CIVIL PROCEDURE
Elliott, Fall 2011
I. Personal Jurisdiction
a. Definition:
i. Ability of the forum to exercise power over the party to the action
b. Traditional Rules
i. Based on presence of the person in the forum
ii. Courts were unable to gain jurisdiction without the person’s physical presence inside the courts territorial jurisdiction
c. Modern Rules
i. Minimum Contacts
1. The Doctrine
a. Comes from International Shoe v Washington
2. “Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam…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.”
3. Reasonability/Foreseeability
a. Does the person have reasonable expectation of being haled in to court in the jurisdiction.
1. “that the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there” WW Volkswagen v Woodson
2. Court found suit in OK against NY car company not foreseeable based off the natural mobility of the automobile. (WW Volkswagen).
a. “financial benefits accruing…from a collateral relation to the forum state will not support jurisdiction” unless they stem from sufficient contact (WW Volkswagen)
b. DPC designed to give predictability, fair play
c. Allows structuring conduct to prevent liability in a forum(s)
b. Based on an “estimate of the inconveniences”
a. Basically, is it reasonable to litigate the dispute in this forum, or is it so inconvenient that it would violate “substantial justice” to litigate it here.
1. “reasonable to require the corporation to defend the particular suit which is brought there” (WW Volkswagen v Woodson)
b. Factors in Reasonability (WW Volkswagen)
1. Burden on the defendant
2. Forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
3. Plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief
4. Judicial economy/Effective Administration
5. The “several” states interest in furthering “fundamental substantive social policies”
4. Sufficient Contacts to satisfy Reasonability (Burger King v Rudzewicz, US Supreme 1985)
a. Purposeful Availment
a. “some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities w/in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws”
b. Thus where the D deliberately has engaged in significant activities within a State or has created “continuing obligations” between himself and residents of the forum, he manifestly avails himself of the privilege of conducting business there, not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigations in that forum.
b. Purposeful Direction
a. “So long as a commercial actor’s efforts are “purposefully directed” toward residents of another State, we have consistently rejected the notion that an absence of physical contacts can defeat personal jurisdiction here”
b. “fair warning” requirement is satisfied if the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that “arise out of or relate to” those activities.
c. Effects Test (Calder v Jones, US Supreme, 1984)
1. Defendant must have
a. Committed an intentional act expressly aimed at forum state where harm is suffered
2. Based off libel case against the National Enquirer (FL) in which Shirley Jones brought action in CA. Court held jurisdiction proper b/c the harm from the libel was felt in CA.
5. THE TEST:
a. Minimum Contacts AND Reasonability
b. Inversely Proportional
a. More reasonable it is; the lower the level of contacts required
ii. Types of Jurisdiction Granted by Minimum Contacts
1. General Jurisdiction
a. Established by a high number of contacts between the party and the forum state
a. “Continuous and systematic” (I.Shoe)
b. Will typically allow any action against the party in the forum, regardless of how related the “contact” is to the matter of the dispute
c. Perkins v Benguet Consolidated Mining: allowed suit against Philippine mining company in Ohio for action unrelated to contacts. Owner’s presence and “continuous and systematic” supervision of the corporation from Ohio during the WWII was held sufficient minimum contacts to establish general jurisidiction.
2. Specific Jurisdiction
a. Established by a high degree of relatedness between the contact and the matter of the dispute
b. Jurisdiction over the party ONLY FOR LITIGATION REGARDING THE SPECIFIC CONTACT
c. McGee v International Life: Jurisdiction over life insurance company valid even though it had never had an agent or office in California. US Supreme held that it was sufficient that the action was based on a contract which had “substantial connection with [California].
a. Strongly influenced by the state’s interest in litigating the dispute in that forum.
iii. Long-Arm Statutes
1. Definition:
a. Laws which empower state courts to pull someone into their jurisdiction
b. Two Kinds:
1. California-Exercises authority to the maximum extent permitted under the Constitution
2. New York-Limits application to a specific series of enumerated types of cases.
2. Internet Jurisdiction
a. The Inset Formulation (Inset Systems v Instruction Set, USDC D.Conn, 1996) p[osting of items viewable by forum state are sufficient, D purposefully avails to privilege of doing business
b. The Zippo Formulati
ction contracts
a. Courts will use these rather than Constitutional question of minimum contacts
b. Courts do not decide Constitutional questions unless they HAVE to
b. Court found forum selection contract on back of cruise ticket valid forum selection contract, meaning the Plaintiff had consented to FL as jurisdiction for the case even though they were from West Coast and sailed from CA. (Carnival Cruise v Shute)
a. Majority found it to be consent, Justifies by saying both parties benefit from the reduced cost of tickets due to savings to the corporation of litigating near its corporate headquarter.
b. Cite Bremen case as a similar instance
1. However in Bremen there was bargaining parity and neutral forum
2. Carnival no bargaining and Fl home forum for carnival
c. Court additionally upheld consent to in personam jurisdiction based off forum selection contract in Stewart Org. v Ricoh Corp. (US Supreme 1988)
II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ)
a. FEDERAL QUESTION
i. SMJ is a question of whether the court has authority to hear a case involving these issues
ii. Federal courts have SMJ for all claims arising under federal law (federal question)
iii. States have concurrent jurisdiction over most federal cases
1. Can be settled in state court, but D has right to remove
iv. Certain issues are reserved to the fed courts exclusively
1. Bankruptcy, Admiralty, Anti-trust, Patent, Copyright, Securities (some), want uniformity
v. Questions of validity of Federal SMJ can be raised at any time
1. Court can raise this question itself
2. You cannot waive SMJ
a. If the court is not empowered to hear the case, the parties cannot mutually agree to let the court hear the case anyway
b. Well Pleaded Complaint Rule (Louisville & Nashville RR v Mottley)(Mottley)
i. A federal question must appear in a well pleaded complaint to invoke the SMJ of the federal courts
ii. Federal question in anticipated defense or counter claim is not sufficient, only on the face of complaint
iii. Reasoning
