Select Page

Civil Procedure I
Rutgers University, Newark School of Law
Stein, Allan R.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Traditional Analysis
i.      Domicile & Intent to Reside (Residence)
ii.      Nonresidents
1.       Consent: Appearance w/o res or waiver
2.       Service & Presence (Tag!) – non-corporate
3.       Quasi-in-rem – attachment of the property (put a stake and get a title) – has an aspect of notice – in personam – value limited to the property, start another suit
4.       Minimum Contacts
5.       In Rem – if property is attached, jurisdiction is in that state
Pennoyer v. Neff
Facts: Mitchell sued Neff in state court, but the court decided that judgment was entered upon default because Neff was a non-resident of the state that wasn’t properly served through a constructive service of a summons by publication – Neff failed to answer the complaint. Mitchell wins by default, Neff acquired 300 acres of land from federal government. Sheriff attached land bought after judgment and sold it to Pennoyer. Neff then launched collateral attack on original judgment, arguing there was no personal jurisdiction.
Holding: Constructive service upon a nonresident is ineffectual – publication of notice in one State cannot run into another State, the defendant is not required to leave his territory to respond
Rule: Due Process clause – restricts power of states, state courts bound by personal jurisdiction of Supreme Court
Full Faith and Credit Clause – disregard judgment if state doesn’t have jurisdiction over defendant – defendant may attack in a second proceeding judgment rendered without jurisdiction (collateral attack) – in this situation, if a challenging party didn’t appear in court that led to the invalid judgment
Bases for Personal Jurisdiction
No personal jurisdiction unless the court has power over the defendant (in personam or in rem), if the defendant (or an agent in the state on behalf of the defendant) consents to the jurisdiction, or is properly served notice/present in state
(1) In personam – power over the person (Neff) – a nonresident must be personally served a notice within the borders of the state in question to obtain jurisdiction – not fulfilled because Neff wasn’t personally served or within the borders of Oregon
a. Resident of the state – domiciled, intent to remain – Neff wasn’t a resident of Oregon
b. Physically present within the state/serve
c. Consent – voluntarily appears in the court – agrees to jurisdiction
(2) In rem – power over the property – who really has the title – court located in the same state as the property can enter judgment disposing that property by seizing the property at the start of the lawsuit – no in rem jurisdiction because the property was not attached at the time of the lawsuit
Quasi in rem – property attached (not subject matter of suit)
International Shoe v. Washington
Facts: I Show – Salesmen in Washington, incorporated in DE, principal place of business is St. Louis – suing under unemployment compensation statute in WA – Int’l Shoe made a Rule 12(b)(2) motion – special appearance
Rule: Due Process Clause, 14th amendment – if he is a nonresident defendant and has minimum contacts in the state, must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
Holding: Substantial, continuous, systematic – Int’l Shoe had continuous contacts and cause of action was related to lawsuit, received benefits and protection of the state – there is personal jurisdiction in Washington – ALWAYS meets due process, 14th amendment
No power – casual presence or isolated, “unrelated” – lawsuit unrelated to activities in the state
Hess v. Pawloski – casual presence related to lawsuit, has jurisdiction – implied consent
When there is a lawsuit arising from casual presence, there is sometimes PJ – burdens/interests of the party
When there is a lawsuit unrelated to the continuous and systematic activities, there is sometimes PJ – relative burdens and interests
Fed court has no greater authority than the state court in which it is physically located for PJ
International Shoe Grid Cases
Fischer Governor v. Superior Ct – Fischer incorporated in Iowa – serves a non-exclusive sales agent in CA and the incident occurred in Idaho (did not bring suit in Idaho and Iowa bc statute of limitations not favorable to plaintiffs) – No jurisdiction, category IV à isolated incident and cause of action did not arise in CA
Bryant v. Finnish National Airlines  – brings lawsuit in NY, incident occurred in Paris – cause of action did not arise in NY – continued and systematic presence in NY since there was an office, bank account, employees took reservations and did some publicity – Has jurisdiction in NY, category II àcause of action did not arise in NY but there is a continued and systematic presence of the defendant in NY – defendant is not unduly burdened
Smyth v. Twin State – VT resident suing Mass corporation for installing a faulty roof – Has jurisdiction in VT, category III – isolated incident and cause of action arose in state
Ratliff v. Cooper Labs – no jurisdiction in SC over drug company – no offices, property, or bank accounts – cause of action did not arise in state since dr

iction over them – Seaway is the retail distributor located in NY (so is World-Wide) – Robinsons still citizens of NY (intention to depart but haven’t established domicile) – Robinson wanted to be in OK state court due to juries being more lenient w/ liabilities/damages
Rule: World-Wide asserted no jurisdiction in OK – isolated contact should not be a basis bc it may violate due process, not always fair – Gray v. American Radiator: forum state does not exceed powers of Due Process if it asserts jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers products in the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state
Holding: No jurisdiction, petitioner has no contacts in OK – foreseeability not sufficient although its not unreasonable to think a car would be driven to OK – Brennan’s dissent: failed to evaluate burdens of interest on state and inconvenience to defendant
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Ct.        
Facts: Product liability suit over motorcycle valve, Taiwanese Cheng Shin sues Japanese Asahi (third party defendant) – Asahi moves to quash summons since it never expected to be subject to CA jurisdiction
Rule: NOT foreseeability, Burdens of interest – when does it offend due process – burden on the defendant: travel, hire local counsel, different law, civil/common, language – State’s interests – CA is not invested in regulating indemnities between international companies – Burden on defendant was too much to overcome – no need to evaluate contacts
Holding: No jurisdiction over Asahi – no rule of law concerning stream of commerce and foreseeability or purposeful direction: marketing/agent, distributor, design – Brennan: stream of commerce should suffice for jurisdiction, Stevens: minimum contacts not always necessary, purposeful availment
Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz
Facts: BK sues defendant in FL after payments fall behind, defendants sign contracts, many business contacts with BK in FL – defendants contend they are unprepared for litigation in FL, circuit court ruled unconst