Select Page

Civil Procedure I
Temple University School of Law
Duru, N. Jeremi

PERSONAL JURISDICTION – can you sue this guy?
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION – can you do it in federal court?
FORUM – which district can they be sued in?
WHICH LAW – what law can they be sued under?
PRECLUSION – have they been sued about this before?

1. Introduction to Civil Procedure
1.      Things to consider:
a.      Cost of litigation (time, money, emotions, Pyrrhic victory)
i. Is it worth it?
b.      Adversarial system – parties drive the action (money, motivations)
2.      Opportunity to be Heard
a.      Parties have a right to be heard before the government effects deprivation of property or liberty
b.      A party must have:
i. A proper hearing
ii.A full trial
iii.                      Or something in between
c.       Fuentes v. Shevin (p. 221): Need meaningful time between notice and deprivation, unless there are extraordinary exceptions
i. (Woman bought a stove from Firestone, was late in payments, they re-possessed it without sufficient notice. SCOTUS sez: violation of Due Process)
ii.Important government interest or general public interest
iii.                      Special need for prompt action
iv.                       States have strict control over its monopoly of legitimate force and action is brought by a government official under a narrow statute
d.      Mitchell v. WT Grant (p. 229): OK if debtor can immediately seek dissolution of the writ of replevin
i. (mitchell stopped paying for property he bought on installment contract from grant. it got re-posessed. holding: not unconst. statute balanced interest of parties)

2. Jurisdiction Over the Parties/Property
1.      Section A: The Traditional Bases for Jurisdiction
a.      14th DP sets the outer limits of PJ
b.      PJ = the price Ds pay for deliberate efforts to derive benefits from or conduct business in a state
c.       Pennoyer v. Neff (p. 63): Strict Boundaries (Legal Formalism)
i. PJ if D is a resident of the state, has property in the state, or is served in the state
ii.Substituted service by publication is sufficient only when P is already under the court’s control
iii.                      Negatives: P has to find D, In state bias, May be cost prohibitive
d.      3 PJ Theories – Property Based Theories (parts are later overruled by contacts based analysis)
i. In Personam Jurisdiction
1.      Dispute re personal rights and obligations of D
ii.In Rem Jurisdiction
1.      Dispute re rights of land or property of D
iii.                      Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction
1.      Dispute re personal rights and obligations of D and D has property in the state
2.      Section B: Expanding the Bases of Personal Jurisdiction (Change: Automobiles)
a.      Kane v. NJ (p. 73): Express Consent
i. A driver appointed someone to accept his service in NJ
1.      Constructive service through an agent
ii.Negatives: hard to keep track, Inefficient
b.      Hess v. Pawloski (p. 73): Implied Consent
i. Notice = sufficient if sent to D with return receipt and P receives the return receipt
ii.Implied consent in exchange for highway use
1.      Burden on D for Benefit for D from P
iii.                      MA statute is limited to “motor vehicles”
1.      Specific Jurisdiction statute: PJ only for matters related to the contact
a.      NOT General Jurisdiction Statute: one contact is enough for PJ of all matters related and unrelated

3.      A New Theory of Jurisdiction (Change: Business Model)
a.      Consent Theory: foreign corp. can only do business with the state’s consent (express or implied)
b.      Presence Theory: PJ was business done in the state warrants the inference of “presence”
i. Measured by actual activities
c.       International Shoe, Co. v. Washington (p. 76): Minimum Contacts Test: Certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not violate notions of fair play and substantial justice
i. Systematic and Continuous
ii.Receiving benefits from protection of the law
iii.                      Large volumes of business
iv.                      NOT irregular or casual (but nature and quality of one act may be enough – ex.: car accident)
v.4 International Shoe Scenarios:
1.      Continuous and Systematic/Related => PJ
2.      Continuous and Systematic/Unrelated => Maybe PJ
a.      Factual Analysis
b.      The price we pay for moving away from Pennoyer
3.      Occasional/Related => Maybe PJ
a.      Factual Analysis
b.      The price we pay for moving away from Pennoyer
4.      Occasional/Unrelated => No PJ

How to Apply Minimum Contacts
1. Applies to Individuals as well as Corporations
2. limitations on PJ found in longarm statutes distinct from constitutional limit impose

4.      DISSENT: contacts are only one way to determine fairness and reasonableness
a.      Consider the Stream of Commerce
b.      Consider contacts among the parties – P’s and D’s contacts
5.      EFFECT: Make Occasional/Related => NO PJ (not maybe PJ)
6.      Examples – p. 32 of notes
v.Kuklo v. Superior Ct. (p. 106): Merely causing an effect in the forum state is not enough
1.      (No PJ in CA over a father who bought a plane ticket his for daughter to fly to CA and live with her mother)
2.      Effects Test:
a.      D committed an intentional act
b.      The act was expressly aimed at the forum state
c.       The act caused harm, the brunt of which is suffered (and D knows it is likely to be suffered) by the forum state
vi.                       Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (p. 108): K alone is not enough
1.      Balancing Test: Minimum Contacts v. Equity Considerations
a.      Higher equity considerations = fewer contacts needed
2.      you must reasonably consider being haled into court
3.      This is an amorphous standard
4.      Continuous and Substantial contractual relationship
5.      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4K1 = Piggyback Rule: 4K1(a) = summons service = PJ in federal court, if the long-arm gets you into state court
a.      once min contacts are shown, you have to consider other factors
i. states interest
ii.burden on D
iii.                      what D derived in state
iv.                       all these make it more flexible…
vii.                     Asahi Mental Industry Co. v. Superior Ct. (p. 117): 2 Interpretations
1.      (valve defect in bike tires traced back to company in japan, wanted to sue them.)
2.      STEP 1: Meaningful Connection with the State (Form of Minimum Contacts)
a.      CHOOSE ONE:
i. Brennan: Mere act of putting product into the stream of commerce plus a tiny bit of foreseeability => PJ