CIV PRO 2 Master Flow-Chart
HOW TO GET SOMEONE INTO COURT? PERSONAL JURISDICTION FLOWCHART
1) There are 5 so-called “keys to the courthouse door” by which a P can obtain PJ over a D (more than the limitations imposed in Pennoyer). In this case…
2) “[The Forum State] has [type of jurisdiction] over D, because [general description of type of conduct needed for that type of PJ] by [specific acts by D that satisfy this standard]:”
a) TRANSIENT JURISDICTION – “Tag , you’re it.”
i) Basic Concept: If D can be served in the state, then D can be sued there.
(1) “Transient Jurisdiction was a long-standing tradition deeply rooted in legal system, & if within a territory, a party may justly be subjected to its process.” Burnham
ii) Only type of jurisdiction that requires D to be served in the state.
iii) Applies even if D is just passing through the state.
(1) Exception: Can’t fraudulently induce them to state.
(2) Exception: Can’t be served if in state for litigation purposes (very limited).
(1) Burnham v. Superior Ct – Man visiting kids in CA got served with divorce papers.
(2) Braniff – Man served on airplane while flying over state.
b) DOMICILE JURISDICTION
i) Basic Concept: If D is domiciled in the forum state, D can be sued in the forum state.
ii) A court may constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over anyone domiciled in that state.
(1) Even though d has changed his residence = still domiciled in XX.
(2) Even if d intend to go elsewhere from new residence = still domiciled.
(3) Even if a d is served somewhere else or is gone all of the time / out of the country / etc., if he is domiciled in the state, then he can be sued there.
iii) People have only one domicile (not as easy to establish as a mere residence).
(1) Domicile is based on residence + intent to reside there (Mass v. Perry — LA/MS).
(2) Child is domiciled where his parents are domiciled;
(3) Corporation is domiciled in the State of Incorporation only (often Del) — not POB, which only applies if you are dealing with a Federal Question.(principle place of business)
(4) Note: Corporate officer’s domicile is irrelevant to determination of PJ over corp.
iv) Test: Voting, Taxes, Term of residence, Statements made, etc. are proof of domicile.
v) Unincorporated entity(union etc.)- Is every state in which a person is a citizen
(1) Class actions & shareholders-the citizen who represents the class action
(2) Estate action, incompetent, minor,- dead/insane/minor persons domicile.
(3) Child-same as parents
(4) Wife-same as husbands,
(5) Military-place b4 ente3ring service.
(6) Out of state student-original residence before school.
vi) Domicile is determined when the action is commenced.
c) CONSENT JURISDICTION
i) Basic Concept: If D agrees to be sued in the forum state, D can be sued in forum state.
ii) There are several types of Consent Jurisdiction:
(1) Consent in litigation / limited consent – If D makes a “special appearance” to challenge the PJ of the lawsuit, but does not consent to the PJ, that is not consent; rather the court must determine if PJ is proper (per Ins. Co. of Ireland v. Bauxites). However if they don’t object to the suit, they are assumed to have consented.
(2) Advance Contractual Consent (Waiver) – There is a clause in a contract that stipulates the suit will be heard in a certain jurisdiction. (per Carnival Cruise Lines).
(3) Advanced Coerced Consent – The state says that if you do “X” in our state then you must agree that you will consent to “Y” jurisdiction for any cause of action arising out of that action. Alternately, if a company does business in X state they must appoint an agent that may be sued / served on your behalf – consent to states PJ.
(4) Implied Consent – State passes a statute that says if you drive there, you “agree” to be subject to its jurisdiction. (per Hess v. Pawloski).
(a) This is rarely followed however; must turn to Long-Arm/General Jurisdiction
(b) Consent cannot be the sole basis for jurisdiction … must get another one, too.
iii) Must OBJECT in a timely fashion in order to make sure the consent is not waived.
iv) Basic Concept: If D has contacts of a Systematic and Continuous nature in the forum state, then D can be sued in that state for any action – even actions that do not arise out of those contacts. Helicopteros.
v) Generally, this is applied to corporations. This type of PJ is based on the “General Contacts”
) Convenience of witnesses and other evidence
(c) States interest in providing a local forum for its citizens & to regulate activity within state.
ELEMENTS: Elements for Specific Jurisdiction (ALL must be met)
REQUIREMENT 1: Purposeful Availment of the states laws, taxes, etc. – There must be sufficient contacts so that D purposefully availed himself of some activity / law /etc. within the state. (Worldwide VW).
(d) Seeking to serve the state – D meant for products to go to that state. WW, Asahi.
(e) Directed some action at the state – Brunt of harm in that state?
(i) Calder– (Applies to intentional torts) Court said tort aimed / targeted at CA (Effects Test: 1) Tort was intentional, 2) aimed or targeted at the forum state, 3) harm was suffered there, 4) defendant was principal participant).
(ii) Keeton v. Hustler – “lack of contacts, though not irrelevant, did not foreclose jurisdiction”; just need sufficient contacts on part of D for action to proceed.
(f) Derived some benefit from state — take advantage of laws, taxes, etc.
(i) Gray v. Am Radiator – Boiler explosion, P sued valve maker. Court said if reasonable to know that the component would be in the state, that is sufficient minimal contacts (liberal view, but within constitutional limits).
(ii) WWVW– NY car, OK wreck. Court said fact product got there not enough; rather there must be some purposeful intent to avail/market there. (Different from Gray).
(iii) Hanson v. Denckla – P set up trust in DEL, moved to FL. Later, FL recipients sued. Availment based on D contacts, not P contacts, so no availment in FL.
(g) “Foreseeability of being haled into court” for the activity.
(i) Calder – Yes. WWVW – No.
(h) Delivery into the Stream of Commerce — Purposefully direct or only foreseeable?