CIVIL PROCEDURE
LIGHT
FALL 2012
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Choosing the Forum-Geographical Location
PJ is the ability of a court to exercise power over a particular defendant or item of property
The doctrine of PJ imposes limits on the π’s capacity to sue the ∆ in the courts of the state that is most convenient or favorable to the plaintiff.
A source of PJ must be established separately for each ∆.
There are 3 Types of Jurisdiction
I. In Personam Jurisdiction: Directly affects an individual up to the entire value of the damages
-typically, relates to a claim for damages or an injunction that could potentially lead to an individual in contempt
(categories used to be rigid, however, distinction between property and damages began to blur)
II. In Rem Jurisdiction
i. “True” In Rem Jurisdiction- Concerns adjudication of rights over property against the world **NOTE PROF SAYS VERY UNLIKELY
-least common form of Rem
-Ie. Register title to land against all others
– When gov’t seeks to condem property and extinguish all other ppl’s right to property
– Gov’t seizes property in a drug transaction
ii. “Quasi” In Rem Jurisdiction Type I- Seek only to protect an interest in property as against certain named individuals
-there is a direct relationship between the property and the person making the claim
iii. “Quasi” In Rem Jurisdiction Type II- No relationship between the property and the π making the claim
-Only reason that the property is in the claim is due to statutorily renumerated instances that allow it
-ie. Pennoyer attempted this type II; or Harris v Balk (prof)
àKEY Difference between in Personam and In Rem: In Rem allows the Court to exercise jurisdiction over property only to the extent of the value of the property
1st, there are the Easy / Traditional Ways of Obtaining Personal Jurisdiction:
1. Consent
2. Domiciled in a state
-State of a corporation
3.Waiver
1. Domiciled w/in a State-
A defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of his/her/its home state. “Home state” may be defined:
(1) for individuals by residence, citizenship and domicile. In Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S 457 (1940), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of personal jurisdiction based on domicile even though the defendant was absent from the state at the time.
Corporations:
1 (b) for corporations by the state of incorporation or where the corporation conducts its principal operations.
2. Consent
– A defendant may consent to the court’s personal jurisdiction in advance of suit, and such consent, if expressly made, functions to cure any jurisdictional defects that might otherwise exist. Examples of express consent include:
(1) forum-selection clauses in contracts [see Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991), in which the Court upheld a clause printed on the back of the plaintiff’s steamship ticket]; and
(2) consent documents filed by foreign corporations with state authorities as a condition for doing business in the forum.
Other Forms of Consent:
(1) Voluntarily Appearing (Pennoyer)
(2)Consenting to Service of Process In State
-generally only good enough w respect to individuals, **not corporations** –Ie president gets served but only Corp getting sued, no PJ)à transient jurisdiction only applies to individuals
(3) Consent by use of State Procedures
-ie π sues ∆; π has nothing to do with state, ∆ counterclaims: cts hold that when you file a suit in a state, you cannot waive whatever suit comes back at you: π is subject to PJ w/in that particular state
(4). Class Actions: Phillips Petroleum w/in a b(3) class, if individual unnamed π’s don’t opt out, they consent to PJ
(5). Sanction of PJ over a ∆ for discovery abuse (Insurance Group of Thailand)
A Court can, as a sanction (Rule 37) for failure to comply w/ a discovery order directed at establishing jurisdiction facts, proceed on the basis that PJ over the recalcitrant party has been established
-Sanction of taking certain facts as established may be applied to support a finding of PJ over the ∆ without violating the due process clause of 14th Amm.
3. Waiver- If ∆ doesn’t file 12 (g)(h)(objection to PJ) in timely manner, it is waived (∆ misses 12b time)
-A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person is waived if not timely raised in the answer to any responsive pleadings
-Waiver need not be express. It is enough that a party act in a way which is incompatible with the party’s argument that the forum lacks a basis for asserting personal jurisdiction over him/her.
-Defendant will waive his/her challenge to personal jurisdiction if he/she either fails to include it in a motion to dismiss made on other grounds, or fails to otherwise raise the matter by motion or pleading.
-Today, most states, as well as the federal system, no longer require a defendant to make a special appearance for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction, separate and apart from any other grounds on the merits of the case.
-Defendant does not prejudice his/her motion to dismiss by joining with it other grounds for dismissal.
3.
1/19/10
Personal jurisdiction: the “power” CB: pp. 680-700.
theory.
SS: U.S. Const. Art. IV, §1, and Am. XIV.
Traditional Formulation: The “Power Theory of Jurisdiction”
Pennoyer v. Neff *SUPREME COURT CASE**
Due process prevents suit against nonresident defendants who can only be found and served elsewhere.
Pennoyer 3 Part Test:
1. Personal Service in State
2.Voluntarily appearing
3.Attaching in State Property at the beginning of the suit
Pennoyer involved a default judgment entered by an Oregon state court against Neff for attorney’s fees. Neff was neither a citizen of Oregon nor had he been served there, although he did own property in the state. Neff’s Oregon property was seized and sold by the sheriff to Pennoyer in order to satisfy the judgment. Subsequently, Neff sued Pennoyer in federal court for recovery of his property.
Concluding that Oregon could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Neff in an action to determine personal liability, the Court invalidated the default judgment and resulting sheriff’s sale.
The Court held that if a state court attempts to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant “must be brought within its jurisdiction by service of process within the State, or his voluntary appearance.”
Held. A state may properly exercise jurisdiction over the property within its borders. However, in this case, the property was foreclosed against in order to satisfy a personal judgment against a nonresident debtor. When the object of an action is to determine the rights of a nonresident debtor in a proceeding in personam, seizure of the property in question does not satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement of not
ered agent at intn’l for service of process; unless the Co had implicitly/explicitly agreed to have agent as being able to be served with process, could not obtain PJ under Pennoyer method, thus no PJ over Int’l
àunder Pennoyer, State would not prevail under #1, #2 or #3
-Int’l Shoe’s Argument: “Violation of due process” b/c Washington did not have jurisdiction over ∆ and thus could not serve process
à Sup Ct hearing this case b/c 14th amendment; now a federal constitutional issue
Key Ideas Behind Int’l Shoe:
· In International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), the Supreme Court articulated a new test of determining whether personal jurisdiction exists over a nonresident defendant who cannot be found and served within the forum state:
· whether the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state, such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ”
FACTS: International Shoe Company was incorporated in Delaware and had its principal place of business in Missouri. The company employed Washington residents to solicit orders there, who reported directly to the company’s main office in Missouri. The state of Washington sued International Shoe to collect unemployment compensation tax upon salaries defendant had paid to its Washington employees, and International Shoe challenged personal jurisdiction in Washington.
Issue. Whether a foreign actor or corporation has, by its merely conducting business within a forum state, availed itself to suit within that forum state?
Held. Yes. Solicitation within a state by the agents of a foreign corporation plus some additional activities render a foreign corporation amenable to suit within the forum state to enforce an obligation arising out of its activities within the forum state. In this case, Appellant’s activities within Washington were systematic and continuous within the years in question. These activities resulted in a large volume of business. Further, Appellant received the benefits and protections of the laws of Washington. As a result, the suit against Appellant within the state does not involve an unreasonable or undue procedure.
· In determining whether such minimum contacts exist, a court will look at two factors: sufficient minimum contacts and notice.
· International Shoe requires that a defendant have such minimum contacts with the forum state that exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant would be fair and reasonable.
Under this analysis, a court will look to whether both purposeful availment and foreseeability exist. Under the foreseeability prong of the minimum contacts analysis, it must be foreseeable that the defendant’s business within the forum makes it amenable to suit within that forum. In addition, under the purposeful availment prong, the defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum state must arise from non-accidental contacts
