Robert Pfeffer
Civil Procedure
Fall 2010
Choosing the Proper Court (Power)
Four requirements that must be satisfied before a suit can be brought into a particular court: personal jurisdiction (PJ), subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ), venue, and ability to withstand motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.
I. Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)
1) Also known as Territorial Jurisdiction
2) PJ involves the issue of whether a court has power to adjudicate with regard to particular parties, i.e. persons or entities (or even property).
a. Where a plaintiff can bring suit and obtain jurisdiction over D.
3) Involves constitutional and statutory issues
4) Constitutional issues
b. Due process clause of 5th and/or 14th Amendment
c. Issue of sovereignty
d. Territorial reach of individual states under the constitutional scheme and/or of the federal government
5) Statutory issues
e. Depends upon the statutes and the rules of the jurisdiction in which a case is brought
6) In Personam
f. Jurisdiction over a person
7) “True” In Rem
g. Jurisdiction over a thing (property)
h. Bind property in the sense of adjudicating the rights of all persons who claim interest in that property.
8) Quasi In Rem
i. Jurisdiction over a thing (property), but it settles property rights only of specific persons, not “all”
j. Type 1
i. Resolves dispute about the property itself
k. Type 2
i. Establishes rights to property, but the underlying dispute is unrelated to the property
ii.
Pennoyer v. Neff: Neff, an out-of-state property owner in OR, has his land seized and sold to Mitchell. Mitchell sells to Pennoyer. Pennoyer is sued by Neff to recover his property. Neff wins in trial and appellate court. Pennoyer appeals to SCOTUS. SCOTUS held that the personal judgment ordered by the State Court of Oregon against a non-resident plaintiff was not valid and could not authorize a sale of the property in controversy. It is invalid because the judgment was not a result of adjudication, but enforcement of personal judgment. It was rendered against an unavailable nonresident, who did not receive proper service. The property was also not seized prior to sale as would be the case in an in rem proceeding.
RULE: It was necessary that the person or property be found (i.e. “present”) in the jurisdiction it was located to assert jurisdiction over a person or property. à somewhat overruled by International Shoe.
Whether due process is satisfied must depend rather upon the quality and nature of the activity in relation to the air and orderly administration of the laws which it was the purpose of the due process clause to insure. That clause does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations.
Pennoyer
9) More Modern Approach
l. International Shoe v. Washington (Int’l Shoe)
i. This is an in personam suit; Int'l Shoe is treated as a person.
ii. Focuses exclusively on D’s contacts within forum state because P can bring suit wherever.
iii. Int’l Shoe is the “grandfather for future jurisdictional cases”.
iv. It is the starting point for long-arm jurisdiction.
International Shoe v. Washington: Int’l Shoe, a Delaware based company, is sued for not contributing to the unemployment compensation scheme of Washington. Int’l Shoe argues that it places a constitutionally prohibited burden on interstate commerce and is a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court held that a corporation that chooses to conduct activities within a state accepts a reciprocal duty to answer for its in-state activities in the local courts.
RULE: To subject a defendant to a judgment in personam if he is not present within the territory of the forum, due process requires certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (Milliken v. Meyer).
“Presence” in the state in this sense, has never been doubted when the activities of the corporation there have not only been continuous and systematic, but also give rise to the liabilities sued on, even though no consent to be sued or authorization to an agent to accept service of process has been given.
10) PJ based on state long-arm statutes is divided for constitutional analysis purposes into two parts:
m. General Jurisdiction (GJ)
i. GJ exists when the number and quality of a D’s contacts with the forum state are sufficiently substantial that one may litigate any dispute in the courts of the forum, where or not that dispute grows out of those contacts. à “continuous and systematic”
ii. Also known as “Dispute-Blind”
Perkins v. Benguet Mining: Philippine mining corporation moves to Ohio because of lull in wartime activities.
RULE: The Court held that because Benguet carried on in a “continuous and systematic supervision” of the company, those activities supported the cause of action in that jurisdiction. à Example of GJ
n. Specific Jurisdiction (SJ)
i. SJ exists when the cont
tinuous and systematic general business contacts as in Perkins?
DISSENT: Brennan—Helicol purposefully availed itself of the benefits and obligations of the forum à it does not offend the tradition notions of fair play and substantial justice.
r. The burden on the D is a primary concern, but it should be understood that other relevant factors should be considered, like:
i. The forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
ii. The P’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief at least when that interest is not adequately protected by the P’s power to choose the forum
iii.
Burger King v. Rudzewicz: D sets up a BK in Michigan. After fall outs and bad business, P ordered D to vacate the premises and D refused. The issue is whether or not, P, a FL corporation, can sue D in FL, according to FL’s long arm statute within the “traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice”.
RULE: BK does not abandon “minimum contacts,” but provides a different formulation: reasonableness. Once it is established that a D purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum state, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with “fair play and substantial justice.” Courts may evaluate:
1) The burden on the D
2) The forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
3) The P’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies
4) The shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies
v These factors serve to establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would otherwise be required.
v For a D who purposefully has directed his activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, he must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.
The interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of fundamental substantive social policies.
