I. Personal Jurisdiction
A. Personal Jurisdiction = Due Process
o Concept of PJ is authority of court to hear a claim against a particular person
o Specific to person (opposed to subject matter jurisdiction-ability to hear claim)
o PJ asks: “Does state court have a right to hear a claim against a particular person.”
o Federal courts in certain states and state courts have same analysis- fed ct analysis is same for the state in which the court sits.
o For valid judgment:
1. Court must have subject matter jurisdiction
2. If in personam, personal service within the state or consent (voluntary appearance).
B. Personal Jurisdiction is based on 2 constitutional issues:
1. Due Process (14th Amendment)
a. Due process- notice and opportunity to be heard. If you don’t get proper service, there is no opportunity to be heard, therefore no due process.
2. Full faith & credit- (Article 4) one jxn is required to give full faith and credit to valid determination of another jxn
C. Three types of Personal Jurisdiction
1. In personam- jxn over the person; personally serve D in the state where law suit is filed. Consent (voluntary appearance). No constructive notice.
2. In rem- jxn over ONLY the property; constructive notice by public.
3. Quasi- in rem- Seeking judgment over person, only way to get jxn over person to use land they own (Shaffer case).
D. 4 Determinations of Personal Jurisdiction (only have to have 1)
1. Presence- (Pennoyer=Presence). Presence means voluntarily appear for lawsuit OR just mere presence in state
a. Hypo: A sues B in OR where B isn’t a resident. B shows up and doesn’t challenge jurisdiction. Court has PJ.
b. X passing through MS (only connection to state) and was served-valid (see Burnham)-no matter how long you are in state, if you are present, there is PJ.)
c. You can show up in a state to challenge PJ w/o voluntarily appearing. But you can still be served with papers based on presence (send your atty).
d. Direct Attack- File a 12(b)(2) motion or 12(b)(2) defense.
e. Collateral Attack- Challenge jxn by not showing up in court.
2. Status- state can determine status of its citizen over a non-resident. This can be done w/o presence of non-resident- If I want divorce, husband isn’t in state, I can still get a divorce-court will have PJ over husband because divorce was filed in state and they knew status. Status only for divorce (not child support), court has absolute ability to determine the status of its own citizens over that of non-residents (from Pennoyer). Statuts can be determined of state’s own resident over non-resident
3. Consent- you can consent to jxn (impliedly or expressly). Sometimes certain k you consent to jxn (leases, banks, etc.) PJ is a personal defense, a p may waive it expressly or by taking actions inconsistent with the defense.
1. Minimum Contacts Irrelevant- if a p consents to a court’s jxn, it is unnecessary to evaluate MCT. Consent alone is sufficient for jxn.
a. Carnival- a valid forum selection clause in a k is consent to PJ. (Non-negotiable FSC applied only to ships. Enforceability of forum selection clause is gov’nd by state, not fed. Law.
· Forum selection clause- says any dispute will be determined in “X” court. Any claim must be brought in “X” court. Valid forum selection clause is consent for PJ. Enforceable provided they are fundamentally fair. Fairness measured at time agreement is made.
c. Choice of law provision- provision that chooses which law (different state law, federal law, etc.) will govern a claim. Is evidence of minimum contacts, but not consent.
d. Consent to jxn provision- Parties consent to dispute being handled in a certain jxn. Note: this doesn’t preclude other jxn from being valid. This doesn’t mean that P must sue in that jxn that is named in the consent to jxn provision. Establishes consent for PJXN.
4. Domicile- If you live and intend to live (to remain) in state, the state has jxn. A person may have only one domicile. A corporate defendant is domiciled in the state of incorporation and where the principle place of business is.
Shaffer case- Quasi in rem
1. Shaffer rejects traditional notions of quasi in rem jxn. Don’t get to seize property unrelated to suit for in personam jxn.
2. Rule from Shaffer
a. When lawsuit is for personal judgment not related to property, existence of D ownership of property in the state will not in and of itself support basis for jxn
3. Ownership of property will never be enough to be a contact. No true “quasi in rem” jxn. There a
, etc.)
b. Brennan- “mere foreseeability test”- if the D has a mere foreseeability that he product will end up in the forum state, there is minimum contacts.
3. Burger King- k was for 20 years; minimum contacts exist when there is a “continuing and wide-reaching contact” (direct & continuous contacts) with a forum state. (opposite of Asahi)
4. Pavlovich- passive website= no PJ. Passive website is a website that has nothing but information. The more the interactive, the more evidence of PJ.
a. For internet and defamation suits, use Effects Test.
G. General Jurisdiction: Cases Outside Minimum Contacts Test
1. Coastal- the pre-emptive strike: Analyzed specific jurisdiction- not proper b/c it does not arise over the sale of handbook but for protection of contents in book (a copyright or trademark issue); General Jurisdiction: substantial systematic and continuous corporate activities within forum state and be called fairly extensive? More evidence is necessary.
2. Burnham- Presence (most important part of Pennoyer Rule-allowing a state to exercise its jxn over anyone who was served while present in the state (Scalia said this practice complied with traditional notions of due process, which made it unnecessary to apply the Minimum Contacts Test- that test developed as a way to allow courts to exercise jxn over ppl who were not present). CA in 1990 did this and Supreme Ct. upheld. ∆ was non-resident visiting CA for 3 days. Brennan argued that the MCT applied, however ∆’s voluntary presence was enough.
H. Notice- The Consititutional Requirement
· Notice is the other primary requirement for exercising PJ.
· Due Process Req’t of 14th Amend. Req’s both contacts & notice. (not substitutes)
Definition of Notice- π gives notice of pending action when she serves the summons and a copy of the complaint on the
