I Personal Jurisdiction:
a) Definition of personal jurisdiction: In what state can the plaintiff sue the defendant?
i) a federal court’s personal jurisdiction is the same as the state courts jurisdiction (FRCP4k1) ( ADC p 1.) This goes with the question, in what state can Plaintiff sue defendant?
ii) If a court DOES have personal jurisdiction you can force a defendant to show up.
b) 2 Step analysis for Personal Jurisdiction:
i) Statutory: Legislation grants jurisdiction over certain persons (Long arm statues)
ii) Constitutional: In the exercise of jurisdiction over this defendant, comporting with the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment
c) Pennoyer v. Neff (p63)
i) First law suit: Mitchell v Neff (Oregon State court)
1. Service is accomplished by publication (how Neff was served to appear in court). Mitchell said he was following state law, an Oregon statute was in place that said it was OK to file service by publication (p64). Mitchell is relying on the fact that Neff has property therein Oregon and therefore has jurisdiction.
a) The Full Faith and Credit Clause: if we get personal jurisdiction, another state has to enforce the judgment of the other state. Therefore no risk of one state not enforcing the judgment of the other state.
2. End because of Default judgment.
ii) Law suit #2: Neff v. Pennoyer (Oregon Federal Court)
1. Neff wants his property back
2. Neff is suing because there was no process (he wasn’t served properly, or efficiently; he was in California, not Oregon so didn’t see the publication)
3. Service by publication would have worked if Mitchell would have seized the property BEFORE the law suit began. (pg. 66 – this seizure would then act as a NOTICE to the owner. The law assumes that you are regularly checking on your property)
4. But is this still fair if Neff lives in California during the 1800’s and would have to travel all the way to Oregon to see the notice??
a) Fiction of reading the paper in the mornings to receive notice, or alternative fiction of traveling to property to check for notice
i) THIS WAS PRIOR TO THE CONSTITTIONAL ASPECT!
d) Hess v. Powlowski
i) Hess sues Powlowski in Mass. Court.
1. Powlowski is from Pennsylvania.
2. Hess is from Mass.
3. Involves a car accident in Mass where Powlowski hits Neff.
ii) Hess serves Powlowski by serving the Registrar in Massachusetts.
1. This is due to the non-resident Mass. Motorist statute.
2. In part, due to personal service in the state because the Registrar is in Mass.
3. But mainly due to the IMPLIED CONSENT of driving on highways in Mass and implicitly consenting to service on the Registrar on the state of Mass.
iii) Powlowski moves for DISMISS on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
1. Special Appearance: defendant is showing up in court, SOLELY to contest jurisdiction (no other reason).
2. General Appearance: filing your answer: “I’m here, you got me.”
a) You find this dichotomy (special vs. general) in State Court, NOT Federal Court.
iv) Ruling: Is implied consent fair? (Constitutional coming into play)
1. Yes; because you enjoy the benefits of the state (ex: the Mass ambulance would show up and help you if you were injured in Mass.
e) International Shoe Co. v Washington
i) Case is about Fairness!; also about interstate commerce.
ii) State of Washington is suing International Shoe.
1) Headquarters in Missouri
2) Incorporated in Delaware
iii) State Claim: Requiring International Shoe to pay unemployment taxes.
1. Service to:
a) Salesman in Washington and
b) sent by registered by to St Louis Missouri
iv) DIFERENT FROM HESS BC MASS HAD A STATUTE
1) Here the state is arguing presence:
a) Personal Service in the state where the court is located.
b) State of Washington is exercising in personam jurisdiction.
1) because they want money
2) and there is no property to attach
v) International Shoe says:
1) The salesman in Washington were no employees – salesman didn’t actually approve the contract. They are only making offers to sell shoes to the Washington residents. They are not allowed to accept these orders – that is decided back in Missouri. Shoes are shipped outside of Washington (Free-on-board = Washington buyer takes possession of the show as soon as it leaves the warehouse.)
2) Payments may be coming from Washington, but Shoe is not collecting the payment there.
3) Under Pennoyer,
refused to pay policies to beneficiary. McGee sought judgment in California and wanted to uphold it in Texas Court.)
1) ADDS looking at the convenience / burden ratio of each party
a) Evidence and witnesses (convenience)
b) a defendant alone saying something is inconvenient is not enough.
c) ASSUME this goes under, “Would jurisdiction offend fair play?”
2) ALSO ADDS: What are the state’s regulatory interest in the case at hand?
g) What are the defendant’s contacts?
h) Are the defendant’s contacts a result of purposeful availment?
i) Hanson v. Denkla(Mother set up trust in Delaware, reappoints grandchildren as beneficiaries in will, moves to florida and dies…Daughters fight over trust and personal jurisdiction)
1) ADDS: What are the defendants contacts to the List
2) ADDS: Are the defendants contacts the result of purposeful availment? (Did defendant do something purposeful with the forum state?
a) Florida could not have personal jurisdiction because the tustee’s contacts ha been less than minimal. (and no purposeful availment here)
ii) Gray v. American Radiator
1) Rhode Island statute v. NY statute (Illinios Statute)
2) Rhode Islands go as far as Due process allows
3) Why would a state prefer a statute like Rhode Island with a constitutional Max statute rather than a enumerated statute?
a) So that they can take each on a case by case basis – It’s flexible – its will be able to expand and contract with the state legislature.
b) Vague systems and therefore benefits plaintiffs (not to defendants)
c) Have the rely on courts ruling and case precedence
d) You cant show a specific way that a statute has been broken.
e) It combines the two-step analysis of PJ; Turns it into a constitutional question
