Select Page

Civil Procedure-ADR I
Santa Clara University School of Law
Van Schaak, Beth

CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE
I. PERSONAL JURISDICTION HISTORY
II. NOTICE
III. SERVICE
IV. VENUE
V. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
VI. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
VII. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
VIII. REMOVAL
IX. PLEADINGS & SANCTIONS
X. ANSWERS
XI. AMENDMENTS
XII. DISCOVERY
XIII. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
XIV. CLAIM/ISSUE PRECLUSION
XV. JOINDER
XVI. CLASS ACTION

I. PERSONAL JURISDICTION HISTORY

Under Pennoyer: personal jurisdiction
· If you want to serve in the newspaper, it only works for defendants in the state.
· For in rem jurisdiction – as long as property is in the state you can serve
· Serving out of state: cannot personally serve them because they are not residents of the state.
· Long-arm statutes: statutes that allow courts of a state to serve someone outside of the state.
· Some contacts with State (attorney) and litigation arising out of activity.
· General jurisdiction requires that state be your domicile.

International Shoe (1945):
· Although it has been held that continuous activity is not enough to bring suits when the cause of action is unrelated to that activity, substantial and continuous corporate operations within a state justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities.
· Since corporations are legal fiction, consent may be implied from its presence in the state.
· The DPC does not say that a state can make a binding legal judgment in personam against an individual or corporation that has no contacts, ties or relations to that state.
· BUT: to the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state.
o The exercise of the privilege may give rise to obligations which may come out of the activities within the state – therefore, it is not undue.

Personal jurisdiction over International Shoe in WA because:
· For minimum contacts:
o Systematic and continuous activity.
o Received the benefits and protection of the laws of that state.
o Obligation (litigation) arose out of those activities.
· For traditional notion of fair play and substantial justice:
o Sufficient contacts or ties make the state forum reasonable and just according to traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice.

McGhee (1957): test is minimum contacts
· Solicitation (re-issuance of certificate) counts as a minimum contact.

Personal jurisdiction over insurance company in CA because:
· For minimum contacts:
o Suit based on a contract delivered in CA, premiums mailed from there, and insured was a residen

s.

Shaffer (1977): minimum contacts goes for in personam and in rem jurisdiction and quasi in rem.
· In rem and in personam jurisdiction are one and the same and to be treated equally under the standards of International Shoe.
· Property in a state is to be treated as if the person is in the state; thus jurisdiction
· EXCEPTION: if litigation does not arise out activities of that state, than reasonableness test will not apply.
o No real distinction.
o Not concerned about the thing in the state, only contacts
o No connection = no right to be sued there
o Stock has nothing to do with board of directorship
· DE court asserted quasi in rem jurisdiction over stock without regard for contacts.
· Question: what counts as minimum contacts?

No personal jurisdiction over Board of Governors in DE because:
· For minimum contacts:
o Presence of property in DE is not the subject matter of the litigation.
o Cause of action unrelated to the property.
o Stock does not provide contacts with DE sufficient to support jurisdiction.