Select Page

Civil Procedure II
UMKC School of Law
Achtenberg, David Jacks

I. What are we studying in Civ Pro II?… 7
A. Power (of the courts)…… 7
B. Four Subjects…. 7
C. Practical Implications – you need to know the answer to all four of these questions before filing any litigation. 7
D. When we’re looking at Personal Jurisdiction, we’ll really be focusing on the development of the law – an attempt to see the development of the law so that we can predict where the law in this area is headed…… 7
II. Personal Jurisdiction 7
A. What does a court need to have in order to subject an individual to its power?…… 7
B. Notice (Procedural due process) 7
C. Notice as constructive seizure… 7
D. Basics of seizure in Pennoyer… 8
E. Service of process serves two purposes…. 8
III. The Pennoyer Case and Personal Jurisdiction 8
A. Background……….. 8
B. Neff’s Argument 8
C. The Supreme Court standard from Pennoyer… 8
IV. Personal Jurisdiction Immediately After Pennoyer…. 9
A. What are the rules we’re left with? 9
B. When can a court exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant? 9
V. When can a court exercise power over a person?… 9
A. Notice 9
B. Statutory basis for jurisdiction 9
C. Constitutional Exercise of jurisdiction (within Constitutional boundaries) (Pennoyer) 9
D. Venue 9
VI. Why have Constitutional limits to jurisdiction? 9
A. Choice of Laws – Multiple inconsistent liabilities in different states (though the courts try to say this isn’t the case) 9
B. Fairness to non-resident defendants 9
C. State Sovereignty 10
VII. Types of Jurisdiction Table 10
VIII. Paula’s Jurisdiction Problem… 10
A. Parties 10
B. Location 10
C. Where can she sue? 10
IX. Personal Jurisdiction under Pennoyer and its progeny…. 11
A. Pennoyer – based on presence (keep in mind the notion of seizure)… 11
B. Must secure jurisdiction through the method that will bring about the desired result…… 11
C. Hierarchy 11
D. Paula’s Jurisdiction Problem (Detailed Analysis) 11
E. Fraudulent Inducement into the Forum…… 11
X. Problems with Pennoyer. 11
A. The rules don’t necessarily support the rationale 11
B. The exceptions stretched the Pennoyer rule to an ad absurdum extent…. 12
C. What do you do with corporations? 12
XI. International Shoe 12
A. State of Washington was suing I.S. for back payments of unemployment compensation taxes…. 12
B. I.S. is a Delaware Corp. with Corporate Headquarters in St. Louis, MO 12
C. Issue: Does State of Washington have personal jurisdiction over International Shoe?.. 12
D. Pennoyer analysis 12
E. In IS, what’s the outcome (Justice Stone’s opinion)… 13
XII. The International Shoe Test (Minimum Contacts Analysis).. 13
A. Quality and Content of Contact (Contacts) 13
B. Relationship of Contact to the Conduct sued upon (Relatedness) 13
C. Bounded by “Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice”… 13
XIII. Review of Bases for Jurisdiction (Note: ALL must be met) 13
A. Statutory Basis. 13
B. Constitutional Basis 13
C. Notice 14
D. Venue 14
XIV. Personal Jurisdiction under International Shoe Hypotheticals 14
A. Washington resident bough IS shoes at a shoe store in Seattle and is injured due to a defect. Can the resident shoe IS in Washington? 14
B. Oregon resident buys IS shoes in Washington, takes them home to Oregon, and is injured in Oregon by a defect in the shoes. 14
C. Wash. resident visits St. Louis and buys shoes there, takes them home to Wash. and is injured there. Can she sue in Wash.?….. 15
D. Oregon retailer meets IS agent in Seattle and buys 100 pairs of shoes to be delivered in Oregon. Customer discovers a defect and returns a pair of shoes. Can retailer sue in Oregon? 15
XV. Progeny of International Shoe…… 15
A. McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. (1957)……… 15
B. Hanson v. Denckla (1958)……… 15
XVI. States respond statutorily 16
A. States didn’t like the restrictiveness of Pennoyer and its progeny.. 16
B. States respond with “long-arm statutes”, that extended jurisdiction outside of the state (at least nationally) 16
C. Two different kinds of statutes. 16
XVII. In-Class Quiz Review…….. 16
A. Power of state court of individual is derived from the U.S. Constitution. 16
B. International Shoe rejected the territorial basis of jurisdiction 16
C. If a D consents, no statutory basis for jurisdiction is necessary 16
D. Regardless of the type of long-arm statute, courts often interpret those statutes to reach to the limits of due process…. 16
E. Personal jurisdiction is irrelevant in federal courts….. 16
XVIII. Statutes Providing for Personal Jurisdiction 16
A. Kinds of Statutes 16
B. Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp……… 17
C. Keeton is best explained by: 18
D. Burger King 18
XIX. Review to this point 18
A. Tendency to read cases too broadly – especially Calder….. 18
B. Also Burger King read too broadly.. 18
C. Asahi 18
XX. Modern Minimum Contacts Analysis… 19
A. Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 19
B. How would Gray be answered today?…. 20
C. Shaffer v. Heitner (1977)……… 20
XXI. Analysis after Minimum Contacts. 21
A. What about the other possibilities for acquiring personal jurisdiction? 21
B. See the list in the Study Guide 21
C. In-Rem Jurisdiction Quick Quiz (pg. 19)…… 21
XXII. Intro to General Jurisdiction 22
A. Von Marin & Troutman coin the phrases General and Specific Jurisdiction 22
B. Specific Jurisdiction: Relationship between the dispute and contacts with the state…….. 22
C. General Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction regardless of the relationship between the dispute contacts with the state…….. 22
D. Helicopteros is the ONLY recent Supreme Court case that deals with General Jurisdiction as to corporations 22
E. Burnham is about General Jurisdiction for individuals (according to Scalia) 23
F. Review of Specific Jurisdiction Test (See International Shoe).. 23
G. General Jurisdiction Test 23
H. Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall (1984)……… 23
I. Bringing the cases together 24
XXIII. Filling in the gaps 24
A. Pennoyer gave us an outline 24
B. Status Jurisdiction 24
C. Domicile 25
D. Consent 26
XXIV. Bases for Consent to Personal Jurisdiction 26
A. Actual Consent.. 26
B. Appearance 26
C. Statutorily Implied…. 26
D. Insurance Corporation of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee (1982)……… 27
XXV. Drafting Jurisdictional Documents 28
A. Must you plead jurisdictional facts? 28
B. What papers are you going to serve on a defendant along with your complaint? 28
C. How would jurisdiction get raised if not mentioned in the petition? 28
D. Motion to Dismiss v. Default & Collateral Attack… 29
E. Service of Process 29
XXVI. Service of Process 30
A. What about due process in federal courts? See Rule 4k2. It is unclear whether this is Constitutionally OK. There are limits on Federal Courts, which are measured by the 5th Amendment. 5th Amendment rights may differ somewhat from 14th Amendment rights. This particular provision is part of the new revision of the Rules, and three different approaches have been taken:…… 30
B. Effect of mailing service of process has no effect on the Statute of Limitations. It’s filing the complaint that commences the lawsuit. 30
C. What tolls the statute of limitations varies under state law. Some say it’s tolled by the complaint, some say it’s tolled by service of process, some say both. Note that just mailing the waiver is NOT service. Follow the rule of the state in which you’re sitting if it’s a diversity action….. 30
XXVII. Venue 30
A. What separates venue from the other considerations? 30
B. In Missouri (Federal Courts)…. 31
C. Missouri State Courts….. 31
D. State Venue Rule – “Local Action Rule”…….. 31
E. Federal Venue Rules – § 1391 31
F. All the appropriate venues for this action: 32
XXVIII. Changing Venue 32
A. What if we’ve found a venue, but it’s not particularly convenient. 32
B. Plaintiff decides to file in KC, but defendant thinks its either inconvenient or improper. 32
C. Changing Courts 32
D. Removal 34
XXIX. Venue Example – Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 35
A. Plaintiff is the legal secretary of the attorney bringing the case, who was appointed administratrix of the estate of the people killed in Scotland in the plane crash that is the subject of the lawsuit. The secretary is a California resident.. 35
B. They’re suing the airplane maker and the propeller makers….. 35
C. Suit was filed in negligence and products liability (strict liability). This likely had a lot to do with the reason for choosing to file in California – they’re in the forefront of the development of products liability. 36
D. Court has personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff due to consent – the plaintiff chose that jurisdiction in the first place. Raises an interesting question as to whether that also implies consent to unrelated counter-claims…… 36
E. Personal jurisdiction over Piper 36
F. Personal Jurisdiction over Hartzell 36
G. Venue 36
H. Speculative Question – Who else might you have sued, if you were the plaintiff? 37
I. What did Piper say? 37
J. Venue – the removal was to the District Court for the Central District of California (would have been the venue if it was brought there in the first place). 37
K. In Pennsylvania, Piper and Hartzell raise forum non conveniens 37
XXX. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 38
A. Kinds of Courts 38
B. Dividing Up Jurisdiction 38
C. Subject Matter jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear a claim 38
D. Subject Matter Jurisdiction issues must be considered FIRST – the court has to decide if it has power of the case AT ALL before considering whether the court has personal jurisdiction over particular parties…. 39
E. Limited Jurisdiction – Federal trial level courts’ subject matter jurisdiction as set statutorily/constitutionally……. 39
XXXI. Personal Jurisdiction vs. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 39
A. Personal Jurisdiction can be waived so, even if there are problems with PJ and/or Venue, any judgement by the court is still good. 39
B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction is not waivable. If the court doesn’t have SJ, any judgement issued by the court is worthless. 39

d, and conferred by the legislature of each state.
6. Constitutional Basis – the exercise of jurisdiction by state courts is further limited by the US Constitution.
7. Proper Venue – Which court within the jurisdiction has authority to hear the case?
Notice as constructive seizure
8. Used to be that the sheriff of the county would go and arrest (seize) anyone against whom a suit was filed. (capias ad respondendum).
9. Now, service of process serves as a symbol of personal seizure. Therefore, in at least some cases, service is only effective where seizure COULD HAVE taken place.
Basics of seizure in Pennoyer
10.Couldn’t seize him personally. How could they have asserted jurisdiction?
7. Consent
8. Seizure of property.
11.Historically, courts asserted power by seizing either the person or the property (or both).
12.Seizure of the property could affect only the disposition of that property. (Often called “attachment”).
Service of process serves two purposes
13.Notice
14.Basis for exercising power
3. The Pennoyer Case and Personal Jurisdiction
B. Background
15.1st Case
9. Oregon State Court and was Mitchell v. Neff
10.Neff served by publication, didn’t show, and default judgement was granted
16.2nd Case
11.Mitchell moved to enforce the judgement
12.Mitchell forced a sheriff’s sale, where land was purchased by Pennoyer
17.3rd Case
13.Federal Court
14.Neff sued Pennoyer, saying essentially, “give me my land back.”
Neff’s Argument
18.Can’t sell what you can’t own, and Mitchell COULDN’T own Neff’s Land
19.The enforcement of the judgement was void, so Mitchell couldn’t sell to Pennoyer. Pennoyer’s title was therefore void.
20.Why was the judgement void?
15.No notice
16.EVEN IF there was notice, the property was not attached (b/c it wasn’t attached when the original lawsuit was brought) – the affadavit that purports to attach the property is insufficient because it didn’t describe any particular piece of property (as required by the statute).
17.EVEN IF the affadavit was valid, there was no seizure of person or property IN THE STATE. Seizure of person or property must be seizure IN THE STATE which is attempting to exercise jurisdiction. It’s about territory.
The Supreme Court standard from Pennoyer
21.A state court has power within its own territory
22.Each state has that power, and the limits of that power extend only to the borders of the state.
4. Personal Jurisdiction Immediately After Pennoyer
C. What are the rules we’re left with?
When can a court exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant?
23.Present in the state
18.Person (in personam), or
19.Property (in rem or quasi in rem)
24.Consent
5. When can a court exercise power over a person?
D. Notice
E. Statutory basis for jurisdiction
F. Constitutional Exercise of jurisdiction (within Constitutional boundaries) (Pennoyer)
25.Presence of person in the state at the time (remember seizure)
26.Presence of property in the state at the time (broadly constructed)
20.Actual, real property
21.Debt (located where the debtor is)
22.Other financial obligations (work like debt)
27.Consent (before or during the lawsuit)
28.A state always has jurisdiction over the legal status of one of its citizens/residents in relation to a non-resident (resident at the time)
23.Marriage/Divorce
24.Adult/Juvenile
25.Residency/Citizenship
26.Competent/Incompetent
27.Incarcerated/Free
28.Parent/Child
29.Business Form (Corporation, Partnership, etc.)
30.Some formerly important ones are no longer recognized
1. Slave/Free
2. Married/Single Woman
29.Businesses within the state? (Maybe just an extension of one of the above categories – courts have disagreed).
30.Residence/Domicile/Citizen – if you’re a citizen of a state, the state can exercise jurisdiction over you even if you are never in the state, never own property in the state, and don’t consent. (Think members of military posted abroad).
Venue
6. Why have Constitutional limits to jurisdiction?
G. Choice of Laws – Multiple inconsistent liabilities in different states (though the courts try to say this isn’t the case)
Fairness to non-resident defendants