Civil Procedure Outline: Spring 2008
I. Introduction
1. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld; 542 U.S. 507
· Facts: Couldn’t just come out and argue that he wasn’t the enemy combatant b/c he hadn’t been charged with anything; Instead asked for “due process”; forcing someone to sue him or let him go
· Rule 1: civil actions and proceedings should be construed and administered to be just, speedy and inexpensive
II. Personal Jurisdiction
1. Pennoyer v. Neff (pg 51); 95 U.S. 714 (1877)- The Rule of Territoriality
· Facts: Suing for attorney’s fees; Affidavit that he didn’t know where Neff was; Placed ad in small newspaper (court ordered that it was okay, no knowing that defendant can’t read); Default judgment (defendant doesn’t reply in time then they lose)in favor of plaintiff; Court can’t bind him (no jurisdiction), can’t read so process of service was flawed
· Rule: establishes traditional basis for jurisdiction
· Need to bring the person into the jurisdiction of the court at the outset of the suit; court only had jurisdiction over the property, not the person, thus the case should have been in rem instead of in personam. If the property would have to have been attached before the commencement of the trial, would have had jurisdiction.
A. In Rem and Quasi In Rem
1. Harris v. Balk (pg 68); 198 U.S. 215 (1905); U.S. Supreme Court
· Facts: Balk lent money to Harris, and Epstein has lent money to Balk; Harris and Balk are in NC, and Epstein is in MD. Epstein owes Balk, Balk owes Harris. So we figure, let’s have Harris pay Epstein, because then everybody would get repaid; Epstein sues in Maryland to get Harris to pay him and Harris pays him; then Balk sues Harris in NC; Harris’s defense is that he’s already paid his debt to Epstein, such that Balk should get his money back from Epstein.
· Rule: Don’t worry about jurisdiction over plaintiff b/c they chose where to bring case so jurisdiction is automatic
· Defining the term Property; in this case it’s an Intangible property issue (debt); property was attached (in rem) so case stands, attaching property to case puts “lien” on property saying that case has first dibs on property
B. Long –Arm Jurisdiction
1. Long-Arm definition:
· Statute providing for jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who has had contacts with the territory where the statute is in effect
2. International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (pg 73); 326 U.S. 310 (1945)
· Facts: International Shoe Co. based in Delaware, does business in several states, has about 12 agents in Washington who display merchandise and accept orders; no contracts made in Washington and no permanent business buildings there; Suit brought against Defendant by Unemployment Compensation Fund of Washington in a Washington court.
· Rule: For a state to subject a non-resident ∆ to personal jurisdiction, due process requires that he have certain minimum contacts that do not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
· Minimum Contacts Test: falls under in personam, doesn’t fall under any categories but creates another category; must be consistent with fair play and substantial justice, must be fair and reasonable,
3. Hess v. Pawloski (page 64-65): 274 U.S. 352 (1927)
· Facts: Someone from PA is heading up to MA, where they have a car wreck. It happens all the time today, but in 1927, it was a constitutional crisis. An out-of-state defendant gets into an accident. In order for the person who got hit in MA to sue, they must serve the person that hit them personally in MA.
· Rule: If you drive a car into state, you have impliedly consented to be under that state’s jurisdiction.
C. “Minimum Contacts”: The “Purposeful Availment” Requirement
1. Four main forms of Purposeful Availment:
1) Situations where defendant or its employees entered the state and conducted activity there
2) Defendants who enter into contractual relationships with forum residents
3) Defendants whose products enter the forum through the ordinary “stream of commerce”
4) Defendants whose out-of-state conduct caused an injurious “effect” in the forum state
2. Hanson v. Denckla (pg 88): 357 U.S. 235 (1958)
· Facts: Dead mother from FL has trust established in DE. She set up an account with a DE bank while living in PA, moves to FL; contractual relationship issue
· Rule: If there are only minimal contacts between a state and a defendant, then the contacts must be closely related to the claim to create PJ over a party
3. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.- (pg 90 and pg 93):
· Facts: Resident of CA bought insurance policy from TX; Whether business conducted by mail is sufficient contact to fall under the minimum contacts rule from ISC; contractual relationship issue
· Holding: The court finds that the life insurance policy in question had substantial connection with the state of California. Furthermore, the court holds that the state has an interest in protecting its citizens without making them travel to other states.
· Rule: If there are only minimal contacts between a state and a defendant, then the contacts must be closely related to the claim.
4. Reasonableness: (pg 98, definition always used)
· Pg 98 “fair play and substantial justice”
· Rarely grant jurisdiction b/c of reasonableness, but can take it away b/c of it
· Five reasons for determining “reasonableness”:
1) Burden on defendant
2) Forum state’s interest
3)
Supreme Court
· Facts: National Inquirer, specifically South and Calder, wrote an allegedly libelous article about plaintiff, Shirley Jones; the Inquirer is based in Florida but Jones lives in California where the brunt of the harm from the article was done; Defendants South and Calder file a motion to “quash service of process.”
· Rule: “Effects Test”- requires intentional conduct expressly aimed at or targeting the forum state in addition to the defendant’s knowledge that his intentional conduct would cause harm in the forum
· When can it be used: whenever a defendant caused an effect in the forum state, it would “virtually swallow the purposeful availment requirement”
F. “Minimum Contracts”: The Relatedness Requirement
1. Relatedness Requirement:
· Plaintiff must show that the cause of action “arises from” or “relates to” the defendant’s purposeful contacts with the forum state, i.e., that the case is one involving “specifc” personal jurisdiction
2. Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. (pg 147): 342 U.S. 437 (1952);
· Facts: company did their mining in the Philippines but left during the war; during that time the company’s president lived in Ohio and “did many things on behalf of the company” there
· Rule: General Jurisdiction- permitted where defendant’s contacts with the forum were “continuous and systematic”
3. Helicopteros (pg 150):
· Facts: Helicopter company contracts to do work for Texas based company in South America
· Issue: whether they had general jurisdiction b/c numerous connections in Texas?
· Rule: General jurisdiction almost never happens.
· General jurisdiction: Contacts are so huge that the relatedness is a non-issue; Always look for specific jurisdiction first- where there is a connection between suit and defendant’s contacts
G. “Minimum Contacts” and the Traditional Bases of Jurisdiction
1. ? Shaffer v. Heitner-In Rem and Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction
Facts: Bring shareholder derivative suit- suing on behalf of the company; Greyhound was trying to get rid of competition so was sued by rival company and lost so must pay a lot of money; Shareholder is suing b/c shareholders lost money b/c of directors
