JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES
– Does the court have jurisdiction to decide a case between the particular parties or concerning the property before it.
DUE Process – Established by 14th amendment
– Substantive due process – court must have power to act
– Procedural due Process – court must have give the defendant adequate notice of the action against him and an opportunity to be heard
Fuentes v. Shevin – P challenged statute allowing seizure of goods without providing an opportunity for the debtor to be heard b4 the seizure
Procedural Due process requires that notice and an opportunity to be heard must be provided prior to seizure of property
Mitchell v. Grant – D purchased goods from P. D was delinquent and P obtained a writ without providing D prior opportunity to be heard
Statutes allowing for attachment or sequestration without a prior adversarial hearing do not violate procedural due process if safeguards exists
– In personam jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the defendant’s person (i.e., individual, company, or other entity) because the defendant has ties to the forum state.
– In rem jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over claims made about a piece of property or a particular status within the forum state (e.g., an action to quiet title to real estate or an action for divorce).
– Quasi in rem jurisdiction: An alternative to personal jurisdiction, whereby judicial attachment of a defendant’s property located within the forum state is used as a way of securing jurisdiction over the defendant
Traditional Rule – Must be in same state to have personal jurisdiction
Pennoyer v. Neff – P sued D to recover legal fees. Notice published in Oregon paper. D lives in another state and didn’t know. Land was attached by court as judgment. D appeals saying court did not have personal jurisdiction
Courts have jurisdiction within their territory. A court may enter a judgment against a non-resident only if the party 1) is personally served with process while within the state, or 2) has property within the state, and that property is attached before litigation begins.
Expanding Personal Jurisdiction. Increased interstate travel brought with it increased interstate litigation.
Kane v. NJ – In new jersey you have to give explicit consent by filing out a form assigning an agent which creates personal jurisdiction because the other person get served through the agent. This created a lot of problems
Hess v. Pawloski – D, a driver from PA, Crashed into, P on a Mass. highway. Statute said non resident consented to use registrar of motor vehicles as their agent.
A state has the power to declare that all non-residents who use its highways have impliedly consented to submit to the state’s jurisdiction for all actions arising from that highway usage.
Personal jurisdiction and corporations
– Domestic Corporation – Any action may be brought against a corporation which is incorporated in the forum state
– Foreign Corporation – a state is limited in its ability to exercise jurisdiction over a company not incorporated in forum state
o Minimum Contacts – if Company is not present within the territory of the forum, they must have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and justice
§ Continuous and Systematic Contact with the forum state that are directly related to the claim.
· There is personal jurisdiction
o Example: Ford making cars in Michigan and someone gets hurt in Michigan.
o Business stationed in state and injury occurred in same state
§ Continuous and Systematic Contact that are not directly related to the claim.
· There probably is personal jurisdiction
· Example: Ford, stationed in Michigan, has plant in Nebraska, and a car from there injures someone.
§ Occasional and Singe contact with the state and the claim arises directly out of that contact.
· There maybe jurisdiction
· Example: Ford makes no cars in Maryland, and has a car show in MD. Someone gets cut opening one of the doors in MD and wants to sue in MD.
§ Occasional and Single contact that is unrelated to the claim.
· No personal jurisdiction
· Example: From Michigan, go to Hawaii on a honeymoon, come back to Michigan, and then there is a car accident in Michigan. Can’t be served in Hawaii
o Residents of Forum State – A co’ will be found to have minimum contacts if they have voluntarily sought to do business with the residents of that state.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington – Shoe (DE) with HQ in (MI) had sales people in (WA). WA sued Shoe for Unemployment taxes.
A casual presence of a corporation or its agent in a state in single or isolated incidents is not enough to establish jurisdiction. Systematic and continuous rather than irregular or casual is needed. If you received the benefits and protection of the laws of the state you are subject to jurisdiction there.
Long Arm Statutes – Allows a court to have personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state, non-consenting defendant if the defendant has the requisite minimum contacts with the state and if it would be fair to do so.
Specific Contacts – Jurisdiction based on a cause of action related to or arising out of a D’s contacts with the forum state.
Gray v. American Radiator – (OH) Co’ made defective water valve and sold it co in PA, which resold finished product to IL when it blew up
once you put a product into the stream of commerce, you are taking your chances of being sued in other states
McGee v. International Life Insurance – P was owed life insurance. D was TX co’. P won in CA and tried to Enforce it in TX.
A state may exercise jurisdiction over a D whose contacts with that state consist of only a single act, provided that that act is what gave rise to the claim for which jurisdiction is being sought, and was deliberately directed toward the state.
Hanson v. Dencla – Trust set up naming daughters beneficiaries in DE. Later in FL beneficiary were changed to granddaughters, Daughters sued in Florida saying appointment was invalid.
A state may not exercise jurisdiction over a defendant if the defendant’s contacts with the state are negligible and non-deliberate, and the claim does not arise from those contacts. Not all contacts are minimum contacts.
Products Liability – Need to meet two requirements
Effort to market in the forum state – mere fact that product ends up in state is not enough. D must have made effort
World Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson – Woodson bought Car in NY and Crashed in OK. Tried to Sue NY dealer in OK
In order to be subject to a states jurisdiction, a D must have chosen to have contact with that state. Considerations of fairness, convenience, and the interests of the state in overseeing the litigation are irrelevant
Knowledge on in-state sales enough – if D knows that product will eventually be sold in forum state it may be enough to establish minimum contacts. However, if this is only contact it may be unreasonable to make D defend there
Asahi metal v. Superior court – Victim of crash sued in CA against Taiwanese tire-tube maker who crossed claimed against Japanese co.
It is sufficient to establish minimum contacts to show that Asahi Metal has intentionally placed products into the “stream of commerce.” However, it would be fundamentally unfair and unreasonable to require it to defend this suit in California
Contractual Relationship – Minimum Contacts are more likely to be found where on party to a contract is a resident of the forum state.
Contractual Relationship involving the state – where the K ties the parties business activities to the state such as payments going to state will likely establish minimum contacts
Choice of Law Clause – This will be a factor in establishing minimum contacts
Reasonable Anticipation – Could the D have reasonably anticipated being required to litigate in the forum state
Burger King v. Rudzewicz – D(MI) had K with P (FL) to franchise BK. D defaulted on payments so P sued in Florida.
K alone may not be enough for Personal Jurisdiction. However, if K + negotiations and other equity considerations occurred in state then Minimum contacts would be met.
General Contacts – personal jurisdiction based on sufficiently substantial and continuous minimum contacts between a nonresident defendant and the forum state that are unrelated to the occurrence.
Perkins v. Benguet Mining – D is Philippine mining co. P sued in Ohio because president of Co’ lived in ohio
When there are sufficient minimum contacts, a state may assert jurisdiction over a defendant even for causes of action arising outside the jurisdiction. Ds contacts with a forum can serve as a basis for jurisdiction even if the cause of action arises elsewhere.
Helicopteros Nacionales v. Hall – P (peru) sent pilots to TX for training, bought helicopters in TX. Crash in Peru. Hall sued in TX
Minumum Contacts not met because Crash is only related to events in TX it did not arise of the events
IN REM – Power over Property
Shaffer v. Heitner – P brought derivative suit against D&O of Greyhound (DE) in DE even though they operate from AZ and tried to attach their stock
Jurisdiction was not appropriate because the prop was the only contact in the state and not related to the claim. when jurisdiction is based on property, minimum contacts rule applies
Jurisdiction based on Physical Presence
Burnham v. Superior Court – NJ Man while in Cali on business was served with Divorce papers. P claims no minimum contacts to Cali
Jurisdiction Based on physical presence comports with Due Process, Regardless of the D’s Contacts with the forum state
Grace v. MacArthur: D was a passenger on flight fron TN to TX. When the plane was over AK, he was serviced.
jurisdiction is appropriate: this is the one piece of Pennoyer that is left
NOTICE – Defendants must be given adequate notice of
from the face of the complaint
Louisville Railroad v. Mottley – P sued in federal court over cancellation for free lifetime pass on railroad from earlier settlement which RR revoked because of new federal law assuming RR would raise the federal law in their defense.
In order to obtain Fed. Jur. A P’s cause of action must involve a federal question, rather than anticipating that a D’s defense will raise it.
TB Harms Co v. Eliscu – suit over who owns song brought under fed. Copyright statute. Breach was K question not copyright question.
Suit alleging assignment of copyright does not arise under copyright statute and this no federal jurisdiction exists
For federal jurisdiction you need the following
o complaint for a remedy expressly granted by the act,
o Assert a cliam requiring construction of the act
o Present a case where a distinctive policy of the act requires that federal principles control the disposition of the claim
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 28 U.S.C. § 1367
ancillary jurisdiction- the authority of a federal court to hear claims they would not normally be able to hear, but can because they arise from a set of facts already in federal court
occurs when the non-federal claim is in response to the original complaint
Pendent Claim Jurisdiction: P can join related federal and state claims, which arise out of a “common nucleus of operative facts” (Gibbs)
Pendent Party Jurisdiction: P can bring a claim arising under federal law against 1 D and assert a related state law claim against another non-diverse D, where both claims arise out of the same facts
authorization for pendant jurisdiction and development of balancing test
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs – Gibbs Sued when he was fired from his job because of United actions on both federal and state claims.
a federal court may hear a plaintiffs state law claims based on doctrine of pendent jurisdiction whenever one claim arises under federal law and the state and federal claims derive from same facts. suggested balancing test- should weigh judicial efficiency, convenience, fairness to litigants, and if the state claim is more important than the federal claim in deciding whether or not to exert jurisdiction
cannot grant pendant-party jurisdiction if the state claim is contrary to the federal statute granting jurisdiction
Aldinger v. Howard – P sued officers under federal civil rights statutes. Then tried to join county under state laws. Federal statute explicitly excluded application to municipalities
a plaintiff who has asserted a federal jurisdiction claim against one defendant should not necessarily be allowed to join an entirely different defendant on the basis of a state law claim over which there is no independent basis of federal jurisdiction just because they derive from common facts. If the statute is silent then pendent jurisdiction would be okay.
Cannot sue diverse parties in federal court, knowing that they will join non-diverse parties in attempt to have case tried in federal court
Owen v. Kroger – Kroger (IA) sued Omaha (NE) when he was electrocuted. Omaha brought in Owen (IA) whose fault it actually was.
Since Both parties are now from IA there is no complete diversity. To allow this case would create loop hole that people could use to sue when complete diversity did not exist in federal court
Finley v. United States – After plane crash P sued US under tort claims act. Tried to join nonfederal claims against diff parties also involved
Unless the underlying statute authorizes federal jurisdiction specifically pendant party jurisdiction it is not okay . If statute is silent then pendent jurisdiction is not okay
28 USC 1367 = Dispositive Authority on Supplemental Jurisdiction
This statute is the answer to Aldinger, Owens, and Finely (overturned)
Combined Pendant J and ancillary J into “Supplemental Jurisdiction”
Section A: like Gibbs – all claims, counter claims, and cross claims from the same facts
Section B: No Supp. J if it would destroy DoCJ (Owens)