About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


42 Yale J. Int'l L. Online 1 (2017)

handle is hein.journals/yejloillwo42 and id is 1 raw text is: The Yale Journal of International Law Online A General Look at Specific Jurisdiction Towards a unified theory of arising out of' or related to jurisdiction where the defendant's forum conduct contributed to the plaintiff's claims Lea Brilmayert INTRODUCTION Success, in domestic and international litigation alike, depends on finding a court with jurisdiction over the defendant. American constitutional law, which governs assertion of jurisdiction even over international defendants in American courts, has developed the subject of personal jurisdiction into a fine art. It's all a question of whether minimum contacts exist between the de- fendant and the forum, and whether the assertion of jurisdiction satisfies a standard of fair play and substantial justice.' A central element of this constitutional assessment is whether the defend- ant's contacts are related to the dispute or, differently phrased, whether the dispute arises out of' the defendant's contacts with the forum. If so, the ques- t Lea Brilmayer is the Howard Holtzmann Professor of International Law at Yale Law School. She wishes to acknowledge the substantial contributions of Jack Whiteley (member of the Yale Law School Class of 2018) and Charlie Seidell (member of the Yale Law School Class of 2019) to the development of the ideas and to the initial drafting of this article. Professor Brilmayer was a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 377 P.3d 874 (Cal. 2016), cert granted, (U.S. Jan. 19, 2017) (No. 16-466) at the California Su- preme Court. 1. See Int'l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) ([D]ue process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)); see also Milliken, 311 U.S. at 462-63 (Its adequacy so far as due process is concerned is de- pendent on whether or not the form of substituted service provided for such cases and employed is rea- sonably calculated to give him actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard. If it is, the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice . . . implicit in due process are satisfied.).