Select Page

Civil Procedure I
South Texas College of Law Houston
Paulsen, James W.

I. Territorial Jurisdiction:
I.                    Exercising over citizens of the state
a.      In personam – present/resident/in the state (Burnham)
b.      In rem– proceeds based on the property
                                                               i.      Quasi in rem type I — dispute about property between 2 people who are claiming the land
                                                             ii.      Quasi in rem type II– property is attached
1.      Establishes right to property but not about the property itself
c.      Pennoyer v. Neff (exercising jurisdiction within the boundaries of the state)
                                                               i.      States do not have in personam jurisdiction over non-residents, unless they are served within the state
                                                             ii.      In personam jurisdiction is appropriate when a company or individual has contacts, ties or relations within the state
                                                            iii.      Quasi-in rem jurisdiction: The action establishes a right to property, but the underlying dispute is unrelated to the property
                                                           iv.      No physical presence in state and property was not attached in the beginning of the suit.
d.      Two Methods to Challenge Territorial Jurisdiction
                                                               i.      Direct Attack
1.      Def appears before forum to object to the forums jurisdiction over him
a.       Special Appearance
                                                                                                                                       i.      Motion to Dismiss due to lack of territorial jurisdiction
                                                             ii.      Collateral Attack
1.      When a default judgment is taken and you challenge jurisdiction in a subsequent proceeding
II.                 Long arm statute
a.      Must be reviewed; rules and regulations of states to adjudicate over citizens of other states
b.      Must follow procedures of statute as far as how process served etc.
c.      Two Types of Statutes
                                                               i.      Authorizes jurisdiction to reach to the limits of Due Process (Texas)
                                                             ii.      Enumerated Acts
1.      Sets out circumstance under which state intends to authorize jurisdiction
a.       Ex. Bensosan v. King
                                                                                                                                       i.      NY statute that Fed Court used didn’t include the Def
b.      Ex. Omni Capital Intl v. Rudolf Wolff Co.
d.      Federal Long Arm Statutes
                                                               i.      Rule 4 (k) (1) (C) and (D)
1.      Congress provides Fed Courts have jurisdiction to bring in anyone with M/C w/ US
a.       Ex. Bankruptcy, Anti-Trust, Securities
b.      Interpleader
                                                                                                                                       i.      Life Ins. Example
1.      Diff Def/Diff States
2.      Now don’t have to try in each state
                                                             ii.      In absence of federal law or statute, look to the state’s long-arm statute
                                                            iii.      Rule 4 (k) (2)
1.      When you ha

ablished that in rem and in personam jurisdiction should both be established through minimal contacts because all adjudicate in the interest of the forum
                                                                                                                                    iii.      In Asahi, the contacts weren’t sufficient and it was found that putting products into the stream of commerce isn’t purposeful availment (Plurality Decision)
1.      WW Volkswagen said the same thing
                                                                                                                                   iv.      Result of purposeful availment/direction (have a reason to believe that you can be haled to court in the forum state)
1.      Definitions: deliberately engaged in significant activities within a State or has created continuing obligations between himself and residents of the forum
a.       Has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there and because his activities are shielded by the “benefits and protections” of the forum’s laws it is presumptively not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum as well. (Burger King v. Rudzewicz)
b.      Def knows he is likely to be sued in that jurisdiction
2.      Awareness Plus Test (Asahi)- Must indicate a purpose to serve the market in the state/market
Designing the product for the market or the forum state