CIVIL PROCEDURE II
Know Art III and IV of the U.S. Const.
Key Concepts:
JURISDICTION – Power to declare law.
IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION
Art. III – Judicial power of the US shall be vested in one supreme court, (then there was not total agreement so compromise) and such inferior courts as Congress may time to time ordain to establish.
5 provisions in the Const.
1) Art III §1 (1 gives the authority to have a federal system; 2 limits it and lists specific things that trigger federal power.)
2) Art III §2
3) Art IV §1 Full Faith and Credit (Erie Doctrine)
4) Amendment XIV – most important for jurisdiction §1 No state shall make or enforce any . . . due process clause.
5) Art VI – Supremacy clause “. . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land. . .”
3 Things a federal court can have power to hear a case:
1) Personal Jurisdiction
2) Subject Matter Jurisdiction
3) Venue
5 Rules of PERSONAL JURISDICTION:
1) Personal Presence/Service w/in a State
2) Domicile
3) Consent (Waiver)
4) Substantial In-State Activity
5) Minimum Contacts
In Rem Jurisdiction is stressed by Pennoyer.
3 things that come up again and again re: Personal Jurisdiction
1) It concerns the relevance of state borders; in state or out of state; contacts in state or out of state
2) Who has the burden to proof
3) Tension between a clear and simple rule and rules that promote fairness at the expense of administrative convenience. (if too simple it can be abused; it has to be complicated)
Pennoyer v. Neff What is wrong w/this case is Due Process violations; he was denied his Due Process Rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Facts: Neff hired Mitchell to get clear title to some land. Neff did not pay Mitchell. Mitchell had Neff served by constructive notice. Neff does not answer and Mitchell is awarded a Default Judgment. Then, Neff purchases 300 acres in Oregon after the lawsuit was filed. Mitchell has the land seized to recover his attorney’s fees. Mitchell turns out to be the high bidder at the auction and gives the land to a mayor Pennoyer.
Rule: Have to show in personam jurisdiction to perfect service. Couldn’t do in rem jurisdiction b’c he did not own the land before the suit began. He was not in the state to get in personam.
In Personam and In Rem are flushed out in Note 4 p. 83
In Rem is not as clear as Pennoyer suggests; Pennoyer is not good law for In Rem;
In Personam Jurisdiction is good law.
1. Physical presence is enough/process server
2. Defendant could consent to jurisdiction
PENNOYER says that personal service must be done w/in the state. Service w/in the state is the key.
Full Faith and Credit Clause allows a Judgment to be enforced in another state; as long as the judgment is valid and the D was served and jurisdiction was valid for the suit.
There are 2 rationales – Pennoyer says if I can touch you in the state – the state has jurisdiction over you.
International Shoe – minimum contacts rule; Int’l Shoe requires substantial contacts w/the forum state; does not apply to person’s serving papers on people; it does apply to corporations and minimum contacts comes into play.
“State may not authorize proceedings to determine the status of one of its citizens towards a non-resident, which would be binding w/in the State, though made w/o service or process or personal notice to the non-resident.” Applies to marriages, divorce and family law. State can decide divorce and paternity w/o service. Can go after someone in another state to decide a citizen’s status.
The Plaintiff can always go to the state of the D and sue in their residence state.
EXCEPTIONS TO PENNOYER:
1. POWER – have to serve them personally in the state or seize their property at the beginning of the suit UNLESS it is about status of a citizen.
2 Lifelong residents/domiciled a notification in a publication is valid – something less than
Pennoyer is good law for a non-resident.
3. CONSENT – D waives his rights; have to give consent if you want to set up a company in the forum state and designate a recipient of
REALLY related to the lawsuit for Specific Jurisdiction.
Hanson v. Denckla – PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT: 3 daughters were fighting over trust that was set up for the third daughter’s child (her grandchild); the will was set up for the other two who had a million. Two daughters sued in FL; trust was in Delaware.
Issue: Whether the trustee in Delaware could be subject to jurisdiction in FL courts? Did trustee purposefully availed himself to the jurisdiction of FL; he set up the trust and managed the trust in Delaware; so he shouldn’t be subject to FL jurisdiction.
One contact is enough if you meant to do it.
Shaffer v. Heitner (1977) When there is a compelling state interest notice is not required. Coffin Bros. v. Bennett; Ownbey v. Morgan. The mere presence of property within a state is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a court over a defendant that has no ties, contacts, or relations in that state. Quasi in rem jurisdiction is subject to minimum contact requirements.
Person = property in civil court b’c all you can get from the person is property ($$).
Rule In This case: In rem is subject to minimum contacts just like in personam.
The court does make a distinction between In Rem and Quasi In Rem? Does it do away with or overturn In Rem, Quasi In Rem, or both?
Constitutional and statutory analysis.
McGee v. International Life Insurance – “one is enough” one minimum contact applies to both in personam and in rem
Hanson v. Denclka – “purposeful availment”
Shaffer v. Heitner – Quasi in Rem minimum contact applies to both abolishing quasi in rem
WWV – Purposeful availment does not equal mere foreseeability; no stream of commerce theory
Hanson – purposeful availment
