Civil Procedure Outline
I. 3 CATEGORIES OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION:
a. In personam jurisdiction: permits a court to enter a judgment that is personally binding on the defendant; said to follow the defendant – must be given “full faith and credit” and enforced by any state in which the defendant or the defendant’s assets are found
b. In rem jurisdiction: permits a court to adjudicate the rights of all possible claimants to a specific piece of PROPERTY
c. Quasi in rem jurisdiction: permits a court to enter judgment in cases involving individual disputes related to property under the court’s control; amount of the judgment may not exceed the value of the property.
II. PENNOYER v. NEFF (1877) p. 554
a. Holding: For a state to exercise power over individuals or property there must be valid service of process on the individual for in personam cases or attachment of property for in rem actions.
b. Court determined that a state cannot serve an individual domiciled in another state with process and summon that person to respond to a lawsuit against him.
c. Methods to obtain jurisdiction approved in Pennoyer:
i. Personal service within the state
1. However, a defendant may not be fraudulently induced into the forum state
ii. Seizure of defendant’s property: PREJUDGMENT seizure of a defendant’s property is sufficient to permit a state to dispose of that property to satisfy claims which are NOT related to the property.
1. Seizure AFTER the judgment is NOT SUFFICIENT
III. HARRIS v. BALK (1905) p. 561
a. Example of personal service while defendant was temporarily in the state – “transient jurisdiction”
IV. HESS v. PAWLOSKI (1927) p. 564
a. Holding: In order to obtain personal jurisdiction over a non-resident, there had to be actual service within the state of notice upon him or upon someone authorized to accept service for him. The State is also empowered to declare, so long as it is not discriminating against non-residents, that use of a highway by a non-resident was the equivalent of the appointment of the registrar as an agent on whom process could be served.
V. INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. v. STATE OF WASHINGTON (1945) p. 566
a. Facts: State of Washington sued International Shoe for payment of unemployment taxes; International Shoe was a Delaware corporation; IS did not have agents in Washington; State served a salesperson.
b. Issue: Whether the State of Washington can exercise personal jurisdiction over International Shoe w/o violating Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
c. Holding: To subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, due process only requires that he have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
d. Factors in minimum contacts analysis:
i. Nature of the contacts
ii. Quantity of the contacts
iii. Quality of the contacts
iv. Inconvenience to the defendant of defending a suit away from home state.
e. If a corporation wants the benefits of doing business in a state it must accept the burden of the obligations that go along with doing business in a state.
f. Notice must be actual for due process to be satisfied – service by mail, in a publication, or service upon someone the defendant is in contact with may be sufficient as long as it is reasonably tailored to give notice to the defendant.
VI. HANSON v. DENCKLA (1958) p. 577
a. There must be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
VII. LONG-ARM STATUTES
a. Some long-arm statutes authorize the exercise of jurisdiction whenever it would not violate the Constitution.
b. Most long arm statutes designate specific acts which warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction – examples are:
i. Transaction of any business within the state
ii. The commission of a tortious act within the state
iii. Ownership, use, or possession of real property withi
offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”
b. Placing a product in the stream of commerce is not sufficient; some “additional conduct” to indicate an intent or purpose to serve the forum state is essential.
XI. MINIMUM CONTACTS ANALYSIS:
a. Does the long-arm statute reach the defendant – if No, end the inquiry.
b. Minimum contacts – purposeful availment
c. Reasonableness/fair play factors:
i. The burden on the defendant
ii. The forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
iii. The plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
iv. The interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most effective resolution of controversies
v. The shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.
XII. JURISDICTION BASED ON THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY – SHAFFER v. HEITNER (1977) p. 619
a. Issue: Whether a Delaware statute that allows a court of that state to take jurisdiction of a lawsuit by sequestering any property of the defendant that happens to be in Delaware is consistent with the DPC of the 14A.
b. Delaware conceded that the purpose of the statue was to compel the personal appearance of non-resident defendants to answer and defend a suit in a court of equity
c. Court deciding whether standards of International Shoe should apply to quasi in rem actions
d. Court holds that all state court assertions of jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the International Shoe standard.
JURISDICTION BASED SOLELY ON PERSONAL SERVICE WITHIN THE FORUM STATE- BURNHAM v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA (1990) p. 633