Select Page

Civil Procedure II
Santa Clara University School of Law
Russell, Margaret M.

            Method P uses to give D notice of action
                         * May be served by any person 18+ years old & not a party to the action — FRCP 4(c)
                         * Constructive service through publication upon a non-resident is ineffective
            State courts ~ refer to state statutes
            Federal courts — FRCP 4
                         1) Personally deliver summons/complaint to D — FRCP 4(e)(2)
                         2) Leave copies of summons/complaint at dwelling or usual place of abode — FRCP 4(e)(2)
                                     – Must be w/person of suitable age & discretion
                         3) Deliver papers to D’s agent that receives service of process on D’s behalf — FRCP 4(e)(2)
                         4) Serve D under that state’s rules — FRCP 4(e)(1)
                         5) Serve D under D’s state rules if served there — FRCP 4(e)(1)
Relationship to forum state
            Traditional methods
                         * Domicile
                         * Consent
                         * Presence, in personam — Pennoyer v. Neff, Burnham v. Superior
                         * Property, in rem or quasi in rem
            OR long-arm statute + minimum contacts
            Dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction
                         Other party’s motion — FRCP 12(b)(2)
Presence ~ in personam action
            Physical presence of D in state, “power theory”
                         * It doesn’t matter if D was only present briefly, “transient”
                         * Counts if D used state resources — Hess v. Pawlowski
            Makes defendant personally liable
                         *  D is liable to pay $ to P (damages)
                         * D must begin/cease certain activity (injunction)
Property ~ in rem action
            Physical presence of D’s property in state
                         * Dispute arises out of or involves that property
                         * Not a proceeding against property, but against person’s interest in it
            Quasi in rem action
                         * Property in that state, but dispute is not about that property
                                     – Must be attached before litigation begins
                                     – Possibly attached at entry of state — Harris v. Balk
State court
            1) State statute allows court to assert jurisdiction over D
             * Enumerated ~ some states are more specific w/enumerated, long-arm statutes
                                     – Provisions convey jurisdiction in specific types of contact w/the state
                                     – Authorizes courts to hear cases arising out of such contacts
                                     – Leeway to reject jurisdiction in cases having little connection to state
                                     – May sometimes exceed constitutional grasp — “all cases brought by IA residents”
                                                 + But statute may still apply in other cases w/in due process limits
                                     – May not cover all jurisdiction authorized by due process clause
                                                 + Liberally interpret specific categories enumerated in statute
                                                 + But does not fill in gaps that provisions fail to cover
                         – Uniform Interstate & Int’l Procedure Act ~ model for 20+ states
             * Non-enumerated ~ other states grant full scope permissible under due process clause — CA
                                     –  Broadly grants jurisdiction “not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or US”
            2) Constitutionality under due process in these circumstances — 14th A
                         * MC test limits ≠ long-arm statute limits
Federal court
            1) Service of process allows court to assert jurisdiction over D
                         * Courts of that state could assert jurisdiction — FRCP 4(k)(1)(A)
                         * Another federal statute says service is sufficient in that particular case — FRCP 4(k)(1)(B)
                         * Limited situations
                                     – Implead parties served w/in 100 miles of courthouse — FRCP 4(k)(1)(B)
                                     – Parties subject to impleader jurisdiction — FRCP 4(k)(1)(C)
                         * Foreign parties w/sufficient contacts in US as a whole but not a particular state
            2) Constitutionality under due process in these circumstances — 14th A
Shoe spectrum
            No jurisdiction
                         * No contacts
                         * Causal or isolated
            Specific jurisdiction
                         * Only over claims that arise from those contacts — Int’l Shoe v. Washington
                         * Single act — McGee v. Int’l Life Ins.
                                     – Quality & nature of single act in state
                         * Continuous but limited — Burger King v. Rudzewicz
                                     – Ongoing business relationship in forum state
            General jurisdiction
                         * Includes claims unrelated to in-state activities
                         * Continuous & systematic, substantial or pervasive — Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall
                                     – State activities are so substantial & continuous, expect to be sued there
                                                  + Applies to individual as well as corporate D
                                                  + However, individuals’ contacts w/states other than domicile are rarely so extensive
Effects test
            D may have sufficient contacts w/state even though not acting w/in state — Calder v. Jones
                         1) D committed an intentional tort
                         2) P felt the brunt of the harm caused by the tort in that state
                         3) D expressly aimed his tortious conduct at that state — Pavlovich v. Superior
            Foreseeable ~ purposeful availment — Hanson v. Denckla
                         * Deliberate choice to relate to state in some meaningful way
                         * Conducted activities to invoke state benefits — World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson
                                     – Sending goods into stream of commerce may count — Asahi Metal v. Superior
                                     – Profiting directly or indirectly from state is a benefit
                         * Satisfies fair warning requirement — Shaffer v. Heitner
                         * Applies to time D acted, not time of lawsuit
                                     – Even if D no longer has contacts in that state
                                     – D accepted risk that prior activities may give rise to suits & would need to return
            Reasonable ~ fairness of assertion
                         * Traditional notions of fair play & substantial justice — Int’l Shoe v. Washington
                         * D’s burden of inconvenience to defend away from home
                                     – If MC established, rebuttable presumption that it’s fair to require him there
                                     – Burden shifts to D to show unreasonableness & unfair prejudice
                                     – Balance w/remaining factors — Burger King v. Rudzewicz
                         * Forum state’s interest to provide redress to its citizens
                         * Forum state’s interest to enforce their substantive law or policy
                         * P’s interest to obtain relief in a convenient forum
            Provisions in every court system further limiting jurisdiction
                         * State courts require the cases be brought in the county where:
                                     – One of the parties resides or does business
                                     – The claim arose, OR
                                     – Property in dispute is located
                         * Federal courts use statute — 28 USC § 1391
            Apart from & in addition to personal & subject matter jurisdiction
                         * All 3 “rings” must be satisfied in o

              + True, fixed, & permanent residence w/intent to remain there — new ID in state
                                                 + Citizenship as established by federal law, not state law
                                                 + Burden of pleading & proof is upon party invoking federal jurisdiction
                         (b) Citizens of a State & citizens of foreign states
            2) Amount in controversy is more than $75,000 for every claim
                         – Determined by P’s claim in good faith, not amount awarded — Mas v. Perry
                         – Excludes inconsequential cases from federal courts
Aggregation of claims
            Single P
                         * 1+ claim > $75k ~ may add other claims against same D, even if less than amount — supp jx.
                         * No claim > $75k ~ may add together all claims against same D to add up to amount
                         * Additional D ~ if already aggregated against original D, may not add other D for < $75k             Multiple P                          * 1+ P’s claim > $75k ~ low amount P may be able to join — supp jx.
                         * No single claim > $75k ~ aggregation not allowed
                                     – Exception:  2+ P unite to enforce a single title + an undivided interest
Statute — 28 U.S.C. § 1367
            Federal claim + related state claim — United Mine Workers v. Gibbs
                         * Art. III grants jurisdiction over entire “cases” not just particular claims
                         * Court has power to hear other claims from “common nucleus of operative facts”
                         * Related claims by D or other parties after the initial complaint — Owen Equipment v. Kroger
                         * Must bear a “logical relationship” to the main claim — FRCP 14(a)(1)
                                     – Includes compulsory counterclaims by D
                                     – Extended to cross-claims & intervention as of right — FRCP 13(g), 24(a)
                                     – Did not extend to permissive counterclaims — FRCP 13(b)
            Analysis for court to determine whether it has supplemental jurisdiction:
                         1) Constitutional power under Art. III, §2 to hear the original claim
                                     – Original claim is proper within the jurisdiction of the federal court
                                     – Related claim arises from the same nucleus of operative facts
                         2) Statutory grant of jurisdiction over the related claim
                                     – Jurisdiction over all related claims part of same “case” — 28 USC § 1367(a)
                                     – Excludes certain diversity case claims — 28 USC § 1367(b), Owen Equipment v. Kroger
                                                  + Cannot use joiner if it ruins diversity of citizenship
                                                  + Claims by P against parties made under FRCP 14, 19, 20, 24
                         3) Court has discretion to take the claim or not — 28 USC § 1367(c), Exxon Mobil, Allapattah
                                     – May decline if state claim is majority of case — 28 USC § 1367(c)(2)
                                     – May decline if original federal claim was dismissed — 28 USC § 1367(c)(3)