defense of personal jurisdiction because defendant asked court to accept jurisdiction in order to take an action which could determine the case on the merits in his favor). Rule 1.140(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure specifically allows joinder of multiple defenses in a motion without waiving any of them. Mason v. Hunton, Case::816 So.2d 234, 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).