---
title: Personal Jurisdiction Analysis
description: An overview of the legal standards and requirements for establishing personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil lawsuit.
keywords: [personal jurisdiction, minimum contacts, due process, long-arm statute, forum non conveniens]
category: law
---

## Introduction to Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's power to exercise authority over a particular defendant and bind that defendant to the court's judgment.[^1] The requirement of personal jurisdiction is grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which limits a state court's ability to adjudicate claims against defendants who lack sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum state.[^2] The Supreme Court has long recognized that the Due Process Clause "represents a restriction on judicial power not as a matter of sovereignty, but as a matter of individual liberty."[^3] Accordingly, the personal jurisdiction analysis focuses on the defendant's own actions and reasonable expectations, rather than the unilateral activities of the plaintiff or a third party.[^4]

## The Minimum Contacts Standard

The seminal case establishing the minimum contacts standard is International Shoe Co. v. Washington.[^5] In that case, the Supreme Court held that a defendant will be subject to a forum state's personal jurisdiction if it has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"[^6] The minimum contacts inquiry is flexible and fact-specific, requiring an assessment of the quality and nature of the defendant's forum-related activities.[^7] Importantly, the defendant's contacts with the forum must be purposeful, such that the defendant "should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there."[^8]

The minimum contacts standard can be satisfied through either general or specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction exists when the defendant's contacts with the forum state are "continuous and systematic," allowing the court to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant for any claim, even if unrelated to the defendant's forum activities.[^9] Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, is appropriate when the plaintiff's claim "arises out of or relates to the defendant's contacts with the forum."[^10] The specific jurisdiction analysis often requires a closer examination of the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.[^11]

## Long-Arm Statutes and the Limits of Personal Jurisdiction

In addition to the constitutional minimum contacts standard, a court must also consider the applicable state long-arm statute, which provides the statutory basis for exercising personal jurisdiction.[^12] Long-arm statutes vary by jurisdiction, but typically allow a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who has engaged in certain enumerated activities within the forum state.[^13] Even if a defendant's contacts satisfy the long-arm statute, however, the exercise of jurisdiction must still comport with the Due Process Clause.[^14]

The Due Process Clause imposes outer limits on a court's exercise of personal jurisdiction, even where a state long-arm statute would permit jurisdiction.[^15] For example, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause prohibits a state from exercising personal jurisdiction over a defendant based solely on the unilateral activities of a plaintiff or third party.[^16] Similarly, the Court has recognized that the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum state, and the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief are all relevant to the jurisdictional inquiry.[^17]

## The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

Even where a court has properly exercised personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the doctrine of forum non conveniens may provide an additional basis for dismissing the case.[^18] Under this doctrine, a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if an alternative forum is available and more appropriate for the litigation, and the private and public interest factors weigh in favor of dismissal.[^19] The private interest factors include the ease of access to evidence, the availability of compulsory process for unwilling witnesses, and the cost of obtaining willing witnesses.[^20] The public interest factors include administrative difficulties, local interest in having localized controversies decided at home, and the interest in having a forum apply its own law.[^21]

The Supreme Court has emphasized that the forum non conveniens doctrine allows courts to "resist imposition upon [their] jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized."[^22] Accordingly, a defendant may successfully move to dismiss a case under the forum non conveniens doctrine, even where the court has properly exercised personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

## Burdens of Proof and Remedies for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of establishing that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.[^23] However, once the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, the burden shifts to the defendant to present a "compelling case" that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.[^24] If the plaintiff fails to meet its burden, the appropriate remedy is dismissal of the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.[^25]

Alternatively, a court may determine that it lacks personal jurisdiction over certain defendants, but that it can still exercise jurisdiction over other defendants properly before the court.[^26] In such cases, the court may sever the claims and parties, retaining jurisdiction over the properly joined defendants while dismissing the claims against the defendants over whom the court lacks personal jurisdiction.[^27]

## Conclusion

The personal jurisdiction analysis is a critical threshold issue in any civil lawsuit, as it determines the court's authority to bind a particular defendant to its judgment. By satisfying the minimum contacts standard and the applicable long-arm statute, a plaintiff can establish the court's personal jurisdiction over a defendant. However, the Due Process Clause and the doctrine of forum non conveniens provide important limitations on the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction, even where the statutory requirements are met. Ultimately, the personal jurisdiction inquiry is a fact-specific analysis that must be carefully navigated by litigants in order to ensure the proper forum for the resolution of their claims.

[^1]: Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733 (1878).
[^2]: Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
[^3]: Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982).
[^4]: Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985).
[^5]: 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
[^6]: Id. at 316 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)).
[^7]: Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475-76.
[^8]: World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980).
[^9]: Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011).
[^10]: Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984).
[^11]: Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014).
[^12]: Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014).
[^13]: See, e.g., N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302 (McKinney).
[^14]: Daimler, 571 U.S. at 125.
[^15]: World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 294.
[^16]: Walden, 571 U.S. at 284.
[^17]: Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477.
[^18]: Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 (1981).
[^19]: Id. at 241, 257.
[^20]: Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947).
[^21]: Id.
[^22]: Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 250 (quoting Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 507).
[^23]: Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004).
[^24]: Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477.
[^25]: Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999).
[^26]: See Fed. R.