CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE
1)Personal Jurisdiction
a) Jurisdictional Premise of Pennoyer v. Neff
i) physical presence is the basis for personal jurisdiction
(1)problem for an increasingly mobile society
ii)Resident is amenable to service of process in their state of domicile/citizenship
b) Domicile?
c) Consent?
d) Physical Presence/Personal Service?
i) Burnham v. Superior Court
(1)personal jurisdiction based on in-state service only requires that the defendant be present in the state at the time of the service; no contact with the state is needed at the time of the events that gave rise to the suit
ii)Fraudulent Enticement Doctrine – fraudulently induced presence will not confer personal jurisdiction
e) Minimum Contacts – General Rules
i) In order to exercise personal jurisdiction, an individual must have sufficient minimum contact(s) with the forum state, of such “quality and nature”, so that the exercise of jurisdiction comports with the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (Int’l Shoe)
(1)jurisdiction is limited to claims arising from the defendants contacts with the forum state
ii)Foreseeability, by itself, is not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction; an individual must purposefully avail themselves of the legal protections/benefits of the forum state such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. (Denckla, Volkswagon)
(1)The “purposeful availment” requirement ensures that the defendant will not be hauled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of “random”, “fortuitous”, or “attenuated” contacts [World-Wide Volkswagen], or of the unilateral activity of a third party of person. [Hanson v. Denckla]
iii) The constitutional touchstone remains whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts in the forum state…Once it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with “fair play and substantial justice.”
(1)Fairness and Substantial Justice Determined by Balancing (BK; Asahi Metal):
(a)Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining a convenient remedy
(b)The forum state’s interest in providing a remedy
(c)The extent of inconvenience to the defendant
(d)Shared interest of the states in furthering substantive policy
(e)The existence of a foreign/alien defendant (Helicopteros)
f) Contact with the Forum State
i) International Shoe
(1)“Minimum Contacts Test” – personal jurisdiction over the defendant is supported by “minimum contacts… such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
(a)if ∆ chooses to engage in activities within a state, that state may require him to answer there for claims that arise from those activities
(2)“Specific” Personal Jurisdiction – the claim must arise out of the contacts to support personal jurisdiction
(a)if contacts within a state are limited, it’s not fair to allow jurisdiction for just ANY claim
ii)McGee v. International Life Ins.
(1)the quality and nature of a single contact may be sufficient – because of direction of solicitation and…
g) Purposeful Availment
i) emphasizes the benefits a would-be defendant has obtained from its business activities conducted within the forum state; often involving contractual relations with forum residents
ii)Hansen v. Denckla
(1)“purposeful availment” within a state is required to support personal jurisdiction
(a)The unilateral movement into a state in NOT purposeful availment; and does not support personal jurisdiction
(2)the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being forced to litigate there
iii) Purposeful Direction – actions sounding in tort
(1)Calder Effects Test
(a)a foreign act that is both aimed at and has effect in the forum state satisfies the purposeful availment prong of the specific jurisdiction analysis
(b)to meet the effects test, the defendant must have
(i)committed an intentional act, which was
(ii) expressly aimed at the forum state, and
(iii) caused harm, the brunt of which is suffered and which the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state
(2)The Calder Effects Test supports jurisdiction in a number of cases where a defendant’s acts outside the forum have a foreseeable consequence in the forum
(a)ex] internet websites, when those sites have predictable adverse effects in the forum
iv)NOTE: Physical Presence NOT a Requirement
(1)a defendant may establish minimum contact with a state without actually going there
(a)McGee v. International Ins. Co. – contact established with CA by letter
(b)Calder v. Jones – contact established with CA by publishing an article in CA
h) Foreseeability
i) World-Wide Volkswagen
(1)Foreseeability(alone) of causing injury in another State, even when policy considerations would support jurisdiction, is NOT a sufficient benchmark for exercising personal jurisdictions
(2)“The foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis…is that the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.”
(a)jurisdiction is not based on the fact that a defendan
iew
(a)a defendant that merely sold its product to another company, without controlling where the other company would redistribute it as part of a final product, was not subject to jurisdiction where it is ultimately sold
(b)require more deliberate action; “purposeful availment”, such as marketing the goods for that state, advertising within the state, etc.
k) Requirement of Notice
i) Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank
(1)notice must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action, and afford them opportunity to present their objections
ii)Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 4
(1)Rule 4(e) – service on a person
(a)methods for serving process on an individual
(i)personally delivering the summons and complaint to the defendant; 4(e)(2)
(ii) leaving copies of the summons and complaint at the dwelling house with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein; 4(e)(2)
(iii) delivering the papers to an agent appointed by the defendant to receive service on his behalf; 4(e)(2)
(iv) serve the individual defendants under the provisions governing service on individuals in the courts of the state where the federal court sits; 4(e)(1)
(2)Rule 4(h) – service on a corporation
(a) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the federal court is located; or
(b) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer or any agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process
l) General In Personam Jurisdiction
i) if claims do not arise from the defendants contacts with the state….is the defendant subject to general jurisdiction because contacts are so continuous and systematic?
(1) ex] companies that have extensive activities, personnel, facilities in a state may fairly be considered at “home” there, and would be subject to litigation there for claims that arise anywhere in the world
(a) Distinguish: between citizenship under § 1332(c)…a defendant corporation may be subject to general jurisdiction in multiple states
