I. Personal Jurisdiction
Refers to state’s power to hear a case and enforce its judgment over the particular parties or property involved.
This power is based on the state’s connection to the parties or property.
ONLY ISSUE: Can the plaintiff sue the defendant in this state?
Whether in federal or state court DOES NOT MATTER at all
To have PJ, you must have POWER over DEFENDANT’S:
Person; OR
Property
Three Categories:
(1) In Personam Jurisdiction:
a. In personam jurisdiction permits a court to enter a judgment that is personally binding on the defendant, either ordering her to do or refrain from doing a certain act (equitable or injunctive relief) or decreeing that the plaintiff may collect a certain amount of damages from the defendant (legal relief).
b. Power over the PERSON
(2) In Rem Jurisdiction
a. In rem jurisdiction permits a court to adjudicate the rights of all possible claimants to a specific piece of proprety, as in a condemnation proceeding. This authority originated from a state’s power to determine controversies regarding real property within its borders
b. Power over the PROPERTY
(3) Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction
a. Quasi in rem jurisdiction formerly included cases of two types:
i. Individual disputes related to property under the court’s control
1. EX: Actions for specific performance of a contract to purchase land
2. This type of quasi in rem jurisdiction continues to provide a constitutional basis for the exercise of jurisdiction
ii. Personal disputes where the court could not assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant
1. BUT had jurisdiction over property belonging to the defendant
2. That property would be seized by the plaintiff and used to satisfy the claim if the plaintiff prevailed.
3. The use of this second category of quasi in rem jurisdiction to provide a basis for exercise of jurisdiction over nonresident defendants has been severely limited on constitutional grounds.
1. Constitutional Framework
A. In Personam Jursidiction
General
The defendant can be sued in this forum on a claim that arose anywhere in the world
EX: If NY has general in personam jurisdiciotn over you, you can be sued there for anything
Specific
The defendant is being sued for something that arose in the forum
1. Traditional Approach
Pennoyer v. Neff and the Traditional Power Theory
The court found that for the state to exercise power over individuals or property there must be valid service of process on the individual OR attachment of property in the state. METHODS HAVE BROADENED SINCE THIS DECISION.
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND DECISION:
Attorney, Mitchell sued Neff in an Oregon state court, alleging that Neff owed him about $250 for legal work performed. Neff, a resident of California, was not personally served; instead, service was by publication based on Mitchell’s assertion that Neff owned property in Oregon
When Neff did not appear in the action, Mitchell obtained a default judgment. A month later, Neff acquired title to a tract of land in Oregon, and Mitchell had the sheriff seize and sell the land to satisfy the judgment. Mitchell bought the land at the sheriff’s sale and transferred title to Pennoyer shortly thereafter.
Many years later, Neff sued Pennoyer in federal court, arguing that the sale was invalid because the Oregon court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment against him.
SCOTUS agreed, stating that there had been no in personam jurisdiction over Neff because he was never served with process, and there was no in rem jurisdiction because the court did not attach any Oregon property owned by Neff at the outset of the suit.
Thus the court had no jurisdiction over Neff or his property, and the judgment was invalid.
Due Process applies the same limitations on exercise of jurisdiction.
Traditional Basis of In Personam Jurisdiction:
(1) The defendant is served with process in the forum
This is the defendant’s agent
(2) The defendant is domiciled within the forum
(3) The defendant consents
The court in Pennoyer determined that a state cannot serve an individual domiciled in another state with process and summon that person to respond to a lawsuit against him.
This has been limited by the MINIMUM CONTACTS ANALYSIS
Implications:
Due Process Clause
This restricts the power of the state governments; the boundaries of personal jurisdiction proclaimed by SCOTUS bind state courts
Full Faith and Credit Clause
The courts of State Y need not enforce a judgment against a defendant entered by the court of State X if X lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
AKA: Collateral Attack:
A defendant may under some circumstances attack in a second (collateral) lawsuit a judgment rendered without jurisdiction.
It is possible to attack collaterally a judgment entered without personal jurisdiction if the challenging party did not appear at all in the proceedings that led to the invalid judgment
Hess
By driving a motor vehicle in your state, you have appointed an agent (state official/officer) as you agent for service of process.
Completely consistent with Pennoyer
Service of process within the forum to agent
Expanded Consent to include Implied consent
By driving on the roads, you have impliedly consented
This was an example of specific jurisdiction – an expansion!
2. Modern Appraoch
Shift to MINIMUM CONTACTS from Pennoyer’s rigidity (person – process within borders | rem – attached at outset of the suit) ONLY
International Shoe – the court shifted away from Pennoyer’s insistence on service within the state to support in personam jurisdiction.
INSTEAD, it held that to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, due process requires that “he have certain minimum contact with [the forums] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
We have no idea what this phrase means
Things we get from Shoe:
(1) Flexible – led to an expansion of PJ
(2) It is clear that you can serve process on the defendant outside the forum
(3) Two parts:
Contacts
Fairness
(4) Nowhere does is purport to overrule Pennoyer.
This is the test if the defendant is NOT served with process in the forum
(a) SYSTEMATIC AND CONTINUOUS ACTIVITY
The court has upheld in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant based on systematic and continuous contacts with the state.
In International Shoe, the defendant was a Delaware corporation headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. It employed 11-13 salespeople in Washington, who were authorized only to solicit orders. The orders could be accepted or rejected only by the home office. Although it has no permanent office in Washington, the sales efforts there generated commissions of at least $31,000 per year.
The State argued: that International Shoe was obligated to contribute to state’s unemployment compensation fund in amounts proportional to activities there of its salespeople.
The court upheld Washington’s jurisdiction, an easy decision given the volume of SYSTEMATIC and CONTINUOUS nature of the contacts with the state, as well as the fact that the amount of the claim was directly related to the level of activities in the state.
(b) SINGLE CONTACT
The court has also upheld jurisdiction over a nonresident (Texas) defendant based on a single contact with the forum (California) – sending a contract for reinsurance to an insured in California (McGee v. International Life).
Defendant sued for breaching that ONE contact – jurisdiction is upheld – Stresses three things:
(1) Defendant solicited the contract in California – reached out of Texas to get that
of the act (McGee v. International Life)
(d) Stream of Commerce
A forum may assert personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state (WWV)
Retail Seller. In WWV, the court held that the stream of commerce ends with the retail sale of the product, even if it is foreseeable that the purchaser will take the product to another state.
A retail seller who regularly serves customers from a given state would be said to seek to serve that state’s market even if located in another state.
Manufacturer or Component Supplier. Placing a product in the stream of commerce is not sufficient, and that some “additional conduct” by which the defendant indicates an intent or purpose to serve the forum state is essential. O’Connor. TOPIC REMAINS UNCLEAR. (Asahi v. Superior Court).
IF THE O’CONNOR TEST IS SATISFIED, PJ is ESTABLISHED
Your product gets into a state/forum that you did not sell to; Do you have a relevant contact in that forum you didn’t sell to?
Answer: You must know both approaches
(1) Brennan Approach: If you put the product into the stream, AND reasonably anticipate that it will get to the forum, then it IS A CONTACT.
(2) O’Connor Approach: Brennan + Intent or Purpose to SERVE that forum
**MUST DISCUSS BOTH**
(e) Targeting or Intending effects in the Forum
Jurisdiction can be obtained over a nonresident defendant in a forum if the defendant intended that his actions could have an effect in that forum
EX: Editor and author of an allegedly libelous story about a CA plaintiff were subject to jurisdiction in CA because California is the focal point, both of the story and of the harm suffered (Calder v. Jones)
Purposeful availment can be causing harm
B. Relationship between contacts with forum and claim asserted | Relatedness
SCOTUS has assumed that jurisdiction is proper for claims related to the forum contacts that satisfy the purposeful availment requirement; through:
Specific Jurisdiction
(a) Claims related to the forum contacts; AND (b) satisfy the purposeful availment requirement.
Courts say when these two components are satisfied, jurisdiction is proper – it is known as SPECIFIC JURISDICTION
EX: WWV
Plaintiffs purchase an Audi in NY, drove it to OK, were involved in an accident in OK, and alleged that they were injured because of design defects in the Audi. It seemed to be assumed that OK had SJ for plaintiffs’ claim over Audi, the German manufacturer, and Volkswagen of America, the importer of Audi cars for the entire country, because both “seek to serve” the OK market. However, it is difficult to see how the plaintiffs’ claim was related to Audi’s and VW’s contacts with OK, since Audi in question was sold in NY
Possible RESOLUTION:
PROBLEM: similar claims not connected with the forum contacts
Focus on the foreseeability elements.
If the claim actually asserted is of the type the defendant should have foreseen in the forum, it is not unfair to subject the defendant to jurisdiction even if this particular claim does not arise from the defendant’s contacts
