Jurisdiction and venue
The first question that every foreign entity or person should raise when brought into a lawsuit is whether the court has personal jurisdiction over the entity or person. Personal jurisdiction concerns a court’s power to resolve disputes related to a particular defendant or piece of property. A court without personal jurisdiction over a defendant cannot bind any obligations on the defendant. However, personal jurisdiction may be waived by a careless defendant. Requirements in the United States Constitution, commonly known as due process, limit the exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresidents. A court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is consistent with the Due Process Clause if the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum such that requiring the defendant to defend its interests in the forum does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. A defendant has minimum contacts with the state if its actions are purposefully directed toward the state.
A court may assert personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in one of two ways; general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction. A court can assert general jurisdiction when the corporation carries on continuous and systematic business in the state. A court can assert specific jurisdiction where a controversy is related to or arises out of a defendant’s contacts with the state. Thus, a foreign corporation is not necessarily shielded from a Washington court’s jurisdiction merely because the foreign corporation does not have systematic and continuous contacts in Washington.
Venue is the place a lawsuit is heard and is a subject closely related to the question of jurisdiction. Whereas jurisdiction concerns a court’s authority to hear and decide a dispute, venue concerns the location of the court that will do so. A case can only be brought in a certain venue. For instance, in federal cases based on diversity of citizenship, the venue can only be: (1) the district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) the district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) the district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
A district court can transfer a lawsuit to any other district where it could have been brought. In some circumstances, a case can be removed from a Washington state court to a federal court. Most notably for foreign defendants, a case may be dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens if the court chosen by the plaintiff is inconvenient for witnesses, poses an undue hardship on the defendants, and/or the events leading to the lawsuit took place in another country. If the court agrees that the only way to address these inconveniences/hardships is for the case to be adjudicated in a foreign country, the court will dismiss the case. Accordingly, the lawyer for a foreign defendant should always analyze personal jurisdiction and venue issues.
A court may assert personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in one of two ways; general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction. A court can assert general jurisdiction when the corporation carries on continuous and systematic business in the state. A court can assert specific jurisdiction where a controversy is related to or arises out of a defendant’s contacts with the state. Thus, a foreign corporation is not necessarily shielded from a Washington court’s jurisdiction merely because the foreign corporation does not have systematic and continuous contacts in Washington.
Venue is the place a lawsuit is heard and is a subject closely related to the question of jurisdiction. Whereas jurisdiction concerns a court’s authority to hear and decide a dispute, venue concerns the location of the court that will do so. A case can only be brought in a certain venue. For instance, in federal cases based on diversity of citizenship, the venue can only be: (1) the district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) the district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) the district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
A district court can transfer a lawsuit to any other district where it could have been brought. In some circumstances, a case can be removed from a Washington state court to a federal court. Most notably for foreign defendants, a case may be dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens if the court chosen by the plaintiff is inconvenient for witnesses, poses an undue hardship on the defendants, and/or the events leading to the lawsuit took place in another country. If the court agrees that the only way to address these inconveniences/hardships is for the case to be adjudicated in a foreign country, the court will dismiss the case. Accordingly, the lawyer for a foreign defendant should always analyze personal jurisdiction and venue issues.