Select Page

Civil Procedure I
Rutgers University, Newark School of Law
Noll, David


Personal Jurisdiction Can Be Established Through (among other things):
·         Domicile (Pennoyer v Neff)
·         Consent (Pennoyer v Neff)
o    Hess v Pawloski – Massachusetts dealt w/ problem of non-residents committing torts in their state by passing a law that anyone who drove on their roads was tacitly consenting to their jurisdiction
·         State's registrar was appointed the agent of anyone who drove in the state
·         Although this was fictional consent, the court still found it constitutional
·         State makes a rule along the lines of consent to jurisdiction following commission of a tortious act within the state
§  The conduct of business creating the opportunity to commit a tortious act (such as shipment of a defective product into the state)brought the defendant w/in the scop of the notice and presumably constituted consent to suit
·         Physical Presence (Pennoyer v Neff)
·         Minimum Contacts (used in many cases where the D is not from the forum state)
o    Developed in International Shoe v. Washington (1945)
·         Supreme Court: a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a D if they have such minimum contacts with the state that it would be fair to require them to return and defend a lawsuit in that state
·         Jurisdiction depends on the NATURE & QUALITY of the contacts w/ the state
·         Even a SINGLE contact will do, but not contacts that are casual or isolated
·         A corporation that chooses to conduct activities in a state accepts (implicitly) a reciprocal duty to answer for its in-state activities in the local courts
·         A defendant who deliberately chooses to take advantage of the “benefits and protections of the laws” of a state will not be allowed to cry “foul” when that state holds them to account in its courts for their in-state acts.
·         Minimum Contacts jurisdiction is limited to claims arising from the defendant's contacts with the forum state (EX:company in TX can answer in WA for shoe sales in WA. Can't answer in WA for shoe sales in TX.)
o    Specific and General Jurisdiction: The Spectrum
·         SINGLE ACTS
§  Some single acts because of their quality and nature support SPECIFIC IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION (jurisdiction over claims arising from that single act and nothing else)
·         Continuous but Limited
§  Some continuous but limited activity in the forum state will also support specific in personam jurisdiction (BURGER KING V. RUDZEWICZ) (jurisdiction arising out of that specific continuous activity and nothing else)
·         Substantial in-state Contacts
§  Where in-state contacts are very substantial the D is subject to general personal jurisdiction. (the defendant may be sued in the state for any claim, even one unrelated to its in-state activities) (look at spectrum chart for an idea)
·         Goodyear v. Brown – continuous sales into a state was not enough to establish GENERAL personal jurisdiction
§  Court supported a corporation being subject to general jurisdiction in the state where it is incorporated and the state of its principal place of business. (the corporation is fairly regarded as home in these states)
o    Guidelines in applying minimum contacts
·         Minimum contacts applies to individual as well as corporate defendants
·         The limitations on personal jurisdiction found in long arm statutes are distinct from the constitutional limit imposed by the minimum contacts test
·         If a defendant commits an act outside the state that he knows will cause harmful effects within the state, he may be subject to minimum contacts jurisdiction there for claims arising out of that act
·         PRIOR CONTACTS : Minimum contacts focuses on the time when the defendant acted, not the time of the lawsuit.
o    Purposeful Availment
·         Helps define quality and nature of contacts
·         The defendant must have purposely availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
·         The D must have made a deliberate choice to relate to the state in some meaningful way before they can be made to bear the burden of defending there.
§  FORESEEABILITY that a market will be touched is not purposeful availment
·         Examples of purposeful availment: Advertising, selling there, cultivating customers, deliberately focusing on the state or its residents as customers
·         Stream of commerce
§  The parties at the BEGINNING of the stream did not import the products in to the forum states. It sold to companies that did. They are not necessarily aware of where their parts were sold.
a.      An out of state component manufacturer sells components to a manufacturer of a finished product outside the state (or country). That manufacturer then incorporates the component into a finished product and distributed the finished product into the forum state –
i.            ASAHI – due process requires more than mere awareness that a product might be swept into a state… not purposeful availment.
b.      A mfctr. Sells finished products to a wholesaler outside the state, the wholesaler then resells to a retailer in the forum state, and the retailer resells to the consumer
§  Mcintyre v. Nicastro
·         Defendant made a metal shearing machine in England. Sold to distributor in Ohio. Sold to NJ where injury occurred. Court

rsonal jurisdiction. It is saying that the service was improper (12(b)(2) is lack of PJ)
Personal Jurisdiction AND Proper Service of Process must be met
RULE 4(k) – specifies WHEN a federal court may assert PJ over a D served under rule 4
Service of Process establishes PJ over a D in FOUR CIRCUMSTANCES
1.       4(k)(1)(A) – If the courts of the state in which the federal court sits could assert PJ (min. contacts/domiciliary/consent/physical service)
a.        Under this section the reach of PJ in a federal court is the same as the reach of PJ in the state courts in which it sits
2.       4(k)(1)(B) – Impleaded parties served within 100 miles of the courthouse
3.       4(k)(1)(C ) – when authorized by federal statute
4.       4(k)(2) – federal question cases, over parties who have sufficient contacts w/ the US as a whole to constitutionally support jurisdiction, but whose contacts would not suffice to support PJ in the courts of any state

o    Diversity -(must be over $75,000)
·         Parties from different states
·         REASON – non-resident parties may be prejudiced if they are tried in a state court
·         Admiralty and maritime cases
·         A plaintiff invoking federal jurisdiction must show
§  That his case is w/in constitutional bounds of Art3 Sect2
§  Jurisdiction has been granted to the federal courts by congress in a statute
·         28 USC1332 is narrower that Art3 Sect 2 b/c it has the amount in controversy requirement
·         There must Be COMPLETE DIVERSITY – plaintiff must be from a different state than ALL defendants. If there is one of the same residence it defeats diversity
§  A citizen has been defined for diversity purposes as a domiciliary
§  The last state where he has taken up residence w/ an intention to reside indefinitely
·         What is indefinitely? A persons presence in the state is open ended  – no definite intent to leave to make a home elsewhere
§  You can have homes in two states. It will generally be the one you're in more often