Civil Procedure Outline
I. Personal Jurisdiction (Territorial Jurisdiction); in what states can the P sue the D – question of geography, court must have power of D or D’s property
a. In Personam- the Courts power is over the D herself
i. General- the D can be sued in the forum on a claim that arose anywhere in the world
ii. Specific- the D can be sued in the forum only for a claim that arose in the forum
iii. Constitutional Limits on InP: Due Process Circle
1. Pennoyer v. Neff- told us the state has PJ over people, InP and things, InR, w/I it’s boundaries (gave us the **traditional basis**)
a. Presence- D is served with Process in the Forum (General Jurisdiction)
b. Service of Process- on the D’s Agent in the Forum
c. Domicile- D is domiciled in the Forum (G)
d. Consents- D consents to jurisdiction
i. Implied consent (ex: by driving in a state and have a wreck; appoint an official of the state as your agent to accept service of process for you and you are implying consent to Jurisdiction)
2. International Shoe- Ct. did not want to expand traditional basis; created a new doctrinal formula
a. **State has jurisdiction if the D has such minimum contacts with the forum that exercise over the D would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
b. Very Flexible Test (getting away from the rigidity of P v. N and expanding the availability of jurisdiction)
c. Absolutely clear that you can get InP over the D w/o serving him in the forum; service of process can reach across state lines
d. Does not overrule P v. N; says MC is the test if the D is not present in the forum
e. IS seems to say there are two parts to the test; 1) minimum contacts, 2) fairness
3. McGee v. International Life Insurance
a. Only sold one insurance policy in CA
b. Ct. stressed 3 things
i. TX co. solicited the contract from CA (D sought out CA)
ii. Relatedness, stressed the P’s claim arose from the D’s contact w/Forum
iii. The state’s interest; the forum state, CA, had an interest in providing a courtroom for the P
c. Expanding the availability of InP
4. Hanson v. Dankla (first case to limit Jurisdiction after IS)
a. Woman had contract with DE, then moved to FL.
b. Question was whether FA, had InP over the DE bank? SC said no.
i. Bank had no relevant contacts with FL
1. To be a relevant contact, must result from D’s purposeful availment of the forum
5. WWV
a. Family from NY had wreck in OK in a new car they bought in NY.
b. Ct. said no jurisdiction b/c no relevant contacts.
c. Did have jurisdiction over the manufacturer and over importer, but what about the regional distributor (RD) and the dealership (SM)?
d. RD and SM, not subject to jurisdiction in OK, b/c there was no purposeful availment- the P’s took the car their, the D’s did not reach out to OK
e. Ct. said Foreseeability is not that the car went there, but whether the D could be haled into ct. in OK
i. **Foreseeability – not that the product would get there, but whether the person could foresee going into ct. there
6. Burger King
a. Contract case; not tort like the others; suit is brought in Miami against franchise holder in Michigan. Did ct. have jurisdiction? Yes.
i. Ct. recognizes that there are two parts to the IS test.
1. Contacts
2. Fairness
ii. Must have a relevant contact before fairness is even looked at.
iii. Contact was easy b/c they did avail themselves, D’s attended Burger King School.
iv. Fairness, more difficult… burden is on the D to show the fairness of the forum (almost impossible). Must show that defending in forum is so gravely difficult and inconvenient that you are in a severe disadvantage for litigating there à would be unconstitutional.
7. Asahi
a. *Stream of Commerce; is there a relevant contact with where your product eventually went?
i. If Upstream – sued all over with General Jur. (Steering wheel in cars that are sold nation wide)
ii. If Downstream – no subject to general (car dealership)
b. No majority opinion- court was split
c. One side- It is a contact if D put product into stream of commerce and can reasonable anticipate it would get to another point
d. Other side- Need knowledge, forseeability, plus an intent or purpose to serve at another point. (Advertising, intent to sell?)
e. There is no majority opinion (know that for exam); could go either way.
8. Burnham
a. NJ D sued in CA; served with process in CA, but the claim arose in NJ
b. Can only do this if CA had general jurisdiction over D
c. Test of whether presence is a basis for jurisdiction
d. Again, no majority, there was a split
e. One side- presence has historical pedigree; and is always a general basis for jurisdiction
f. Other side- all assessments of PJ, must be looked at under minimum contacts; even if there was a traditional basis of jurisdiction
9. General Jurisdiction – Means D can be sued in the forum over a claim that arose anywhere in the world.
a. Rule- there is GJ if the D has continuous and systematic ties with the forum
b. For ex: for a corporation, like Coca Cola can be sued anywhere
c. Person can be sued for anything in there place of domicile
iv. Analytical Framework (How to work through PJ on Exam)
1. Does one of the traditional basis apply (from P v. N); It one does apply then that alone gives PJ
2. Minimum Contacts Analysis
a. Two prong analysis
i. Minimum Contacts: D must have a relevant contact with the forum
1. Purposeful Availment – Reaching out and availing themselves to the forum.
2. Foreseeability – must be foreseeable that the D would be haled into ct. in the forum state.
ii. Fairness: If there is a relevant contact.
1. Relatedness- does the P’s claim arise from the D’s contact with the forum? If yes, this might make up for the fact that the contacts are minimal – may have PJ (Don’t need this if there is GJ)
2. Convenience- D will complaint that it is not convenient. Look to Burger King. Remember that the burden is on the D to show that it is so gravely independent that you can’t defend there.
3. State’s interest – provide court room for P
4. P’s interest- not clear how weighty this is, but still need to through it in.
5. Legal System’s interest in efficiency
6. Interstate interest in shared substantive policy
7. Stream of commerce is unclear in this matter and whether presence is enough
v. Statutory Inquiry
1. The State must have a statute that gives PJ in that state
2. First, must look to see if there is PJ; if there is a statute, then we look to see if it falls in the Due Process Circle (Some states go as far as possible, other don’t push it)
3. Does the state statute allow InP jurisdiction?
a. Every state has a series of statutes that allows InPJ in the forum to cover the traditional basis.
b. Every state has a domicile and motorists statute.
c. Every state has a Long Arms Statute
i. Laundry List Statute- Saying can sue the D under long arms if she committed one of these things. (Contracting to do business; owning property)
1. Wording varies from state to state
2. The same language in LAS, can be interpreted in different ways.
vi. Hypo: P lives in WA State, drives to OR, goes into a clock shop and buys a clock and takes it back to WA and breaks and the bird pops out and injuries the P. Wants to sue the OR clock maker in WA. Is there InPJ over the D in WA State?
1. Does a Statute allow InPJ on the facts of this case? (Professor will have to tell you the statute, in this case, there is a statute about torts and we have to see if it applies) Can argue both ways.
a. 1- Maybe there is no tort b/c if there was negligence it was in OR.
b. 2- Maybe there is a tort b/c the P was injured in WA.
i. Now do a constitutional analysis.
ii. First, there is no traditional basis (flag this)
2. Constitutional Analysis – Next, apply MC, tell definition then ask 1) is there a relevant contact (Int’l Shoe) b/t clock maker and WA?
i. Purposefully Avail: himself to WA? Look at the facts carefully. Looks like the clock got to WA, not b/c D sent it there, but b/c the P took it there. Watch the facts… remember, this is a neighboring state and maybe that makes a difference, maybe the facts show that the shop was on an Interstate highway 3 miles from WA, maybe he paid with a check and accepted a WA check b/c he said he had good customers from WA. Maybe he advertised in WA.
ii. Domicile is est. by two concurrent factors:
1. Must be present in the state (physical thing)
2. Must have the subjective intent to make that state your permanent home
iii. Each person only has one domicile at a time. Impossible to have more than one.
iv. Aliens can be tried in any federal district.
c. Hypo: Domiciliary of OK; goes to college in MS for 4 years; goes to Law school in NY for 3 years; goes to Medical school in CA for 8 years. Has never shown intent to stay in any of these states so OK, is still his domicile.
d. Hypo: If you have not gotten to where you have planned to make your domicile through your subjective intent; your previous domicile is still your domicile until you get to the new place (WWV case ex)
2. Citizenship of Corporation: Section 1332(c)(1); can be citizen of more than one place
a. Citizen of all states where it is incorporated (almost impossible to find a corp. that is incorp. In more than one state)
b. Also citizen of the ONE state where has principle place of business (PPB); can only have ONE PPB; several possible ways to assess
i. Nerve Center: where decisions are made (headquarters)
ii. Muscle Center: where the corporation does more stuff than anywhere else
iii. Total Activities Assessment: will use the nerve center unless all the activity is in a single state
3. Citizens of Representative States: 1332(c)
a. Decedents, Minors and Incompetents- look to their citizenship and not the representatives (cannot sue or be sued on their own, sue through the guardian or agent, but still look to the citizenship of the person being sued.)
ii. Amount in controversy must exceed 75,000.
1. Must Exceed 75,000 (not counting interest on the claim and costs.)
2. P’s claim governs unless it is clear to a legal certainty that she cannot recover that much
3. P’s ultimate recovery is irrelevant to SMJ
4. Aggregation- where we must add two or more claims to exceed 75,000 dollars
a. RULE: aggregate claims if there is 1P v. 1D, even if unrelated claims
b. RULE: cannot aggregate if there are multiple parties on either side
c. With joint claims, use the total value of the claim
i. Ex: 3 D’s beat up the P and he sues for 75,000.01, this is ok b/c looking to the total value of the claim.
b. Federal Question: Govern by Sect. 1331
i. Citizenship is irrelevant and there is no amount in controversy at all
ii. Must have a case that arises under fed. law
iii. *RULE: look only to the P’s complaint; do not look at defenses
iv. Well Pleaded Complaint Rule: in looking at the complaint, it is the P’s claim itself that must arise under fed. law (look to nothing else in the complaint; not an anticipated defense)
1. Is this P enforcing a federal right? If yes, it is a FQ.
2. Mottley- lifetime RR pass. Congress passes a law that says RR’s can’t give away free passes. RR refuses passes based on the statute and they sue the RR. Complaint says, “Have to honor the pass and we know that you are going to rely on Fed. Statute and it does not apply and is unconstitutional.”
a. No FQ b/c they were not enforcing a fed. Right. Statute does not give rights. There claim is only a breach of contract claim (state claim) and they are anticipating a fed. Defense. Claim must arise under fed. law.
c. Supplemental Jurisdiction: governed under Sect. 1367
