Select Page

Civil Procedure I
St. Johns University School of Law
Alexander, Vincent C.

Three Elements: all must be satisfied to render a valid judgment

Personal Jurisdiction over D or D’s Property (in what state/in what forum can I sue the D)?
Notice to D; service of process
Subject Matter Jurisdiction: court has the power to adjudicate this type of controversy

Does the court have power over the D to render a valid Judgment?

1. Analysis for GENERAL JURISDICTION
a) Are D’s contacts with the state systematic and continuous such that he can be sued for any claim regardless of whether the cause of action arises out of his contacts in the state? OR
b) Was the D physically served in the state, did he consent, or is he domiciled in the state?

2. Analysis for SPECIFIC JURISDICTION/Analyzing Personal Jurisdiction for Absent Ds
a) Look for Long Arm of particular forum and analyze language
b) Does statute apply to the facts? Statutory interpretationècase precedent, legislative history
i) If it does not apply to the facts, never need to get into Due Process standards
ii) If statute does apply to facts THEN:
c) Does the statute satisfy Due Process as it has been applied to the current set of facts? Not about statute being constitutional or unconstitutional; rather is it being applied constitutionally on these facts
i) Two Part test:
(1) Purposeful availment
(2) Fair and Reasonable?

I. Establishing PERSONAL/BASIS JURISDICTION

GENERAL In Personam Jurisdiction: Does the court have power over the D even if the cause of action does not arise out of his contacts in the forum state?

a) Bases for Individuals:
i) Presence: Was the D physically served in the forum state? (Pennoyer);

(1) Debate: transient presenceèminimum contacts applies? No majority
(a) Minimum contacts applies to all assertions of jurisdiction: Did the D purposefully avail himself to the forum state; was his presence: “voluntary, intentional, and knowing”?
(i) Hypo: airplane service of process;
(b) minimum contacts applies only to absent Ds

(2) Exceptions to presence theory:
(a) Fraud
(b) Immunity Doctrine

ii) Consent: Did the D consent to jurisdiction either expressly or impliedly?
(1) Examples:
(a) Voluntarily appearance, or appoint agent for service of process
(b) Waiver: If D doesn’t object or fails to make a timely motion to dismiss at the outsetèwaives defense indefinitely
(c) In Advance; consent by contract, choice of forum clause;

(2) Exception:
(a) Immunity Doctrine

iii) Domiciliary/“home base” in forum state: Is the D domiciled in the forum state?
(1) Only one state of domicile possible for individuals
(2) Requirements:
(a) Maintain residence and
(b) Intend to maintain as principle home for indefinite future UNTIL
(c) New domicile

b) Bases for Corporations
(1) Presence: Is the D corporation doing business IN the state that is systematic and continuous?
(a) Considerations: Maintaining an office, regular soliciting, shipping;
(i) Not enough: (Helicopteros) serving transient agents; purchases for substantial sums and one business meetings/brief presence; sending personnel for training; acceptance of checks drawn form bank in forum state; (BUT may be enough for specific jurisdiction if cause of action arises out of activities…); doing business with the state

(2) Consent: serving in-state agents; state charter of incorporation or license; choice of forum clauseè treated as consent (choice of law as a factor to consider)

c) Internet:
i) Presence: “systematic and continuous activity”; “boots on the ground” better test

2. ABSENT DEFENDANTS AND SERVING PROCESS OUTSIDE FORUM STATE
SPECIFIC In Personam Jurisdiction/Absent Defendants:

Does the forum allow for service of process outside the state for this D in this situation?
e.g. Does the cause of action arise out of or relate to D’s contact with the forum?

Analysis: Look to state long arm è applies to facts? è then if applies, satisfies minimum contacts?

Calder “Effects test”: must target forum state (purposeful acts) and have effects there.

(1) E.g. Revell: No sufficient contacts with forum state; no purposeful acts directed at the forum: Article not about Tx, Ds didn’t even know where P lived website merely a medium where the alleged libel occurred; website beamed it everywhere, not specifically in Texas

IN REM:
1) Does a state statute allow for in rem jurisdiction?
2) Minimum Contacts standard applies to all in rem: purposeful activity must be related to P’s cause of action; mere presence of property not enough

a) “True in Rem”
i) with respect to property binding on the entire world; “notice” to entire world; concerns ownership of the land; e.g. government condemnation of land; admiralty law

b) Quasi in Rem 1
i) P’s cause of action is based on interests in property; a
ii) Court asserts personal jurisdiction over D by attaching property at the outset of the lawsuit
iii) presumptively satisfies Due Process because cause of action arises out of contacts
iv) Marriage: “marital status” treated as a thing “in rem” jurisdiction over a person wherever marital status is; However to get money from a divorce must have in personam jurisdiction

c) Quasi in Rem 2/Quasi in Rem Attachment
i) money cause of action; cause of action does not arise out of property;
ii) TODAYèserious Due Process problems following Shaffer, 1977
(1) Find longarm statute that allows for attachment
(2) Attach property at the outset of litigation; must be valid and constitutional (Due Process)
(a) Determine if Due Process is satisfied. But if only connection between D and forum is mere presence of property, then èprobably no minimum contacts; must still have purposeful availment

3. Statutory Limitations on Personal Jurisdiction (Long Arms)
a) Two types of state long arm statutes:
i) Laundry Lists: e.g. NY: lists specific categories of activity by D with forum state that allow for assertion of in personam jurisdiction; more rigorousè if facts don’t fall within words of the statute, must sue the D in another state (no need for minimum contacts analysis)
(1) First point of reference: words of the statute
(a) Also: case precedent and legislative history (how to interpret language in the statute/purpose)
ii) Open Ended: e.g. CA: “any basis not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or the U.S. Constitution”
(1) First point of reference: U.S. Supreme Court cases; Burger King, other landmark opinions

4. Constitutional Limitations on Personal Jurisdiction:
Minimum Contacts Two Part Analysis for SPECIFIC Jurisdiction: (to be applied AFTER reviewing state long arm)
a) PART ONE: Minimum Contacts: Has D purposefully availed herself to forum state and does the cause of action arise out of D’s activities in forum state? Look to the relationship between D, forum state and cause of action;
i) Considerations for purposeful availment: payments sent to forum state, long term business activity with forum state, business trips, choice of law clause; Burger King;
(1) Corporations: contacts that are continuous and systematic
ii) Not enough: no unilateral moves; coincidental contacts/must be foreseeable to be haled into court in forum state; sending correspondence in response to someone’s unilateral move to new state (change of address)
iii) Debate: “stream of commerce”; no majority opinion in Asahi because didn’t satisfy fair/reasonable test:
(1) O’Connor, etc.: Stream of commerce mere awareness that product is coming into foreign state not enough; Need: injury in foreign state + stream of commerce + more purposeful availment/“affirmative involvement”
(2) Brennan: injury in foreign state + stream commerce + awarenessèis enough
iv) Debate: cause of action: “arises out of” v. “related to” contacts in the state

b) PART TWO: Fair and Reasonable: Will subjecting D to jurisdiction offend traditional notions of fair play and justice?
i) Interests of D (burdensome/inconvenient/unforeseeable to be haled into court?)
ii) Interests of P (convenience) in litigating forum state
iii) Interests of State in litigating matter; (resolving dispute and providing a forum for redress)
iv) Interstate (social policy)and International interests re substantive law (might be contrary to the interests of courts in the foreign nations; might hurt international relations)

II. NOTICE and Opportunity to Be Heard:
TWO PART ANALYSIS:

1. Did service of process comply with the rules of the state court in which the D was served,

eader; (Rule 14 for indemnity or contribution) or Rule 19 (joinder of necessary parties for just adjudication);
(2) Service of process ok within 100 mile radius of district court
(a) No need to apply Due Process minimum contacts standard when invoking

iii) Nationwide Service Exception: process can be authorized by Congressional statute for federal court
(1) As long as D has some connection with U.S.

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION:

ANALYSIS:
Does the court have the power to hear this type of case?
On what grounds does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction: diversity or federal question?
Diversity: Is there complete diversity and does the amount in controversy exceed $75,000?
If P brought suit in federal court is the case removable?

1) General rules
a) Concurrent Jurisdiction: state courts have courts of general, original jurisdiction that are all-purpose courts: have the power to hear any type of case even if on same facts P could also go to federal court
i) Exceptions: Congress determines some matters exclusively brought under federal jurisdiction
b) if there is a defect in federal subject matter jurisdiction at any point in the litigation (even on appeal)ècase SHALL be dismissed; courts will not manufacture subject matter jurisdiction for purposes of efficiency or fairness
c) Courts can raise sua sponte
d) Subject matter jurisdiction is a defense that is never waived; federal courts are never going to exercise the power they don’t have
e) P has burden of proving that her case falls within judicial power of the U.S.
i) Must specifically allege diversity jurisdiction or “arises” under federal law; must be first allegation in the complaint; for corporations: must specifically allege state of incorporation and principle place of business even if same state for both

2) Two grants of federal subject matter jurisdiction: limited and dependent on act of Congress
a) Limited:
i) “Arising Under”/Federal Question Grant Cases arising under the constitution, laws of the U.S. (congressional statutes) and treaties; federal law

ii) Diversity Jurisdiction: cases between citizens of different states and alienage jurisdiction (cases between U.S. citizens and citizens of another nation)

1) DIVERSITY JURISDICTION U.S.C. § 1332 “Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy”

a) Complete diversity rule (Strawbridge: John Marshall):
i) No single P can be from the same state as any one D (same state on both of the “vs.”)
ii) Left open constitutionality of minimum diversity; e.g. Class Action
(1) posed no obstacle to the legislative extension of federal jurisdiction founded on diversity, so long as any two parties are citizens of different states

b) Basics:
i) Diversity: amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 (good faith) AND citizens of different states (including PR and D.C.); interpreted as complete diversity: No single P can be from the same state as any one D (same state on both of the “vs.”) OR
ii) Alienage: citizens of U.S. v. citizen of foreign nations; rare exception between two aliens OK if claim arises under federal laws (admiralty, antitrust, securities-alien v. alien)

c) Determining Citizenship of States: determined as in the point of time the complaint was filed; events that happen after the law suit is filed irrelevant:
i) INDIVIDUALS:
(1) U.S. citizen and domiciled in the state