Civil Procedure Outline–Fall 2006
I. Overview of Procedure
a. Idea of Practice and Procedure
i. Limited Jurisdiction: Court can only hear certain types of cases.
1. Federal Courts can only hear cases arises out of a federal question of diversity cases—mandated by the Constitution.
a. §1331: Federal Question
b. §1332: Diversity
ii. General Jurisdiction: court can hear any type of case.
1. State Courts can hear ALL types of cases.
b. Where Can You Bring the Suit?
i. Hawkins v. McMasters Farms, Inc.: Creal was struck by ∆s truck and killed. Π (Creal’s estate) brought suit in federal court claiming diversity subject matter jurisdiction. ∆ moved to dismiss on grounds of incomplete diversity.
1. The court held that for purposes of determining diversity, a person is a “citizen” of the state of which they are “domiciled.”
2. Domicile is established by physical presence in a place with the intent to remain.
3. The person invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction is proper. If evidence is equal, there is no SMJ.
a. §1331: District Courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
b. §1332 (a): District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, minus interests and costs, and is between
i. Citizens of different States
ii. Citizens of a State and citizens of a foreign state
iii. Citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
iv. A foreign state and citizens of a state or different states
1. “Aliens” admitted as permanent residents are citizens of the State where the alien is domiciled.
c. Rule 12(b)(1): Motion for Lack of Subject Matter.
i. Subject Matter Jurisdiction can never be waived.
ii. Constitutional Framework for U.S. Litigation
1. U.S. Const. Art III § 1 – 2
a. Authorizes the establishment of the federal court system (“The judicial Power of the US shall be vest in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts Congress may ordain and establish.”) and sets the limit of judicial authority (§2).
2. Article IV §1
a. One state must recognize and enforce the judgment of another state, provided the court rendering the decision had the authority to do so.
3. 14th Amend. §1—Due Process Clause
a. No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. (Due Process- The right to be heard).
II. Personal Jurisdiction: State’s power to have jurisdiction over a citizen.
a. The Origins
i. Pennoyer v. Neff: Π attacked the validity of a sheriff’s sale of his property to satisfy a personal judgment obtained against him when service was by publication. The court held that service by publication is not effective to confer jurisdiction on the court when the object was to determine the personal rights and obligations of the parties.
1. Substituted service is effective only against proceedings in rem.
a. In rem jurisdiction: Available if one wanted to decide the ownership of the property when in personam jurisdiction was unavailable.
b. Quasi in rem jurisdiction: to adjudicate claims unrelated to the property itself.
2. Mitchell (previous case) could not obtain a personal judgment against Π without obtaining in personam jurisdiction.
a. In Personam Jurisdiction: Necessary when one wanted to obtain either a money judgment or injunctive relief against a ∆.
3. Due Process requires appearance of personal service before the ∆ can be personally bound in any judgment rendered.
a. By personally serving a person with process within its bordes, a state can simultaneously give notice and assert power.
b. Substituted service by publication may be sufficient to inform parties of the proceedings where property is under the control of the court by seizure or its equivalent.
c. If Neff had appointed any person to serve as his agent in the state, that contact could be used for service of process.
ii. Ways to Achieve Personal Jurisdiction
1. Tag Jurisdiction
2. Personal Service of Process Anywhere on a person who engages in certain activities in the state, where the suit arises out of that activity (Specific Jurisdiction—See International Shoe)
3. Personal Resident of the State
a. Miliken v. Meyer: Π served ∆, a resident of Wyoming, in Colorado. ∆ did not appear in Wyoming to defend his case. ∆ collaterally attacked the judgment after judgment was rendered, using Pennoyer, which required service of process in the state. The court held that domicile alone is enough to bring an absent ∆ into the state’s jurisdiction. The state affords him privileges and protections by virtue of his domicile in the state and should exact reciprocal duties.
i. Adequacy of service of process is dependent on whether or not such service was reasonably calculated to give actual notice.
4. Consent
a. Hess v. Pawloski: Non-resident ∆ and Π involved in car accident in Massachusetts. Court held that driving on the streets of Massachusetts means you consented to Massachusetts jurisdiction.
iii. Mechanic
d there. Additionally, Delaware has a huge interest in overseeing trusts established there.
3. Shaffer v. Heitner: Π brought a derivative suit against Greyhound directors (∆) in DE (state of incorp) basing PJ on the sequestered property which was deemed to be located Delaware. None of the stock was actually in DE. ∆ made a special appearance to challenge jurisdiction. ∆ argued there were insufficient contacts with Delaware to justify jurisdiction. The court held that presence of property within a state was insufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts test set forth in Shoe. The stock was not the subject of controversy. The ∆s did not reside in DE nor did they have contacts there. The injury occurred in Oregon. Π wasn’t even a DE resident.
a. Shareholder’s Derivative Suit: Shareholder sues directors in the name of the corporation, alleging breach of fiduciary duty.
iii. Specific Jurisdiction: Activities Fall Short of General Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction only exists for the claim in question.
1. World-Wide Volkswagen v. Wood: Π was a regional distributor of Audi for the tri-state area. It was the distributor of the dealership that the Robinsons purchased from a NY dealer and drove to Oklahoma, where they were in an accident. Robinsons brought an action in OK against the NY dealership and WW, which was a NY corp. WW sought a writ against ∆ to keep him from exercising jurisdiction in personam jurisdiction. Π argued there were no minimum contacts in Oklahoma. The court held that under the Due Process Clause, a ∆ is not subject to jurisdiction of a state unless he has sufficient minimum contacts with that state that would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (Shoe). Foreseeability is not the same as mere likelihood a product will end up somewhere. WW could not reasonably anticipate being haled into court in OK as they had not purposefully availed themselves there.
iv. Fair play and substantial justice
Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court: Π manufactured tire valve assemblies, which were sold to Cheng Shin. Cheng Shin was
