Personal Jurisdiction
Can this forum bind this defendant?
“Does the court have personal jurisdiction over D?” · “Can D be sued in State A?” · “Should D’s motion to dismiss be granted?”
A traditional (non-contacts) basis? Domicile, in-state service ("tag"), or consent.
PJ is proper—no contacts analysis needed. Domicile (an individual's home; a corporation's incorporation or principal-place-of-business state); physical presence when personally served in the state (tag / Burnham); or consent—a forum-selection clause, a general appearance to fight the merits, appointing an in-state agent, or waiver by not timely objecting.
Does the state's long-arm statute authorize reaching this defendant?
No PJ. The statute is the first gate—the state must grant the power before the Constitution even matters. Some long-arms reach to the constitutional limit; others list specific acts (transacting business, committing a tort in-state) and reach no further.
Minimum contacts—did the defendant purposefully avail itself of the forum (or purposefully direct conduct there)?
No PJ—it violates Due Process. Purposeful availment means the defendant deliberately reached into the state (sold, operated, or contracted there) so being sued there is foreseeable. Random, fortuitous, or the plaintiff's own unilateral contacts don't count. Stream of commerce: merely placing a product that drifts into the state is contested—look for targeting the forum.
Is the defendant "at home" in the forum (general jurisdiction)?
PJ for ANY claim, related or not. A person is at home at their domicile; a corporation is at home in its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. Only a truly exceptional case makes a corporation at home anywhere else (Daimler).
Does the claim arise out of or relate to those forum contacts (specific jurisdiction)?
No PJ over this claim. Without "at home" status, jurisdiction is specific—there must be a real link between the defendant's forum activity and this lawsuit (Ford: a strong relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation). Contacts unrelated to the claim won't support suit here.
Is exercising jurisdiction reasonable? (Fair play, substantial justice.)
No PJ—it offends fair play and substantial justice. Courts weigh the burden on the defendant, the forum state's interest, the plaintiff's interest in convenient relief, interstate efficiency, and shared state policies. Once purposeful contacts exist it rarely defeats jurisdiction, but it's the final box.
Personal jurisdiction is proper
Long-arm + purposeful contacts + relatedness (or "at home") + fairness all clear.
Still fuzzy on any step? Read the Civil Procedure outline →