Personal Jurisdiction:
Personal Jurisdiction is largely about the winning and losing, and the amount of the verdict. The decision of where a suit is going to be located often makes the difference between whether a case is filed or ignored. The underlying concept of personal jurisdiction is whether the court has the authority to render a judgment against the parties or against the property interest contested.
Traditional Concepts of Jurisdiction:
In personam
In rem
Quasi in rem (“in the nature of rem”)
cemented the reality that plaintiffs cannot always bring a suit where they want to – extending the reach of a court’s jurisdiction too far will violate due process. This is because jurisdiction has to recognize the sovereignty of individual states. However, the “full faith and accord” provision of the Constitution requires recognition of a valid judgment. : the action is begun by seizing property owned by (attachment), or a debt owed to (garnishment) the defendant, within the forum state. The thing seized is a pretext for the court to decide the case without having jurisdiction over the defendant’s person. Any judgment affects only the property seized, and the judgment cannot be sued upon in any other court.: jurisdiction over a thing, gives the court power to adjudicate a claim made about a piece of property or about a status. It permits the court to dispose of the property in accordance with the outcome of the litigation, and to “bind the world” regarding the rights to property within its borders. This type of jurisdiction does not require service upon the individual, only upon the property itself. : jurisdiction over the defendant’s “person,” gives the court power to issue a judgment against her personally (either forcing a payment of damages or utilizing an injunction to make them act or cease action). All of the person’s assets may be seized to satisfy the judgment, and the judgment can be sued upon in other states as well.
Pennoyer v. Neff
Hostile Nations (Power Theory)
They can require that a bond be posted:
They can require a hostage
They can revoke citizenship
They can jail a party for entering their borders…
Power theory both does and does not exist. As a limitation, it doesn’t exist. However, it still continues as a way to define jurisdiction.
Modernly, there are four requirements for forcing a defendant to defend in the forum:: What are the options of a nation (regarding jurisdiction) for a party outside their borders?
Modern Requirements:
Proper Notice (Procedural Due Process)
Constitutional Basis (Substantive Due Process – Minimum Contacts)
Statutory Basis
Proper Venue
Due process and Jurisdictional questions frequently demonstrate theoretical orientations beyond merely “liberal” and “conservative.” Different theoretical dynamic frequently intersperse jurisdiction questions, which makes the outcome of jurisdiction questions difficult to predict.
Nationalism v. States Rights
Pro-Plaintiff v. Pro-Defendant
Expansive vs. Narrow views of Due Process Protections.
Static (historic) v. dynamic (current fairness) views of Due Process.
: Any one of these particular “keys” entitles a plaintiff to sue within their chosen court:
Five Keys to the Courthouse Door
Transient Jurisdiction
Domicile Jurisdiction
Consent Jurisdiction
Long-Arm Jurisdiction
General Jurisdiction
Transient Jurisdiction:
Domicile Jurisdiction:
Service:
Consent Jurisdiction
: If you agree to be sued within a particular forum, you can be. Basic concept is that a defendant “domiciled” within a forum state can be sued in the forum state. A state has personal jurisdiction over their domiciliaries even if they aren’t present within the state. “tag” or “presence” jurisdiction. If defendant can be served within the forum (i.e. they are physically present within the forum state), they can be sued there. The court is entitled to enforce a judgment against a defendant because they have the right to jail them. Transient jurisdiction has survived Due Process analysis because history has given defendant’s “notice.”
Objection to Personal Jurisdiction:
(No Forum Non-Conveniens)
Due Process and Jurisdiction: Conflicting Judicial Approaches:
o
Exceptions:
§
Fraudulent Inducement
§
Presence for Litigation
§
Corporations
·
Fiduciary Shield Rule
o
Transient jurisdiction is the only type of personal jurisdiction that requires service within the forum state. Rule 4(e) Unless otherwise provided by federal law, service upon an individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed, other than an infant or an incompetent person, may be effected in any judicial district of the United States…(2) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally or by leaving copies thereof at the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.
§
MO Service:
§
The lesson regarding service is that service requirements should be carefully observed. Caselaw has taken many states’ requirements beyond the realm of plain English.
o
Consent in the Litigation
§
Special appearance:
·
Consenting to jurisdiction for the determination of jurisdiction is binding on the defendant. A defendant who makes a special appearance cannot later protest the exercise of personal jurisdiction. A defendant is bound by the decision of jurisdiction, which then enables the court to exercise jurisdiction over the merits of the case.
Rule 12(b)
·
Other motions can be added to the 12(b)(2) motion without waiving consenting to the jurisdiction of the court.
§
Answer:
Rule 12(h)(1)
Defaulting
eliminates the opportunity to defend on the merits. Under Pennoyer, the judgment of a default decision (without personal jurisdiction) is void, even in the state giving the judgment.
§
Basic Rule:
§
Filing Suit:
Defendant’s Response to Original Suit:
Action in the Rendering Court:
Action in the Enforcing Court:
D
appears, defends on merits, and loses.
Enters judgment for P
Must enforce the rendering court’s judgment, even if D challenges the rendering court’s jurisdiction D has waived his objection.
D
makes special appearance or 12(b)(2) motion; court agrees that it lacks jurisdiction.
In most cases, dismisses action for lack of jurisdiction; in some may order proper service to cure jurisdictional defect.
If original suit dismissed, there will be no judgment to enforce. However, P may file a new suit in a court that has jurisdiction over the defendant.
D
makes special appearance or 12(b)(2) motion; court upholds jurisdiction; D defaults.
Enters judgment for P.
Must enforce judgment because D has already litigated the rendering court’s jurisdiction and lost.
D
loses on objection to jurisdiction; defends action on the merits; loses; appeals.
In most states, appellate court may review decision that jurisdiction was proper; a few treat defense on merits as a waiver of the jurisdictional objection.
If jurisdiction upheld on appeal, or objection waived by defense on merits, must enforce the rendering court’s judgment.
D
defaults, contest jurisdiction in enforcing court
Enters default judgment for P, unless lack of jurisdiction is clear from the complaint.
Enforcing court may decide whether rendering court had jurisdiction; if it holds it did not, it refuses enforcement. If it holds that it did, it must enforce the judgment.
D
defaults, denies liability on the merits in the enforcing court.
Enters default judgment for P, unless lack of jurisdiction is clear from the complaint.
Enforces the judgment; full faith and credit clause precludes reexamination of merits, which are settled by default.
Long-Arm Jurisdiction
: “Content Based Specific Personal Jurisdiction”— If (1) defendant has sufficiently significant contacts with the forum state and (2) the forum is reasonable… defendant can be sued in the forum state for causes of action arising out of those contacts. Long arm jurisdiction relates to the concept that an individual or business who voluntarily engage the forum state will be held accountable for claims arising from that voluntary engagement.
Long-Arm jurisdiction statutes were the state’s reaction to Pennoyer. While there is no requirement that a state exercise its jurisdiction to the maximum extent permitted by due process, some legislatures decided to do so. However, most states instead enacted statutes that enabled them to exercise jurisdiction in specific circumstances.
Statutory/Const
of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”: An archaic and obsolete concept (“implied” consent isn’t real). The Supreme Court has ruled consent statutes are invalid – has mostly been replaced by long arm statutes. However, some states still possess them. They are still utilized because the statutes themselves (provided there is sufficient long-arm grounds) allow service upon an official (usually the Secretary of State), who can then serve the party by certified mail.: This is typically created statutorily – most states require a registered service agent as a term of doing business within the state, and many also require consent to the state’s personal jurisdiction.While these are frequently enforceable, they are only valid as to the determinative law, not as a guarantee of the forum. Forum selection clauses usually include the designation of an agent to receive process. These are usually enforceable as they include prompt transmittal to the defendant. : These are generally upheld, as long as they aren’t unreasonable. : Filing a counter-claim consents to personal jurisdiction for the counter-claim. Don’t do anything until jurisdiction has been objected to. A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of process is waived (A) if omitted from a motion in the circumstances described in subdivision (g), or (B) if it is neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading or an amendment thereof permitted by Rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course.an answer can raise the affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction (without filing a 12(b) motion). Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion… (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person… A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted. No defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion. Showing up within the jurisdiction purely to consent to the jurisdiction doesn’t waive the right. Some states hold that only jurisdiction can be objected to, and any other response may be a consent to the authority of the court to determine the merits of the court (and be bound by the judgment) – however, most follow the more liberal approach of the federal rules. A special appearance is consenting to jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction. : Appearing within the forum without objecting to it is sufficient grounds for personal jurisdiction. Requires service to a “family member,” which has been interpreted to include any member of a household.: some states (but not MO) have held that transient jurisdiction doesn’t apply to an individual who is only in the state on corporate business, if they are being sued as an individual (since their presence is only as a corporate fiduciary).: Corporations present a weird issue – some states have held that service upon an officer or director is sufficient for transient jurisdiction upon the corporation. Most courts have limited this ruling to officers/directors who are in the forum state on “corporate business” (e.g. would not apply to a vacationing officer). : Some states have specific requirements for people who are only present for the purpose of litigation (e.g. witnesses). MO has a very narrow rule exempting extradition in criminal cases.: service is invalidated when the plaintiff has lured the defendant into the state for service of process. This is likely to result in a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
