CIVIL PROCEDURE II • FALL 2015 • PARDIECK
Three restrictions on a court’s power to hear a case:
a) For a court to hear a case it must have:
i) Jurisdiction over the ∆ – Personal Jurisdiction
ii) Jurisdiction over the type of claim on which the lawsuit is based – Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and
iii) The court must be geographically located in the proper place in light of where the facts of the case occurred and where the ∆ resides – Venue
b) *EACH ^ must be satisfied for each claim, not just the case at large.
2) PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVERVIEW
a) Without PJ a court doesn’t have the power to adjudicate a π’s action against ∆
i) ∆ can move to dismiss a case for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction FRCP 12(b)(2).
b) The power of a court to exercise control over a particular person or item of property.
c) Three types:
i) In Personam
(1) Jurisdiction over a ∆ by virtue of her relationship with the forum state
ii) In Rem
(1) Jurisdiction over a ∆ b/c ∆ owns property in the forum state.
iii) Quasi In Rem
(1) Jurisdiction over a ∆ b/c ∆ owns property in the forum state.
d) Each type has statutory and constitutional limitations:
i) Constitutional Limitations of PJ
(1) Originates from DPC of 14th
(a) A state “shall [not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
(b) For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a manner consistent with the DPC of 14th, ∆ must have minimum contacts with the forum state such that it would be fair to force the defendant to defend a lawsuit there. (Minimum Contacts Test)
(i) If a π cannot demonstrate that the minimum contacts test is satisfied, then the court may not exercise personal jurisdiction and therefore can’t hear the case.
ii) Statutory Limitations of PJ
(1) A court can’t exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless a statute exists in the forum state that explicitly authorizes the court the exercise PJ over the ∆.
e) Analyzing PJ (Two Step Dance)
i) First: is there a statutory basis for PJ in the forum state?
ii) Second: would it be constitutional for the court to exercise PJ over the ∆? i.e. does the ∆ have minimum contacts with the forum state?
3) IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION: STATUTORY LIMITATIONS
a) First step in two-step dance (is there a statutory basis for PJ in the forum state?)
b) Every state can pass statutes re: when (what situations) a court will exercise jurisdiction.
i) For a court to exercise PJ, it must do so pursuant to an explicit grant of authority in a state statute (or else the court cannot exercise PJ)
c) Five Common Statutory Sources for in personam jurisdiction:
i) Physical presence in the forum state at the time ∆ is served w/ process
(1) Every state of PJ over persons in its territory: If the ∆ is present in the forum state when he is served, he will be subject to PJ in that state.
(a) Doesn’t have to be a resident
(b) Doesn’t matter how long ∆ had been/intended to be in the state
(2) Burnham v. Superior Court of California: Supreme Court held that a court can exercise jurisdiction over a ∆ even if that ∆ is only in the state for a short period of time.
(1) A ∆ is subject to the PJ of his home state
(a) Home state:
1. By residence, or
2. Ownership of property in the state (if property is subject of lawsuit)
1. State of incorporation, or
2. Principal place of business
(1) ∆ may consent to a court’s PJ by:
(a) Voluntarily appearing in forum state’s court, and
(b) Submitting himself to jurisdiction
(2) Consent can be:
(i) i.e. forum selection clause, or
(i) Hess v. Pawloski: Supreme Court held that a Massachusetts statute stating that a non-resident motorist driving in Massachusetts implicitly consented to PJ there was constitutional.
(1) ∆ may waive his challenge to PJ by acting in a way inconsistent with his argument that the forum lacks a basis for asserting PJ over him.
(a) Might occur where:
(i) ∆ conducts discovery, or
(ii) Attends/observes proceedings without waiving objection
v) Long-arm Statutes
(1) Court may exercise PJ over ∆ if their conduct is within the ambit of the forum state’s long-arm statute.
(a) After International Shoe, which outlined the various criteria that should be examined in determining whether jurisdiction over a nonresident is proper, states began to pass laws detailing their own requirements for PJ over nonresidents. (Long-arm statutes)
(2) Long-arm statute: state law allowing the state’s courts to exercise jurisdiction over out-of-state or nonresident ∆s.
(3) Two types:
(a) Limited (enumerated)
(i) Ex: NY’s limits PJ over out-of-state defendants to specific circumstances:
1. i.e. ∆ has real property in state; conducts business in state; commits a tort in the state
(b) Unlimited (unemumerated)
(i) Ex: IL: “[a] court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”
(4) Analyzing a question w/ a long-a
uitous or unintended.
a. Court requires some purposeful connection between ∆ and forum
i. May take the form of: wrongful conduct directed at individuals in the forum state, or
ii. The intentional receipt of some significant benefit from the forum state.
d) Two components to the Constitutional Analysis:
i) Minimum Contacts
(1) Two Prongs
(a) First: Purposeful Availment:
(i) ∆ must have purposefully availed herself of the laws and benefits of the forum state;
1. i.e. the contacts with the forum state must not be accidental or inadvertent
2. ∆’s action must be intentionally directed into the forum state.
a. Examples: doing business in the state or driving on the state’s roads.
(ii) Stream of Commerce Turbulence
1. When a downstream retailer or out-of-state manufacturer’s product finds its way into the forum state
2. Usually products liability questions
3. Currently Requires:
b. Intentional, and
c. Conscious targeting of the forum state by ∆
4. Debate: whether mere awareness or foreseeability that the ∆’s product will reach the forum state is sufficient to establish that ∆ purposefully availed herself of the forum state’s laws and privileges.
a. In Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, a Japanese company sold tire valves to a Taiwanese tire company. The Taiwanese company’s tires were eventually sold in California where, through a defect in the tire valve, they caused a motorcycle accident. ISSUE: whether the Japanese company could be sued in CA for products liability re: its allegedly faulty tire valves. The Supreme Court split evenly on this issue. Four justices (led by Brennan) held: putting a product in the stream of commerce—regardless of whether the manufacturer knows that the product will reach the forum state—is sufficient to est. purposeful availment. Four other justices (led by O’Connor) held: “mere placement of a product into the stream of commerce” is not sufficient to constitute purposeful availment, “even if done with an awareness that the stream will sweep the product into the forum.”