Select Page

Civil Procedure I
Rutgers University, Newark School of Law
Askin, Frank

I. First Few Classes w/ Frank
a. Sibbach v. Wilson – substance v procedure. More thoroughly covered under Erie doctrine
b. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld – re: due process – process due under the particular circumstances or the particular case
i. writ of habeus corpus – challenge unlawful detention by state (traditionally used after crim. Trial)
ii. Matthews v. Eldridge test for when a hearing is necessary before deprivation (of due process?) – weigh the private interest against the government’s interest & the governments burden with risk offeror
c. Equitable Relief – granted when there is an inadequate remedy at law
i. Walker v. City of Birmingham
ii. Preliminary injunction (FRCP 65)
iii. Temporary Restraining Order (FRCP 65) – when you can’t wait for a hearing, this is immediate relief, but must show (1) likelihood of success on the merits (2) irreparable harm (balance of the equities) and (3) attempt to preserve the status quo
iv. Permanent Injunction – need to show (1) inadequate remedy at law – irreparable injury (2) success – good claim
v. Policy principal of FRCP 65 (Sniandach and Fuentes) requiring pre-determination hearing – avoid/minimize the risk of error

Brief Overview:
Fundamental Constitutional Prerequisites for a Valid Judgment
(1) Personal Jurisdiction
-in personam (over the person)
-in rem (over property or personal status – property must formally be brought under courts jurisdiction. Presence of property isn’t sufficient)
(2) Territorial Jurisdiction (proper venue)
(3) Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
(4) Notice to the Defendant

II. Personal Jurisdiction – the ability of a court to exercise power over a particular defendant or item of property. It may be categorized as in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. Personal jurisdiction isn’t defined. Can only try to predict what the court will do based on past decisions.
a. Pennoyer v. Neff – Plaintiff’s not free to bring suit wherever they choose. Originally required territorial jurisdiction, attached land “quasi in rem jurisdiction)
b. 14th Amendment – forbids depriving life, liberty and property w/o due process
c. Limitations on Personal Jurisdiction
i. State statutes – first look to determine whether the court has properly exercised personal jurisdiction… if no state statute grants the court the power over the parties before the court, then the court lacks personal jurisdiction.
ii. Constitutional – due process clause restrictions – 1) D must have contacts with the forum state that the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable and

s corporations – Kulko v Superior Ct
b. Long arm statutes
c. May have sufficient contacts with a state even if didn’t act w/in state
d. Focus on time when D acted, not when lawsuit filed
9. Purposeful Availment (Hansen v Denckla)
a. D must have made a deliberate choice to relate to the state
b. WWVW v Woodsen – D did not seek to benefit from OK activities sufficient to require it to submit to jurisdiction
c. Stream of Commerce – Asahi Metal – mere awareness is insufficient
i. Asahi – reasonableness of the exercise of jurisdiction based on:
1. burden on D
2. interests of the forum state
3. P interest in obtaining relief
ii. VERY SPLIT COURT. Four other justices opined that there should also be a showing that the D took some additional step to avail itself of the forum
e. Other Factors Considered
i. Interest of forum state in providing redress to citizens
ii. Interest of P in obtaining relief
iii. Interest of states in enforcing substantive law/policy
Extent of inconvenience to D “reasonableness”