CIVIL PROCEDURE II
a) Personal Jurisdiction
§ In what states can P sue D? We’re not worried about state or federal court – that’s SMJ.
§ The court must have power to give that adjudication. Either has power over D herself of D’s property.
§ Three kinds of PJ:
§ In Personam (court has power over D herself)
§ can be either general or specific:
§ general jurisdiction – D can be sued in a forum on a claim that arose anywhere in the world
§ state of domicile (for individuals) and incorporation and principal place of business (for corporations) comprise the easy instances of general jurisdiction.
§ specific jurisdiction – D is being sued on a claim that has some connection to the forum
§ In Rem (power over D’s property); juris has to attach to property before lawsuit.
§ Quasi In Rem (also power over D’s property, but dispute is not over property)
Art. IV, § 1
§ Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
14th Amendment § 1
§ forbids states from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
1. CONSTITUTIONAL TEST
§ D must have such contacts with the forum state that the exercise of PJ would be fair and reasonable. D must also be given appropriate notice of the action and an opportunity to be heard.
§ how broadly can a court exercise jurisdiction constitutionally?
§ if D has consented to jurisdiction, was served with process within the forum state, or was domiciled in the state (Traditional Rule (Pennoyer)), that might be enough! Must also say that even though there is a traditional basis, some justices say that you have to go through the Shoe test
– Pennoyer v. Neff
§ stresses raw physical power – state has power over people and property within its boundaries
§ gives us the traditional basis of In Personam Jurisdiction:
1. presence = the D is served with process while in the forum
2. agent = D’s agent was served in the forum
3. domicile = the D is domiciled in the forum (gives general jurisdiction)
4. consent = D consents to jurisdiction
§ shows that it is difficult to get IPJ under Pennoyer – as society became more mobile, this became a problem. Supreme Court wanted to expand it.
§ Issue: can judgments obtained against non-residents who fail to appear in court be sustained by default judgments where service of process is accomplished solely through publication?
§ Rules: proceedings in a court of law to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom the court has not jurisdiction are invalid for want of due process of law
1. A state has exclusive jurisdiction over people and property within its borders.
2. No state can exercise jurisdiction over people or property in other states.
3. Judgments in personam without personal service of process shall not be upheld.
4. Judgments in rem with only constructive service may be upheld.
5. The “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution only applies “when the court rendering the judgment had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter”.
§ FOUNDATION FOR JURISDICTION – NO LONGER GOOD LAW (Traditional basis may still be evaluated)
In Rem Requirements
§ less important today than it used to be b/c we’ve expanded in personam
§ jurisdiction over D’s property
§ what is the difference between in rem and quasi in rem?
§ In Rem: dispute is over who owns the property
§ Quasi In Rem: dispute has nothing to do w/ ownership of the property
§ how do we do this today? attachment statute
§ basically says that the court can seize or attach property that is in the forum that the D owns or claims to own
– Constitutional Test
§ Pennoyer said that all you need to do is seize or attach at the outset of the case
§ ShafferSup Ct held that for the constitutional test for IR and QIR, you must access whether there are minimum contacts
§for QIR, there’s no question that the present of the property is not enough to get jurisdiction – have to do Shoe test.
§the minimum contacts standard for jurisdiction applies to proceedings in rem as well as proceedings in personam.
§Reasoning: suits really affect a person’s interest in property, not the physical property itself. Because due process protects a person’s interest in property, in rem cases should be analyzed according to the same due process standard used in in personam cases.
§Shaffer does not destroy in rem jurisdiction: Shaffer merely prevents the use of quasi in rem jurisdiction when property is the only contact and the action
· Burden on the Parties: Economic, time, relative burdens.
· Law: What forum’s law?
· Interest of the State: in providing a forum for & protecting its citizens.
· Multiplicity of Suits: Will they all be resolved?
· Forum: Alternative forum available? Fair & convenient?
· Evidence: Where is the bulk of the evidence?
· Witnesses: Where are the witnesses?
– International Shoe Co. v. Washington
§ time had come to restate the principles – now we can get IPJ even if D is not in the forum.
§ we have jurisdiction if the “D has such minimum contacts with the forum that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
§ Issue: whether a non-resident corporation with no offices within a state, and making no contracts there, is subject to jurisdiction in the state by virtue of soliciting sales orders within the state and shipping merchandise to the state.
§ Rule:jurisdiction is proper over a D who has “certain minimum contacts with [the state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’”
§ fair play and substantial justice: the inconvenience of litigating in a distant forum is relevant
§ most quoted text on jurisdiction: “but now that the capias ad respondendum has given way to personal service of summons or other form of notice, due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice””
the D who deliberately chooses to take advantage of the “benefits and protections of the laws” of a state will not be heard to cry “foul” when that state holds her to account in its courts of her in-state acts.