Barbri CivPro Outline – 11/14/09
Forum Selection:
I. Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)
II. Notice (service of process)
III. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ)
IV. Venue
V. Erie
VI. Pleadings
VII. Joinder
VIII. Discovery
IX. Pretrial Adjudication
X. Trial
XI. Appeal
XII. Preclusion (Res Judicata)
Personal Jurisdiction:
– Also known as territorial jurisdiction
– Pennoyer
– Only question: can we sue the defendant in this state?
o It is a question of geography
– Exact same analysis for federal and state court
– For a court to have PJ it has to have power over something
o Either it has power over the defendant himself
o Or it has power over the defendant’s property
– Three kinds of PJ:
o In personam
§ Court has power over the defendant himself
§ Always prefer in personam if you can get it
o In rem
§ Court has power over the defendant’s property
o Quasi in rem (QIR)
§ Court has power over the defendant’s property
– How do you know if a court has power?
o This is set by the due process clauses
o Due Process:
§ Tells us how far a state can go in exercising jurisdiction
§ if the case falls inside the due process circle the case is good to go
§ the fact that the case falls inside the due process circle does not mean the court can allow PJ
· the state must have a statute that allows PJ in that case
o Analytically:
§ First asses the statute (like a long-arm statute)
§ If there is no statute then there is no jurisdiction
§ If there is a statute that allows jurisdiction then we have to decide if the statute is constitutional
I. Personal Jurisdiction
a. In Personam
1. General
a. If we have general in personam jurisdiction the defendant can be sued in any forum
2. Specific
a. If the court has specific jurisdiction over you, you can only be sued in that forum for a claim that arose in that forum
ii. Constitutional Limit
1. Pennoyer v. Neff:
a. Gives us the traditional basis of in personam jurisdiction
i. Defendant was served with process in the forum
1. Presence gives general jurisdiction
ii. Defendant’s agent was served in the forum
iii. Defendant is domiciled in the forum
1. This gives general jurisdiction
iv. The defendant consents to jurisdiction
2. Hess v. Polaski:
a. Mass. Statute: if you come into our state in a car you have appointed a state official as your agent for service of process
b. Expanded consent to include implied consent
3. International Shoe:
a. Here the court does not purport to expand the traditional basis
b. The court comes up with a new doctrine in this case:
i. There is jurisdiction if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the forum so that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
c. This case has lead to an expansion of jurisdiction
i. It has made it easier to get jurisdiction
d. It is clear now, that you can serve process on the defendant outside of the forum just so long as that defendant has such minimum contacts…
e. This international shoe test seems to have two parts:
i. A contact part
ii. A fairness part
f. Nowhere does it say that it overrules Pennoyer
4. McGee:
a. TX corp. that sells one contract of insurance in CA, but the plaintiff sues the TX corp. in California for breach of that contract
b. Is there jurisdiction even though there was only one contract?
i. The Supreme court says yes
c. Court says:
i. The defendant solicited that contract from CA
ii. The court stressed relatedness
1. Means: the plaintiff’s claim arose from the defendant’s contact with the forum
iii. CA had an interest in having the case litigated in CA
5. Hanson v.
a. The Supreme Court in this case says no jurisdiction
b. Facts: wealthy woman sets up a trust fund with a Delaware bank while she resi
tive wealth of the parties is not relevant
9. Asahi:
a. Stream of commerce case
i. Stream of commerce – I manufacture valves in state A. I sell my valves to a company in state B. the company in state B puts my valves in their products and send those products to state C, D, and E. One of my valves explodes in state C, D, and E. Am I subject to personal jurisdiction in those states?
b. Two Theories:
i. Brennan theory: it is a contact if I put the product into the stream and could reasonably anticipate that it would get to state C, D, or E.
ii. O’Connor theory: need to be able to reasonably anticipate that it would get to state C, D, or E and you must show that there was an intent or purpose to serve state C, D, or E. (for example: customer service in state C, D, or E)
c. Important: on final, must address both theories because no law came out of this case***
10. Burnham
a. NJ defendant sued in Ca. he was sued in Ca. on a claim that arose in NJ. This will only work is if Ca. has general in personal jurisdiction
b. Supreme Court gave no law – split 4 – 4
c. Two Theories:
i. Scalia Approach:
1. Presence when you’re served is good by itself alone. Don’t have to worry about International shoe
a. Service in the forum has always worked (since Pennoyer) – historical pedigree
ii. Brennan Approach:
1. Must apply International shoe in every case
d. All 9 justices agreed that there was general jurisdiction in Ca – this is a strange result
11. Helicopteros + Perkins Cases:
a. A court will have general in personam jurisdiction if the defendant has continuous systematic ties with the forum
