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 whi
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
The state has control over what happens w/in its borders