Civil Procedure II Huber Fall 2013
I. Overview
A. Definition of personal jurisdiction
· A court’s power over the parties to a case
· If a court does not have PJ over a party, any order or judgment the court may render does not bind that party
B. Subject matter jurisdiction distinguished
· PJ is separate and distinct from SMJ
· A court must have both personal and subject matter jurisdiction in order to hear case
C. Constitutional requirement
· PJ is a constitutional requirement for both state and federal courts
· A judgment rendered against a person over whom the court has no PJ violates that person’s right to due process
D. Two categories of personal jurisdiction
· In personam
o Jurisdiction over defendant herself
· In rem
o Technically, not jurisdiction over a person but over a particular item of property owned by a person
o Practically speaking, however, it allows the court to adjudicate claims that one or more people have to the property
· Differences
o How jurisdiction obtained
§ In personam is obtained by serving D personally with process
§ In rem is obtained by seizing the property
§ Although notice to D was not historically required in in rem actions, more recent decisions require plaintiff to notify D directly if D can be found
o Effect of judgment
§ In personam
· The judgment binds D personally
· Judgment winner can have certain assets owned by D seized and sold in order to satisfy judgment
§ In rem
· Judgment affects only the property and, accordingly, is limited to the value of the property
· P cannot use the judgment to seize other property owned by D
· Moreover, although the judgment victor can sue D personally to recover any deficiency, the prior judgment is not binding on D in the second suit, which means that D can relitigate any or all of the issues a second time
E. Service of process
· Proper service of process is also necessary before a court may exercise PJ over a D
· Any judgment rendered without reasonable notice violates D’s due process rights and therefore is invalid
· Statutes and rules provide various means of serving process
II. Development of the Modern Constitutional Test
A. Pennoyer v. Neff (1877)
· First decision to treat PJ as a constitutional issue
· Synopsis: Pennoyer involved a dispute over title to certain land. Neff originally owned the land. After Mitchell obtained a judgment against Neff, the land was sold at a sheriff’s sale to Pennoyer. Neff then sued Pennoyer in a separate action to recover possession of the land. This second action eventually made it to the Supreme Court.
· If the judgment in the first action as valid, the second court would have had to treat it as binding, which would mean Pennoyer would prevail
· Supreme Court held that prior judgment was invalid because the court lacked jurisdiction over either Neff or the land
· Analysis
o Two territorial principles
§ Every state possesses exclusive jdx and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory
§ No state can exercise direct jdx and authority over persons and property without its territory
o Limits on jurisdiction
§ Person or property in state: A court could exercise in personam jdx over any person, and in rem jdx over any property, found within its borders at the time the suit was commenced
§ Presence sufficient
· It was irrelevant how long the person or property was in the state
· Therefore, a state have jdx over a person merely passing through the state provided the person was served while within the borders
· In addition, the court could hear any claim, regardless of whether it related to the reason the person or her property was present in the state
§ Notice
· However, the exercise of jdx also required adequate notice
· In personam – person herself had to be served while in state
· In rem – court had to seize or otherwise exercise dominion over the property at the outset of the action
· Summary: Pennoyer said you get jdx over a person in 4 ways:
o Served with in the state (TAG)
o Consent (express or implied)
§ Parties to a K appoint an in-state agent to accept process
§ An appearance or filing of a motion will constitute express consent
o In rem: Power of the court to determine status of property even though property is not a person (Here the property is the object of the lawsuit)
o Quasi in rem: power of the court to hear an action against a person based on jdx over the person property, despite an absence of jdx over the person
Take away of Pennoyer:
Presence of property in the forum state could be the basis for jdx over claims of any sort
B. International Shoe v. Washington (1945)
· Greatly extended the reach of jdx by allowing a state to exercise jdx over Ds who are not present in the state. Court replaced Pennoyer’s strictly territorial analysis with one that focused on a person’s connections with a state. Established minimum contacts test for PJ.
· Synopsis: State of Washington levied an unemployment tax on D, a corporation. When the corporation did not pay, the state sued it in a Washington state court.
o Connection sufficient? Corporation’s only connection with Washington was that it employed salesmen in the state. These salesmen did not enter into contracts with buyers, but merely sent orders to the corporation’s Missouri headquarters for acceptance.
o Yes: The court held that Washington had PJ. Although the corporation was not physically present in the state, jdx was constitutional because the corporation had sufficient contacts with the state, and the claim arose out of those contacts.
· Analysis: Rejected Pennoyer’s territorial approach for an approach that considers connections between the D and the forum
o Minimum contacts test: jurisdiction is proper over D who had “certain minimum contacts with the state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
o Specific and general jdx: court noted that the number of contacts necessary for jdx turned on whether the claim arose out of those contacts
§ Arose out of: even single or occasional acts might suffice. Today, cases where claim arises from the contacts are referred to as specific jdx
§ Did not arise out of: jurisdiction would not be allowed even if there were a significant number of contacts
§ Overwhelming contacts: cases where the contacts were so “continuous and systematic” that jdx over the corporation might be all
ent and effective relief”;
iv. The interest of the interstate judicial system in efficient resolution of controversies;
v. The “shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies”
o Fairness irrelevant absent contacts: However, the court held that these fairness factors were not to be considered unless there is at least one purposeful contact between D and the forum. Because there were no contacts in the case itself, the Court spent little time analyzing the fairness factors.
III. Application of the Modern Constitutional Test
The cases above provide a template for analyzing PJ cases. However, on certain issues, the Court has not been able to reach a consensus.
A. Basic Approach
1. Two-step test: the minimum contacts test involves two discrete steps
a. Contacts:
i. First, the court determines if there are any “contacts” at all between D and the forum.
ii. IF there are no contacts, the analysis stops, and there is no PJ.
iii. IF there is at least one contact, the court determines whether the claim arises out of the contact(s).
b. Fairness:
i. If there are contacts, the court then considers fairness, incorporating the five “Valentine” factors set out in World-Wide Volkswagen
2. Contacts: As discussed in World-Wide Volkswagen, a contact is considered only if it is the result of purposeful activity. In more recent decision, the Court has restated this notion as purposeful availment of the benefits and protections of forum law
3. Fairness: The factors deal with unique concerns
a. Burden on Defendant: This factor considers not only the distance D must travel but also any other circumstances that make defending in the forum burdensome on D such as core differences in legal systems
b. Interest of the state: a state is interested in hearing a case if any of the parties are from that state of if the dispute directly affects that state
c. Interest of Plaintiff: this factor is satisfied if P is from the forum or if the forum is a convenient place to try the case because of the availability of witnesses or other evidence
d. Efficient resolution: it is inefficient when a case involving multiple parties must be split up and litigated in several different places. If the forum is the only place that all claims can be heard, this factor supports jdx
e. Furthering social policies: If the alternate forum does not recognize P’s claim, refusing to exercise jdx frustrates the policy underlying the substantive law. This is most likely to be an issue when P is forced to refile in a foreign court.
4. Lack of Fairness rarely defeats jdx
