Select Page

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

1. Introduction to Civil Procedure

FMSH, 1-21

A. Etiquette of Service

220 Wyman v. Newhouse

Judgments arising under fraud cannot pass jurisdiction test

-Judgment in other state through fraud of opposing party not binding on party when judgment attempted to be enforced in other state

-only fraud if trick used to get D into the state; if D already there through no trick then valid service

B. Opportunity to be Heard

Rule: DPC entitles parties to be heard and notified of suit; hearing must be granted at meaningful time and manner

-meaningful time most important; Court is protecting the little guy here

-if a statute violates this, e.g. Fuentes (1972) prejudgment replevin provision saying owner just has to state it is his to get replevin w/ no hearing, then unconstitutional b/c to easy to deprive of property

-4-3 decision, court in little guy helping mode

-important that victim here was in dispute w/ company and that is why she stopped paying

Mitchell (1974) became the counter to this case, in ruling that property could be sequestered w/out notice where document proof is required and buyer was delinquent and paying on installment sale;

-this is more strict than Fuentes statute which only required owner to say its mine, no doc proof

-majority here was Fuentes dissent

Fuentes reaffirmed in North Georgia (1975) where court held that prior notice was to be given before a delinquent’s bank account may be garnished

-statute was trying to protect D against loss but was unfair and violated DPC b/c it allowed D to file bond garnishing P’s account before he was notified and had chance to respond

-court said this statute violated Fuentes holding, and wasn’t saved by Mitchell b/c had no saving characteristics like having to show documented proof and not just saying the property is mind like in Fuentes

222 Fuentes v. Shevin

231 Mitchell v. WT Grant

233 North Georgia Finishing v. Di-Chem

(FMSH, 221-235)

2. Jurisdiction over the Parties / Property

a. Traditional Bases for Jurisdiction

-In order to hear case, court must have personal jurisdiction over person being sued before court can haul person in

Three theories for personal jurisdiction

1. In personam jurisdiction
-dispute regards personal rights and obligations of person
-e.g. Mitchell v. Neff case b/c the issue between them was about personal rights and obligations, dispute had nothing to do w/ property so not in rem, and no quasi in rem b/c property was not attached before the judgment

2. In rem jurisciction
-dispute regards rights to land or property of defendant

3. Quasi-in rem jurisdiction
-dispute regards personal rights and obligations of defendant AND D has property w/in state court is located

Rule: If state attempts to exercise in personam jurisdiction over D, jurisdiction must be established by service to D in the state

e.g. Pennoyer (1875) suit could not go forward against D because he was not served in the state; in personam action there has to be instate service; service in newspaper, how D was served, only good for in rem

-looking to international model; treating states like sovereign entities

-Pennoyer established that P can’t bring suit wherever they want; must not violate DPC which forbids states from “depriving any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law

-state violates when enters judgment against defendants w/out fair judicial procedure

-but also said if you can serve there then you have transient jurisdiction

Only remaining component of this rule is that service in the state can replace any sort of constitutional minimum contacts standard

FMSH, 63-72 (notes 1-5)
63 Pennoyer v. Neff

b. Expanding the Bases of PJ

-States like NJ began requiring out of state drivers to audibly consent (Kane) to being under state J prior to driving; too cumbersome though so after Kane case got implied consent for using;

-As people became more mobile, hard to maintain strict Penno

ontacts; claim has to arise from the in-state contacts

-e.g. E&E 1.2 D did business in SD, in unrelated auto accident w/ P in MN, SD has no jurisdiction over D b/c of his unrelated business there, BUT Pennoyer says that P could sue in SD if she can serve D there

-based on D’s contacts, not P’s; doesn’t matter what P has done (1.1)

IS creates 4 scenarios for us

1. Continuous and Systematic contact with forum state and contacts are related to claim

2. Continuous and Systematic contact with forum state but contacts are UNrelated to claim

3. Occasional or Single and Contact is Related to claim

4. Occasional or Single and Contact is UNrelated to claim


Ford Motor Company sued in Michigan where it makes cars and is sued b/c car it makes is faulty

-this is continuous and systematic
-Ford should answer claim; jurisdiction lies here; YES PJ
-contacts are related to claim

Person in accident in Michigan occasionally in Hawaii on vacation; wants to sue in HI

-contact unrelated
-occasional and Single
-No Personal Jurisdiction; NO PJ

Person in Nebraska accident there w/ ford car; wants to sue in MI

-continuous and systematic but will depend on relation of contact
-Generally you can be sued at your home so Probably PJ here

Ford has no factories in MD; has car show there and person injured by door at show; wants to sue in MD

-Occasional related

The Shoe Spectrum – Glannon

1. No contact in state, no PJ there

2. Casual or Isolated Contacts, no PJ there (e.g. giving business card to guy in GA then he buys your car in NC then sues you in GA)