CIVIL PROCEDURE II OUTLINE
a. Where can a case be brought?
i. Subject matter jurisdiction – Can the court hear this case?
1. Federal courts can hear cases of diversity jurisdiction and federal questions
2. State courts can hear about anything (tort, federal question, state legislative, etc.)
3. If a federal question is brought in a state court, the case can be removed to a federal court.
4. Subject matter jurisdiction can NEVER be waived.
ii. Personal jurisdiction – Is the D subject to process and judgments of this jurisdiction?
1. Personal jurisdiction can be waived (this is only an issue for the D b/c the P consents to personal jurisdiction by filing the case)
b. Dole Food Company v. Watts
i. Personal jurisdiction is reviewed by the appellate court de novo
1. Ct. is deciding on a question of law
2. Appellate Ct. gives no deference to the trial court’s decision
3. App. Ct. applies facts to the case w/o deference
4. App. Ct. can make an independent decision
ii. General jurisdiction
1. Where there are continuous, systematic contacts with a forum.
2. Lots and lots of contacts.
3. If general jurisdiction is satisfied, then ANYONE in the forum can sue you
4. It is hard to show/satisfy general jurisdiction
a. Must show D has bank accounts in the forum, property, visits the forum, etc.
iii. Specific jurisdiction
1. Must show the following
a. Purposeful Availment – The non-resident D must purposefully direct his activities with the forum or resident thereof
b. The claim must relate to D’s forum-related activities
c. The exercise of jurisdiction must be “reasonable”
i. Factors of “reasonableness” include
1. The extent of the Ds’ purposeful injection into the forum state’s affairs (same as purposeful availment)
2. The burden on the D of defending in the forum
3. The extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the D’s state
4. The forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
5. The most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy
6. The importance of the forum to the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief
7. The existence of an alternate forum
2. With specific jurisdiction you are trying to show contacts with respect to a specific situation
3. The number of contacts you need can be smaller that is required for general jurisdiction
iv. Forum non convenience
1. In order to dismiss a case based on forum non convenience, the moving party must show
a. That there is an adequate alternative forum, AND
b. That the balance of private and public interest factors favors a dismissal
i. In the Dole case, the Ds could have conceded to personal jurisdiction in the Netherlands and the case would have probably been thrown out of CA
v. Long-arm Statute
1. Reaching out to grab people who are outside a jurisdiction (usually a state) in order to get personal jurisdiction over them
2. 2-step process for personal jurisdiction
a. Look at statute to see if it authorizes personal jurisdiction
i. If NO, then that’s the end. No jurisdiction.
b. If Yes, then go to the court’s Due Process statute
i. Is statute co-extensive with Due Process?
ii. Is statute different with Due Process?
3. In Dole, the court said that CA law would apply for the long-arm statute b/c that is the law of the State in which the Dist. Ct. sits.
c. Mwani v. Osama bin Laden
i. Service of Summons
1. Before a federal court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a D, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied
2. Rule 4 sets forth various methods by which summons may be served
a. Ps served Bin Laden by publication in 2 US newspapers and in 1 Afghanistan paper.
3. Service of process does NOT alone establish personal jurisdiction
a. Must be more than notice
b. Must also be “authorization for service of summons on the D” and a “constitutionally sufficient relationship b/w D and the forum.”
ii. Personal Jurisdiction
1. Using D.C’s long-arm statute (which is essentially Rule 4(k)(2)), a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person . . .
a. For a claim arising under federal law
b. Where a summons has been served
c. If the D is not subject to the jurisdiction of any single state court
d. Provided that the exercise of federal jurisdiction is consistent with the Constitution (and laws) of the US
2. A defendant who wants to preclude use of Rule 4(k)(2) has only to name some other state in which the suit could proceed
3. Specific, physical contacts are NOT necessary . . . the “foreseeability” of causing injury in the forum can establish such contacts where the D’s conduct and connection with the forum . . . are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
4. So long as an actor’s efforts are purposefully directed toward residents of another forum, the Supreme Court has consistently rejected the notion that an absence of physical contacts can defeat personal jurisdiction there.
5. Jurisdiction may attach if the D’s conduct is aimed at or has an effect in the forum state.
6. NOTE: In this case, the Court did not use the 7-part “reasonable test” and instead said reasonableness is satisfied b/c purposeful availment is. The Ct. collapsed the 2. KLONOFF says this is Wrong, you need to go thru the 7-part test to determine personal jurisdiction.
II. Historical Approach – Adjudicative Power: Personal Jurisdiction
a. Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) (p.43)
i. ISSUE – Neff is attacking the personal jurisdiction of the first case.
1. This is called a collateral attack
a. Collateral attack is NOT allowed for defects in affidavits
b. Collateral attack is allowed for personal jurisdiction b/c it raises Constitutional issues (Due Process)
ii. ARGUES – Neff argues there is no personal jurisdiction over him. Judgment came down against Neff in Feb. 1866. Neff didn’t obtain the property until Mar. 1866. You have to attach the property b/4 the judgment.
iii. Personal Jurisdiction in Oregon – long arm statute
1. D waives personal jurisdiction by appearing in court or found w/in the borders of the state, OR
2. D is a resident of the state, OR
a. Territoriality – A state protects its citizens and its residents are subject to the state’s laws
3. D has property in the state at the time personal jurisdiction is attached
4. NOTE: under these grounds, there is NO personal jurisdiction over Neff
iv. HOLDING – The requirement of physical presence in the state is NOT fulfilled by unattached property or the hiring of an atty by Neff . . . the test is that of fairness
v. Sup. Ct.’s notion of territorial jurisdiction
1. The state has control over what happens w/in its borders
2. NO state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property w/o its territory
a. Exe: If you live 18 miles away but in another state, then no personal jurisdiction
3. If you want to use property as a basis of personal jurisdiction, it must be attached prior to when the suit was brought.
a. You do NOT have to give personal notice . . . publication of notice is enough. It is presumed that owners of property will know when something is happening to their property.
b. This case (Pennoyer) is NOT about notice. Publication was given.
vi. Full Faith and Credit
1. Each state must give judgments full faith and credit UNLESS the original court did not have jurisdiction over the case.
2. This is a Constitutional Doctrine that says we must respect the contracts and decisions of other states
3. Exception: If original court did not have jurisdiction over the case, then that judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit.
vii. The Pennoyer decision created two tiers of state court jurisdiction which is rooted in Due Process of the 14th Amendment.
1. In personam jurisdiction – personal service – person’s presence in the state
a. A proceeding based on the exercise of the in personam form of personal jurisdiction – is an action whiosse object is the adjudication of the personal rights and obligations of the parites where the “anchor” for jurisdiction is the physical presence of the defendant within the territorial limits of the forum state.
2. In rem or quasi in rem – attachment of person’s property
a. A proceeding against the property itself – is an action where the “anchor” for jurisdiction is the presence of property within the forum state.
b. In rem – the property is subject to the actual suit
a. Jurisdiction over domestic relations/dissolution of marriage cases (otherwise never be able to adjudicate cases where husband left the state)
i. If suing for divorce, you can sue in any state you reside and have personal jurisdiction
ii. Resident can sue non-resident to adjudicate the status of a marriage
iii. This rule for PJ in divorce cases does NOT extend to maintenance, support, etc.
b. Nonresident business entities (if a corporation is going to do business in a state, it must have an agent for “service of process”
b. Hess v. Pawloski (1927) (p.54)
i. HOLDING – Sup. Ct. upheld the statute as constitutional
1. The law is based on the exception that an official can serve as an agent for service of process from the Pennoyer decision.
2. All a P has to do to give a non-resident notice is just mail it to them
1. Notice issue (implied consent is NOT really notice) is separate from personal jurisdiction
2. The Mass. statute is about as “long-arm” as you can get b/c ANY person using the hwy is subject to personal jurisdiction.
3. Case was decided RIGHT b/c by using Mass. hwy you are subject to its laws.
4. Court wanted to get around the strict rules of Pennoyer
5. Hess is different from Pennoyer b/c
a. Hess puts more emphasis on the importance of notice
b. The constructive or implied consent is nonsenseable – no one would think that by using hwy that official is agent
III. Modern Approach
a. International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945) (p.56)
i. Appellant (D) (International Shoe) appeared Specially
1. Specially – D appeared solely to
ed, the court can look past the presence of unequal bargaining power
b. The reasoning behind this is that the court wants to avoid litigation in all cases where there’s an unsophisticated business person.
1. Fine print on back of ticket stub
2. 1st time P saw the forum selection clause was when they got their ticket
3. KLONOFF likes the dissent.
f. Woodring v. Hall 1968 (p.65)
i. 2-PART TEST for PJ:
1. Look at the Long-Arm Statute
a. If you satisfy it then go to 2.
b. If the statute is set up like Due Process, then just go to the minimum contacts.
2. Go to the limits of Due Process
a. Minimum contacts
ii. NOTE: Look at the language and intent of legislature and apply the “wording” of the statute.
iii. EXAM: Even if you don’t satisfy the “long-arm statute,” still go to limits of due process for purposes of the exam and evaluate minimum contacts.
g. McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. 1957 (p.66)
1. General jurisdiction?
a. None existed because the company didn’t have enough contacts with California (no agents, officers, not actively soliciting business in the state)
b. General jurisdiction requires MORE contacts b/c once general jurisdiction is acquired, ANYONE can sue D in that forum
2. Specific jurisdiction? Court said yes.
a. The policy was mailed to California.
b. The premiums were mailed from California to Texas.
c. The person was living in California and suffered injury in California = specific jurisdiction (it’s crazy to think the policy holder should have to go to Texas to get her money; most insurance companies recognize they can be hauled into court in the forum in which their policy holders reside).
d. This single connection was enough for specific jurisdiction
h. Hanson v. Denckla 1958 (p.67)
i. ISSUE – whether the Florida court had personal jurisdiction over the Delaware trust company?
1. One can NOT unilaterally create contacts by moving
2. This applies for both specific and general jurisdiction
i. World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation v. Woodson 1980 (p.68)
1. A state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident D only so long as there exist “minimum contacts” b/w the D and the forum State.
a. 2 purposes of Rule
i. It protects the D against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum.
ii. It acts to ensue that States through their courts, do NOT reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.
2. Even if D suffers no inconvenience by going to another state, the Due Process Clause may diminish the State’s power
3. Foreseeability Test:
a. That the D’s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court there
b. It may be foreseeable that car may go to OK, but the mere unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident D cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State.
ii. HOLDING (J. White):
1. D has not established contacts, ties, or relations with OK by using the traditional application of minimum contacts so the judgment of the Sup. Ct. of OK is reversed.
2. No personal jurisdiction over D.
1. The Ct. used Hansen . . . The mere unilateral act . . . of P driving to OK . . . can not satisfy minimum contacts
2. If there were sufficient notice of OK, then D liable
a. Exe: P needed a new radio and D called OK dealer to set up an appointment
iv. DISSENT (J. Brennan): Red Flag b/c he is by himself
1. “Surely International Shoe contemplated that the significance of the contacts necessary to support jurisdiction would diminish if some other consideration helped established that jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable.
2. Majority pays too much attention to “minimal contacts” and not enough attention to
a. The State’s interest in the case
b. Actual amount of inconvenience for D (D showed none)
c. Fairness and Reasonableness