Civil Procedure Bernstein Fall 2014
Subject Breakdown
Personal Jurisdiction
1. Traditional Bases for Personal Jurisdiction (Pennoyer)
A. In-state service of process
B. Voluntary Appearance
C. Consent
-Carnival Cruise Line case
D. State Citizens
E. Non-resident Plaintiff
2. International Shoe Test
a. In Rem Actions
-Shaffer case: def. claim to property in the state will normally indicate the def. has expected benefit from the State’s protection of his interest and so should have jurisdiction. Proceed under International Shoe test, analyzing the same as person for establishing PJ.
b. General (or if not, then proceed to Specific Jurisdiction)
i. Continuous and systematic (substantial) contact, which can be unrelated to the claim (possible general jurisdiction)
-Daimler v. Bauman: with respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation and principal place of business is paradigm for general jurisdiction.
-Goodyear v. Brown: general jurisdiction is appropriate where a corporation is “at home.”
ii. Related Forum State Contacts (what is the claim and is it related to the forum?)
Are the forum contacts related/ give rise to the claim being asserted against the defendant? If yes, then specific jurisdiction analysis!
iii. Single and Isolated and Unrelated Contacts
No Personal Jurisdiction.
3. Specific Jurisdiction Analysis
Two-Prong Approach of Minimum Contacts (From Intl. Shoe and Burger King)
a. Minimum Contacts
1. Are there min. contacts between the defendant and the forum state? If yes, proceed to reasonableness analysis.
i. Purposeful Availment
· Hanson v. Denckla- has the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting within the forum state such that it has received benefits and protections of the state? Unilateral activity by D not enough.
· Worldwide Volkswagon (product Liability)- This requirement says that defendant will be able to reasonably anticipate where its conduct will subject it to jurisdiction. Purposeful availment cannot exist on basis of unilateral action of parties other than the defendant.
ii. Contractual Contact
· Burger King v. Rudzewicz and McGee v. Intl Life Ins. Co- Does the def. have a contractual relationship with a forum resident? Consider if the contract solicitation negotiation and course of conduct support purposeful availment. Considerations of fairness sometimes serve to establish reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a showing of lesser minimum contacts.
· McGee- contract (business) solicitation within the forum is enough.
· BK- unilateral action is not enough, but marketing or expectation the product will be purchased from forum state probably is.
iii. Products Liability
· World-Wide Volks Wagon: It must be more than just foreseeable the product will end up in the state, the defendant needs direct efforts to serve that market OR expectations that products will be purchased by consumers in that state.
· Asahi v Superior Court: no law, split of authority. No PJ over def. because not fair.
O’Connor: focused on D’s conduct
-PJ requires more than just placing item in stream of commerce and awareness that it might end up in the forum state.
Brennan: focused on D’s expectations
-Placing goods in the stream of commerce and benefiting from sale in the forum state=purposeful availment. Makes it foreseeable Def. could be sued there.
iii. Stream of Commerce Cases
· McIntyre v. Nicastro-A product the defendant has cause harm to the plaintiff only after traveling through the stream of commerce-court has not clarified what a defendant must have done to have purposefully availed itself of the forum.
Debate (from Asahi)
1. Placing items in the stream of commerce and expecting they will be sold in the forum state? Brennan’s view
OR
2. Placing items in the stream of commerce and intending that they will be sold in the forum state? O’Connor’s view
4 Justices uphold O’Connor theory: did not target NJ, no intent to target that market/service it, only targets US. No PJ!
-2 Justices: Don’t take sides!
-Dissent: Would have upheld jurisdiction under Brennan theory, subject to PJ wherever the product causes injury.
v. Internet Cases
Pavlovich, Jones v. Calder- Is this a case where the forum state contacts are through the internet? Analyze whether the Internet contacts show purposeful availment.
· Express aiming of the Internet activity- if the activity was specifically aimed at the forum state.
· If interact and form contracts on website=PJ. Need to look at extent of activity and commercial activity.
vi. Quasi in Rem Cases
Shaffer v. Heitner- when jurisdiction is being asserted based on property located within the state? Property ownership is considered an isolated contact for jurisdictional purposes. Analyze as any other contact.
b. Reasonableness- Fair Play and Substantial Justice
(sliding scale, PJ possible with fewer contacts if greater fairness consideration)
1. Burden on Defendant- would the inconvenience to the def. be unconstitutionally burdensome?
2. State Interest-does the forum state have a strong interest in the dispute?
3. Plaintiff Interest- does the plaintiff have a strong interest in obtaining relief in the forum state?
4. Systematic Efficiency- would jurisdiction promote the interstate judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of controversies?
5. Interest of Several States- are any other states substantive policies at stake in this case?
II. Notice
A. Service of Process
a. Rule 4
i. Process consists of a summons and copy of the complaint.
ii. Process can be served by ay non-party who is at least age 18.
iii. How do we serve an individual (human)?
1. 4(e)(2)
a. Personal service (can be done anywhere)
b. Substituted Service
i. Must be at defendant’s dwelling or usual abode.
ii. Serve someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there.
s in all districts where subject to P.J. for this case.
iv. Lay venue in any district where a substantial part of the claim arose.
1. There can be more than one district.
ii. Transfer of venue
1. Has to be from one court to another in the same judicial system.
2. Terminology:
a. Original federal court is the transferor
b. The one to which we send it is the transferee
c. Transfer: Federal court in one district to another
d. Removal: State court to federal court
3. § 1404(a)
a. When the transferor is proper venue but is sending it to another for convenience.
b. If it is clearly not convenient for D to have hearing somewhere else—court will determine.
4. § 1406(a)
5. When the transferor is an improper venue. You can transfer in the instance of justice, or dismiss.
a. In both of these, the transferee must be a proper venue and have P.J. over the defendant.
i. Must be true without waiver.
b. Thompson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
i. Plaintiff has to show proper venue. A civil action may be brought in—
ii. 1391(b)(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
iii. 1391(b)(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
iv. 1391(b)(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
In what court do we sue?
(Power over the case)
A. States can hear any case. They have General jurisdiction.
B. Federal Court has limited
a. Diversity of citizenship
b. Federal Question
