Civil Procedure I Outline

Civ Pro Outline, Prof. Steinman, Fall 2013

I. Personal Jurisdiction

State Courts:

a. 14th Amendment due-process.

General Jurisdiction:

i. Jurisdiction over any and all claims regardless of whether the claims arose out of anything that happened in the state.

Individual à Domicile (State of)

· GJ by Ct. over individual in place where person is domiciled- where he intends 2 have a permanent home).

Corporation:

· Place of incorporation

· Principal Place of Business (PPP)

o Where it is at “Home”/”Nerve Center” (HQ)

· Continuous and Systematic contacts

o Substantial presence in the State.

Specific Jurisdiction

· State Ct.’s may have PJ over a def 4 claims arising out of def contacts w/forum state.

· State Long Arm Statutes: (State uses “Long Arm” to grab defendant- legally)

a. Questions to ask:

i. Does the Ct. have jur over the defendant according to the Statute?

1. If NO, then Ct. lacks Jur.

2. If YES, long-arm provides a basis for jurisdiction, then ask…

ii. Is this type of jur constitutional under 14th Amendment due-process?

1. (Min Contacts/Reasonableness)?

· In order 4 a State Ct. to assert Specific Jur over a non-res defendant, there must be both

1. Minimum Contacts; and

2. Reasonableness

Minimum Contacts

· Questions to ask:

o What are def contacts w/forum, and did the dispute arise out of those contacts?

o Were contacts purposeful, as opposed to unilateral (through someone else’s act)?

· PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT: Contact must be “Purposeful”:

o Must act “Purposefully” and “Knowingly” towards the forum state.

§ Must “target” the forum.

o Not unilaterally- through act of others (i.e. unlike Volkswagen)

o Political Fork: (i.e. McIntyre)

§ Pro-corporation: higher standard 4 P.A. (P.A. à State-by-State)

§ Pro-consumer: lower standard 4 P.A. (P.A. à U.S. à Every State)

· Contacts in Context:

o Effects Test: (P.A.)

§ Effects test à Out-of-State conduct causes effects w/in forum state

· Hustler/Calder: Writing something defamatory outside forum for a publication that you know will circulate w/in forum. Hustler. and “injure” a forum resident. Calder (Foreseeability).

· Limitations: Kulko: effects test doesn’t apply if PJ would be unreasonable/2 burdensome 4 def. (Strain Family relations)

o Business Relationships (P.A.)

§ PJ if defendant purposefully directs his efforts towards a forum resident and it is reasonable for the forum to exercise SPJ over def à PJ despite lack of physical presence in state.

· K w/substantial connection. McGee v. Int Life Insurance.

· BK: Rud Purposefully directed efforts @ BK (K) & reasonable (K specifies Fl. Law controlling).

· On exam try to analogize to BK, if analogy holds à strong case 4 PJ.

o Stream of Commerce: (P.A.)

§ Manufacturer merely placing something in the SOC that happens 2 end up in forum is not enough to warrant PJ. Contact too indirect.

· Must Purposefully “target” the forum somehow/mere foreseeability not enough.

o Political Fork mentioned above. McIntyre

§ “Targeting” (US à every state) (State-by-State)

· What counts as targeting? I.e. marketing, intent 2 sell there, phys presence.

o Hard cases: between unilateral activity and targeting.

§ A (manu), sells 2 B, Knows B will sell in State C.

· Does State C have PJ over A?

· Knowledge = intent? (Get creative/Policy)

· Most likely must show more

§ Internet: (P.A.)

· Zippo Sliding Scale: Level of interactivity of a website determines whether a forum will have PJ over the site.

o Online Banking Site, interactive enough. Community Trust

· Mere access to site by forum state members not enough. Be2.

· Effects Test applied to Internet: Causing harm and knowing that it would be suffered in a forum state = purposeful availment. Mavrix Photo

Reasonableness

· Questions to ask:

· Must consider: (i) burden on defendant (ii) Plaintiff’s interests (iii) forums state interests.

· Think of application of (i/ii/iii) to Asahi: Ct. denied PJ b/c of reasonableness alone.

Property-Based Jurisdiction:

1. In-rem Jurisdiction

2. Quasi-in-rem Jurisdiction

In-rem Jurisdiction

· Actions against the property itself.

o Ex: case over ownership of property in the state where property is located. (Modern application, Internet domain names).

· Type of jurisdiction hasn’t changed since Pennoyer.

Quasi-in-rem Jurisdiction

· Largely a thing of the past. Plaintiff can endow a court w/jurisdiction by attaching a defendant’s in-state property, even if the dispute has nothing to do with that property.

· Turning Point: (application of international shoe standard)

o Shaffer: S.C. declared that attachment of in-state property does not, in itself, give a court the power to decide a case, rather a Ct. must have PJ over a defendant.

§ No PJ when only contact def has is the location of property as defined by forum state statutes, unless minimum contacts test of int. shoe is satisfied.

§ “all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to international shoe standards” (contacts/reasonableness).

§ First case that court restricted scope of jur rather than expand it.

Consent-Based Jurisdiction

– 2 ways to think of consent & PJ

1) Consent as a basis for personal Jurisdiction (Consent à PJ)

2) Waivable Defense: (Consent = waive the right to assert lack of PJ as a defense).

General Appearance