Also known as: lacking jurisdiction over the person · no jurisdiction over the person · personal jurisdiction defense · lack of personal jurisdiction
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A defense asserting that a court lacks authority to render a binding judgment against a particular defendant because the defendant has insufficient contacts with the forum or has not been properly served. The defense must be raised in a pre-answer motion or the answer or it is waived under the Federal Rules. It differs from subject-matter jurisdiction because it protects individual liberty interests rather than the court's structural power.
Latoya Lane, a California resident, sued Linden Bank, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, in federal court in California for breach of a loan agreement negotiated entirely by mail. Linden Bank filed a timely pre-answer motion asserting lack of jurisdiction over the person. The court evaluated whether the bank's contacts satisfied due process before deciding whether to dismiss.
Leo Lynch, a New York resident, obtained a judgment in Oregon against Lucy Liu after attaching her Oregon land without personal service. Liu later challenged enforcement of the judgment in New York. The court held that the Oregon proceeding bound only the attached property and could not impose personal liability on Liu.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Luis Lopez, a New York resident, sued his ex-wife Lucia Lopez in California for increased child support after she moved their children there. Lucia had sent the children to California for summer visits but maintained her home and employment in New York. The court examined whether her purposeful contacts justified personal jurisdiction over the support claim.
Leonard Lowe, a New Jersey resident injured by a machine, sued J. McIntyre Machinery, a British manufacturer, in New Jersey state court. The manufacturer had sold machines through a U.S. distributor but never targeted New Jersey specifically. The court assessed whether the manufacturer's contacts with the forum satisfied the purposeful availment requirement.
Lakewood Manufacturing, an Ohio company, published an article that Lakeshore Industries, a California corporation, claimed was defamatory. Lakeshore sued in California. The court evaluated whether the article's effects in California, combined with the publisher's knowledge that the subject worked there, supported personal jurisdiction.
Landmark Realty, a Nevada company, sued a Georgia resident in Nevada for conduct that occurred entirely in Georgia. The defendant had visited Nevada once on unrelated business. The court determined whether that single visit created the necessary connection between the defendant's forum contacts and the plaintiff's claim.
A defendant must assert the defense in the first pre-answer motion under Rule 12 or in the answer if no such motion is made. Failure to do so waives the defense under Rule 12(h)(1).
Supporting sources
Lack of jurisdiction over the person protects the defendant's liberty interest and can be waived. Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction concerns the court's structural power and cannot be waived or consented to by the parties.
Supporting sources
Yes. A director who obtains dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is wholly successful in the proceeding as to that director and is entitled to mandatory indemnification of expenses.
Supporting sources
…force without the State in which it is rendered, implying that in such State it may be valid and binding. But if the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by reason of his non-residence, and, consequently, no authority to pass upon his personal rights and obligations; if the whole proceeding, without service upon him or his…