Herbert Holland – Civil Procedure Fall 2008
· Personal Jurisdiction
o Origins
§ Pennoyer v. Neff
· Sovereign power
o State may exercise
· Notice
o Limitation on sovereign power
o In personam jurisdiction is actual notice
§ Hand it to them directly; satisfies due process rights
o For in rem jurisdiction, you have constructive notice (or presumptive notice)
· Consent
o Under certain circumstances the state may require companies to consent to jurisdiction as a condition of doing business in the state
o You can appoint an agent to receive process in a state
§ Cut and dry: if the person is in the territory, you have jurisdictions; if the property is in the territory, you have jurisdiction
o Modern Formulation
§ Specific
§ International Shoe Co. v Washington
· Due process is still the touchstone
· Certain minimum contacts
· Nature and quality of the in-state activities
· Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
· Undue or unreasonable burden on the defendant
· Enjoyment of the privileges, benefits, and protections of the laws of the state
· 2 part test:
o Relationship between defendant’s contacts with the forum state and the cause of action sued upon
o Nature and quality of D’s contacts
· For specific jurisdiction, the closer the relationship between 1) defendant’s contacts with the forum state, and 2) the claim sued upon, the fewer contacts required to comport with fair play and substantial justice
· The closer you are to the contacts the fewer the contacts you need
§ Shaffer v. Heitner- in rem (defendant owned stock in greyhound corporation based in state, court doesn’t jurisdiction over that property for unrelated claim)
· Court says Int’l Shoe applies to all
· If the defendant owns stock, you’re likely to be able to get personal jurisdiction for causes of action related to the ownership of that stock (specific jurisdiction)
o Unless you own an awful lot of stock, you won’t be able to get general jurisdiction over causes of action unrelated to the ownership of that stock, no general jurisdiction.
§ McGee (defendant insurer from texas opposing CA’s jurisdiction over it. Ruling against defendant)
· Purposeful availment à reaching out to a forum state for business; availing itself to the state’s benefits: laws, regulations, markets
o Only fair to subject you to punishment when you reach out
· When a defendant makes that conscious choice to reach out to that forum state, it’s only fair to expect him to defend his actions there (claim was related to underlying act)
§ Hanson (woman with trust fund moves from DE to FL and dies, FL didn’t have jurisdiction over the trustee in DE)
· Unilateral act of anotherà can’t prove purposeful availment based on the unilateral acts of another
· If the nature and quality of the contacts are that they are the unilateral acts of another, then they don’t count. Defendant must purp
that state
§ Asahi
· Evidence of an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum state (“targeting”) [Asahi did not do any of these from Japan]:
o Designing the product for the market in the forum state
o Advertising in the forum state
o Establishing channels for regular consumer relations
o Marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as a sales agent in the forum state
· Delivery into stream of commerce + targeting is enough for jurisdiction. Product being swept into forum after you sell is not enough. WWVW
· Burden of defendant to litigate in forum can not be too great. Must be proportional to interests of plaintiff and forum state.
§ Calder (defamation claim for magazine sold in CA, plaintiff living in CA as well)
· Effects test
o If you have:
§ Intentional actions
§ Expressly aimed at the forum state
§ Taken with knowledge that the brunt of the injury would be felt in the forum state
§ Such that they must reasonably anticipate being haled into court there
§ Then you have personal jurisdiction
· Sovereigntyfactors can turn insufficient contacts into sufficient contacts (look at contacts through the 4 factors in WWV)
