Other Courts [7] In addition to the US. district court in State P (where venue is proper, per sl391(b}(2), because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Pat's claims occurred in State P), Pat could sue D in state court in State P. Unlike federal courts (which are courts of limited jurisdiction), state courts are courts of general jurisdiction. And, for the reasons discussed above (Rule 4k, and PJ minimum contacts and reasonableness analysis), a State P court would have personal jdx over D. Courts in State X and Y would also have PI (general jdx) Driveco, because D is incorporated in State X and has its principal place of business in State Y (see above): both are paradignatic examples of where businesses are "at home" such that they can be sued there on whatever claims. Daimler. Because States X and Y have long-arm statutes (like State P, see above) that extend state court jdx to the limits of the US. constitution, the US. district courts in States X and Y would have the same scope of PI . As discussed above (Question 1}, SM also exists. And because D is subject to PJ in States X and Y, both of which have only one US. district court (and thus only one judicial district], venue is proper in the US. district courts in States X and Y (s1391(b)(1) and (c)(2), because Driveco, the only def, resides in these states; also, P boarded the bus in State Y, so venue might lie under 1391(b)(2) if not (b)( 1)}. Thus Pat could sue D in state or federal court in either State X or State Y. Pat also could likely sue D in state or federal court in State 2, which like States P, X, and Y has one US. district court and a long-arm statute extending state court jdx to the US. constitution's limits (so the same analysis as above applies). Driveco (or its agent) drove the bus into State Z, where the accident happened, purposefully availing itself of the privilege of doing business there. It was using State Z roads, and presumably State Z first responders (police, emergency) responded to the accident. Thus D established sufcient minimum contacts with State Z. And, under the reasonableness factors discussed above (Question 1), it would not be unreasonable for a court in State Z to exercise jdx over D. State Z is next to State Y, where D has its principal place of business, and D already sent its bus(es} there; so it shouldn't be too burdensome for D to go to court there. State Z has an interest in hearing cases like this one involving accidents on (and the safety of) its roads, and nothing indicates that Pat couldn't get effective relief in State Z (quite the opposite, since that's where the accident