Civil Procedure
Fall 2009
Prof. Williams
Civil Procedure Outline
I. Constitutional Limits on Personal Jurisdiction
a. Definition: personal jurisdiction involves the ability of a court having subject matter jurisdiction to exercise power over a particular D or item of property
b. 14th AmendmentàForbids states from “depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
c. Limitations on personal jurisdiction:
i. Statutory Limitations
ii. Constitutional Limitations (Int’l Shoe)
d. 3 types of personal jurisdiction:
i. In personam embarrassed
ii. In rem
iii. Quasi in rem
e. “The Fountainhead”
i. Pennoyer v. Neff (Personal Service of Process case)
1. Rule: Personal service within the limits of state is both necessary and sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction and must attach property at the outset of litigation.
2. Rule above equals 2 ways to obtain personal jurisdiction:
a. personally serve person within limits of state OR
b. attach land to obtain in rem jurisdiction up to value of the property
3. Personal jurisdictionàjurisdiction over a person
4. Full Faith and Credit Clause: states must adhere to judgments of other states unless that state had no jurisdiction
a. Requirements for attaching:
i. Post on land
ii. Lock the door
iii. Notice by publication
iv. Change land records (lien)àbest way
b. 3 shortcomings to rule:
i. Doesn’t work well with divorce or corporations
ii. Doesn’t differentiate between people and things
iii. Allows person to be under personal jurisdiction anywhere they are personally served by the state
c. Force or Fraud Rule: cannot obtain jurisdiction by force or fraud
f. The Interim
i. Hess v. Pawloski (Extension of personal service)
1. Rule: Adds to the rule of Pennoyer and says if no personal service to property attachment, jurisdiction can be obtained through implied consent
a. For policy reasons, states need to protect their citizens from harm and hold people accountable
b. This rule is statutorily sound b/c:
i. It puts residents and nonresidents on equal footing
ii. Implied consent is limited to accidents
iii. Actual notice is sent to D as well as registrar (appointed agent of service)
c. D is granted continuances
d. Logical: P lives in state where accident occurred, all of the evidence is there, and P would want to be heard in front of jury of fellow citizens, and state would be concerned about the interests of its residents
g. The Modern Era
i. Int’l Shoe v. Washington *Minimum Contacts Test Established
1. Rule: In order to subject nonresident defendants to personal jurisdiction, it is only necessary that he have such minimum contacts such that maintenance of the lawsuit does not violate “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
a. Extent of Contacts: continuous and systematic versus casual and isolated
2. This test is a CONSTITUTIONAL limit that holds states can exercise personal jurisdiction if test met
3. General Rule: A state may dispense w/in forum state personal service on nonresident defendants in suits arising out of their activities in the state.
4. Do the claims in the litigation arise of the contacts with the forum state?
5. Consent (Hess) and presence (Pennoyer) are no longer the testànow minimum contacts plus fairness
a. Minimum contacts:
i. Purposeful availment
ii. Foreseeability
b. Fairness:
i. Several factors to consider:
1. Relatedness of claim to contact
2. Convenience
3. Forum State’s Interest
4. And Others
ii. McGee, Hanson, & Gray
1. Hanson Test & Gray: D must purposely avail himself from the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state thus invoking the benefits and protections of its law
2. McGee: it is sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract which had substantial connections with that state
iii. World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson (personal juris. w/corp.)
1. The toughest problem in applying minimum contacts test has been defining the “quality and nature” that makes contact sufficient to support jurisdictionàThis case addresses this concern
2. Rule: Min. contacts serve 2 functions:
a. Defendants are protected against burdens of litigating in distant and inconvenient forums. States cannot reach beyond the limits imposed on them by status as co-equal sovereigns in federal system.
b. States cannot assert personal jurisdiction when Ds have no contacts, ties, or relations in the state.
3. D should have such forseeability that their connection with forum state is such that they should reasonably anticipate being hailed into court thereàPurposeful Availment
(General Jurisdiction)
Unconnected to Claim
Giving Rise to Claim
(Specific)
Continuous, Systematic
? The Big Question of Civ Pro
Jurisdiction
Casual, Isolated
No Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction (McGee)
nimum contacts.
a. DissentàAs long as participant in process is aware that final product is being marked in forum state the possibility of lawsuit cannot come as a surprise. Placing item in the stream of commerce, with knowledge that it would end up in particular forum, constitutes purposeful availment.
h. General Jurisdiction (v. Specific Jurisdiction)
i. If D engages in systematic and continuous activity in forum state, the court could find this activity a sufficient basis for exercising in personam jurisdiction for any cause of action against D, whether cause of action arose from the in-state activity or from activity outside the stateàThe court will have general jurisdiction.
1. Isolated versus systematic acts
a. Casual, occasional, or indirect activities in the state are not sufficient bases for this general in personam jurisdiction.
ii. Helicopteros Nationales de Colombia v. Hall
1. Rule: General jurisdiction is when a suit arises unrelated to D’s contacts with forum. Specific jurisdiction is when a suit arises related to D’s contacts with forum. Court found contacts weren’t at issue and were therefore insufficient to satisfy Due Process requirements because parties never argued any relationship b/t the suit and the contacts. Lawyers litigated case poorly.
i. Consenting to Jurisdiction
i. 5 ways to consent to jurisdiction
1. appoint agent for service of process in state
2. contract specifies an agreed forum for litigation
3. filing counterclaim
4. failure to raise timely objections so therefore you consent to jurisdiction
5. submitting to the court a challenge to jurisdiction binds you to their decision of jurisdictionà “voluntary appearance”
a. Most states allow “special appearances” through which a D can object to court’s exercise of jurisdiction. D usually must make this special appearance in his initial pleading, otherwise D will be deemed to have consented to jurisdiction.
j. In rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction
i. In rem definition: jurisdiction over a thing (tangible) due to direct connection to claim
1. Court seizes property, P seeks adjudication of rights to that property against the “whole world”
