Civil Procedure Outline
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Traditional Bases for Jurisdiction
Pennoyer v Neff
i. A defendant must be personally served or voluntarily appear before a court, otherwise that court is in violation of the defendant’s due process rights
ii. A judgment that is not consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth amendment is void in the state it was adjudicated and not entitled to Full Faith and Credit in any other state.
iii. Property must be attached at the time an action is brought. If property was found after the case, the validity of the judgment must be questioned because there is a potential for lack of jurisdiction.
iv. Transient jurisdiction: service of a non-resident while he is in the state is valid.
Grace v MacArthur: there is no length of time in which the defendant has to be in the state, as long as he is in the state, he can be served with process. The court upheld exercise of jurisdiction over a defendant in an airplane as he flew over the state.
Blackmer v U.S.: a court may exercise jurisdiction over a citizen who is absent from the jurisdiction
Milliken v Meyer: states have personal jurisdiction over those domiciled in their state.
Adam v Saenger: principle of implied consent; by filing a suit, a plaintiff is deemed to have consented to the jurisdiction for the purpose of a counterclaim by the defendant.
Expanding the bases of personal jurisdiction
Hess v Pawloski
i. To promote public safety, it is acceptable for states to exercise jurisdiction over non-residents who operate dangerous machines within their territory by using statutes that are based on implicit consent.
A new theory of jurisdiction – minimum contacts
International Shoe v Washington
i. To subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, due process requires only that he have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
ii. Minimum contacts may be established by systematic and continuous activity within a state, and if an action is brought against those activities, it would be fair and reasonable for the defendant to defend the suit. To the extent that an entity enjoys benefits and privileges from the laws of a state, the entity should be liable to personal jurisdiction from those activities.
iii. General jurisdiction: when a defendant has sufficient contacts with a state such that a cause of action doesn’t necessarily have to arise out of those activities and exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant would be proper.
Specific jurisdiction and state long-arm laws
Gray v American Radiator
i. Two issues a court faces when deciding if it has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
1. Whether defendant’s conduct falls under coverage of the state’s long arm statute. States can only exercise personal jurisdiction over someone only if authorized to do so.
2. If they do fall under coverage, whether that coverage is consistent with defendant’s due process rights. State laws cannot violate the Constitution.
Feathers v McLucas: NY court interprets long-arm statute involving tortious acts differently than the Illinois court.
Murphy v Erwin-Walsey: the courts will read “within the state” more liberally when the relevant act is an intentional tort.
McGee v International Life Insurance
i. Sufficient that the suit was based upon a contract which had a substantial connection with the State.
ii. The State had a manifest interest in providing effective redress for its residents when their insurers refused to pay claims
iii. The limits to personal jurisdiction have made it less burdensome for parties to travel to litigate.
Hanson v Denlka
i. There must be minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state before it can exercise personal jurisdiction. It is not simply a matter of convenience, but a consequence of territorial limits on the power of the respective state.
ii. The unilateral activity of those claiming some relationship with the State does not satisfy the requirement of contact, although application of this rule will vary with quality and nature of defendant’s activity.
iii. There must be some act by which the defendant purposely avails itself to conduct activities within a forum state, thereby invoking the protections and benefits of that state’s laws.
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v Woodson
i. Factors to weigh in evaluating fairness and reasonableness:
1. Burden on the defendant
2. Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
3. Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenience and effective relief
4. Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies
5. Shared interest of several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.
ii. But these convenience factors are not even relevant until it is determined that there is some basis in the defendant’s conduct or activities f
ed in California, research was done there, damages were felt the most there because that was the state with the greatest circulation of the magazine and where the actress lived and worked
2. Intentional tortious act was aimed at California
3. Defendants should have reasonably expected to be haled to court there as a result of their actions.
Burger King v Rudzewicz
i. Contacts in this case were sufficient to uphold personal jurisdiction:
1. The defendant deliberately reached out beyond Michigan
2. The defendant should have been able to foresee that his lack of payment would cause injuries to a Florida corporation.
3. During the contract process, the defendant knew that he was becoming associated with a Florida corporation.
ii. It’s possible where purposeful availment has been met and cause of action arises out of this availment, defendant must make a compelling case upon reasonable and fairness factors.
iii. Once purposeful availment has been established, have to look at contacts with the forum state and examine those contacts to determine if it is fair and reasonable to subject him to Florida jurisdiction.
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v Superior Court
i. Merely placing a product into the stream of commerce with the knowledge that it might or will be sold in the forum state does not constitute by itself purposeful direction/availment.
ii. Some additional conduct on the part of the defendant may indicate an intent or purpose to serve the market of the forum state
1. Design a product for a market in the forum state
2. Advertise in the forum state
3. Doesn’t have any substantive medium for advice
4. Have a sale agent in the forum state
iii. A consideration of the fair play and substantial justice factors revealed that the jurisdiction over Asahi would be unreasonable:
1. Burden on the defendant would be severe
2. Interests of the plaintiff were slight
3. State’s interests were considerably diminished when the plaintiff settled
General jurisdiction and state long-arm statutes
