Andrews Civ Pro Outline Fall 2013
SECTION I
American Court System
1) Trial Courts
a) Federal – US District Courts
b) State – Circuit and District Courts
2) Intermediate Appeals Court
a) Federal – US Court of Appeals for the __ Circuit
b) State – Court of Appeals
3) Court of Last Resort
a) Federal – US Supreme Court
b) State – State Supreme Court
Personal Jurisdiction
1) “Power over the person”, not the claim – is it fair to make the defendant come to this particular court to defend?
2) Personal Jurisdiction: involves the question of where you can be sued. Based on home state (domicile), consent, and waiver.
a) 2 types of PJ:
i) Specific PJ = contacts are related to controversy.
ii) General PJ = contacts are unrelated to the controversy but still justify bringing suit against the defendant in the current controversy.
3) Long arm statutes: Allows a state to exercise personal jurisdiction out of state citizens as long as it complies with the constitution.
4) Consent: when consent to personal jurisdiction is made in advance (ie. Through contracts, business dealings), can consent by returning to the state, by failing to object, or in advance through a contract.
5) Waiver: Will waive the defense/challenge of personal jurisdiction by failing to include it in a motion to dismiss made on other grounds, or fails to otherwise raise the matter by motion or pleading. Basically, if they act in any way which is contrary to the defense of personal jurisdiction (ie. Showing up to defend).
6) 14th/5th amendment “what is fair/reasonable process”
7) Pennoyer v. Neff
a) 4 ways a state could assert jurisdiction
i) In personam jurisdiction (person) – found and served in the forum state
ii) In rem/quasi in rem jurisdiction (property) – property in the state
iii) 2 exceptions:
(1) Defendant consented to jurisdiction
(2) Marital status of forum citizens
Specific Personal Jurisdiction
1) 4 situations
a) Easy yes – lots of contacts/related
b) Easy no – little or no contacts/unrelated
c) Maybe – lots of contacts/unrelated
d) Maybe – little or no contacts/related
2) International Shoe v. Washington (continuous and systematic/related – yes, pj) (creates sufficient minimum contacts test)
a) Facts:
i) State of Washington (plaintiff) is suing to get jurisdiction in Washington
ii) Salesmen working for International shoe are Shoe’s contacts in the state of Washington even though Shoe is based in St. Louis (not nearly as substantial as contacts in St. Louis, but still systematic and continuous)
iii) The claim relates to the 13 salesmen, Washington is trying to collect taxes on the men Shoe employed
iv) Court said there was jurisdiction: activities carried out were neither irregular nor casual, they were systematic and continuous, resulted in large volumes of interstate business where Shoe received benefits and protection of Washington’s laws and these operations establish sufficient contacts/ties with the state of the forum to make it reasonable and just according to our traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice
b) Minimum Contacts test (replaced presence and implied consent tests) (for absent defendents)
i) “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”
ii) Relation of contacts with forum state to the suit
(1) Degree the contacts relate to the suit (related/unrelated) and number of contacts (substantial, systematic and constructive v casual single or isolated)
iii) Broader fairness test than the 4 used in Pennoyer
iv) Factors in arguing why it is fair (used in hard cases):
(1) Sovereignty – interest of the state over things people do in its borders
(2) Predictability – more predictable when related
(3) Convenience – evidence, witnesses there
(4) Reciprocity – quid pro quo – if you enjoy benefits of a state’s law while the occurrence takes place, so too you have burdens to that state
v) Functions
(1) Protects defendants against burdens of litigating in distant or inconvenient forums
(2) Acts to ensure that states through their courts do not reach out beyond limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.
3) Post-Shoe:
a) McGee (single contact w/ lots of back and forth – no purposeful availment – no pj)
i) California has jurisdiction over Texas life insurance company because California has an interest in protecting citizens, and the contract was delivered there, premiums mailed from there and the insured was a resident there
b) Hanson (single contact w/ lots of back and forth – no purposeful availment – no pj)
i) Distinguished from McGee because in Hanson the bank did not purposefully avail/initiate the contact knowingly with Florida (woman lived in Pennsylvania, set up trust in Bank in Delaware, retires to Florida, Florida did not have jurisdiction over Del. bank because bank didn’t purposefully avail themselves to Fl. Because the bank was contractually obligated to follow her there), whereas in McGee the life insurance company did
ii) New standard of purposeful availment (D must purposefully/knowingly initiate the contact with the state)
c) Kulko:
i) Court hints that a husbands acquiescence in letting kids go to California is not purposeful availment to give California jurisdiction over him (East coast married couple divorces, wife moves to Cali with kids, wants jurisdiction in Cali over husband to modify property, etc., SCOTUS said no, hints that husband’s acquiescence is not purposeful availment, also policy purposes
ii) Often cited for warning about putting jurisdictional restrictions on activities we encourage
4) WWVW v. Woodson (few contacts/obviously related – no pj – unilateral action)
a) For casual/single/isolated contacts related to the suit
b) Facts: New Yorkers bought a car in NY with no plans to leave at the time, later decided to move to Arizona, got badly injured in a wreck in Oklahoma, sued Seaway (individual dealer)
i) There has to be more than mere foreseeability, has to be purposeful so companies can get insurance or decide not to sell there
c) WWVW 2 prong test for specific PJ/related: (must pass both prongs, if you don’t pass nexus you don’t get to burdens)
i) Nexus (insures that states, through their courts, do not exceed the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system).
(1) Extent of contacts
(2) Relationship of contacts to the suit
(3) Purposeful availment
ii) Reasonableness/Burdens (secondary to nexus)
(1) Primarily concerned with burdens on defendant
(2) Balancing/weighing against the other side
(a) Forum states interest in adjudicating the dispute
(b) Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining effective/convenient relief
(c) Interstate efficiency (interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution)
(d) Shared interest of the several states in furthering substantive social policy (Kulko)
d) If you don’t have purposeful contacts/nexus, then burden doesn’t matter
e) Bottom line: you need a contact that is both related and purposeful
f) In products claims, ask how did the product get to the forum?
i) Unilateral act of the consumer (like Hanson or WWVW or did they ship it/send it, like McGee?)
ii) Not enough for P alone to bring the product there
5) Post-WWVW and 2-prong implementation
a) Asahi and “Stream of Commerce” (contacts related – failed prong 2 – no pj)
i) Facts:
(1) Man injured when motorcycle tire exploded and he lost control
(2) Suit boiled down to Asahi (Japanese) and Shin (Taiwan) in case where Asahi made component valve that went to another manufacturer that went to another manufacturer, etc. until it made its way onto a tire on a motorcycle in California
(3) Jurisdiction improper because California not a proper forum for two international parties (did not meet prong 1 or prong 2 of WWVW Test).
ii) Stream of commerce is a reference as to how the product got there in a products liability case
(1) Stronger than WWVW purposefulness (there was no purposefulness
ire blows up, tragic accident, only connection to NC is that 2 NC citizens were on that bus and died, parents want to sue Paris Tires in NC
i) Paris tires had very small percentage of its tires re-sold in NC
(1) If one of these tires had caused an injury in NC, this would be specific PJ but this is not the case
(2) Arguably these tire sales make it continuous and systematic but Shoe never said that all systematic and continuous cases satisfy general PJ
ii) Jurisdiction improper because neither accident nor sale nor manufacture of tire occurred in NC
b) General jurisdiction is part of the minimum contacts test (court applied straight forward minimum contacts analysis)
c) Test for continuous and systematic:
i) Are they continuous and systematic such that the defendant is at home in the forum state?
(1) Qualitative analysis, they won’t be at home if it is not continuous and systematic
(2) Where do you have so many contacts that it is fair to sue on an unrelated claim?
(a) Predictability, Reciprocity, Sovereignty, and Convenience policy arguments again
d) This court does not decide how much would “put you at home” but sales alone do not put someone at home
e) Sales of related products – even the same product – are likely not sufficient
f) Sheer quality of sales or quantity of business not necessarily does anything; case leaves open the question of whether more sales would support general jurisdiction, but this opinion reigns jurisdiction a good bit
g) The more you do in a jurisdiction, the more you open yourself up to specific jurisdiction but it may not have any effect on whether or not you are subject to general PJ
7) Potts (human beings) (prior contacts – occasional current contacts – unrelated – not at home – no pj)
a) Facts:
i) Military convoy flipped in ME – plaintiff injured. Sues defendant in AL under general pj claiming that defendant was at home in AL.
ii) Court held that defendant was not at home in AL but rather was now at home in GA. Can’t base home off of where home used to be.
iii) *Tag jurisdiction would apply when defendant visited parents in AL
b) Timing or temporal element – contact have to be now, not from before
i) *doesn’t work with specific – specific is backward looking
8) Related v Unrelated Contacts
a) Goodyear suggested that mere product similarity is probably not enough because the injury, manufacture, and sale all occurred elsewhere
a) Vacation Travel cases (like O’Connor) tend to have questions of relatedness
b) O’Connor
i) Facts:
(1) Man injured at resort’s spa during massage session
(a) Massages advertised in brochure mailed from resort in Barbados to plaintiffs in PA
ii) Vacation travel cases
(1) Sending ticket, brochure, etc. into forum state constitutes purposeful availment
(2) Trading phone calls to make contract constitutes purposeful availment
(3) Jurisdiction proper because defendant’s contacts in PA “but for” related to plaintiff’s claim
c) Tests:
i) Substantive relevance/proximate cause:
(1) Whether the contacts within the forum are substantively relevant to the merits of the plaintiff’s claim
(2) Most restrictive test
(3) Logic: to prove case of negligence, they don’t have to do anything with the contacts that occurred in the forum state
