CIVPRO OUTLINE – Prof. Dodson – Fall 2014
Thursday, August 14, 2014
8:05 PM
1. Personal Jurisdiction: Theory
a. Requirements (Authorization)
i. Authorization: “To have effective PJ over a D, the court’s jdxn must be authorized by both the long-arm statute of the state and the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.”
ii. (1) Statutory – State long-arm statutes which generally provide authorization, sometimes like CA to the full extent of the due process clause.
iii. (2) Constitutional – Due Process clause – constitutional analysis below
b. Traditional Methods of obtaining Constitutional Personal Jurisdiction
i. Pennoyer PJ: “The Pennoyer case found state territorial sovereignty over things within its state borders, and, as a result, provides 3 traditional methods of obtaining personal jdx over a D:”
1. In-state service (over natural persons)
2. Citizenship/residency
3. Consent/waiver
c. Newer Method – Minimum Contacts
i. Newer Methods: “IS provided us with the minimum contacts test where we determine if the D has sufficient minimum contacts with the state such that jurisdiction would not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. IS also showed that the contacts of a corporation can be determined from the activities of its agents.”
ii. Requirement #1: Minimum contacts – with forum state
1. Minimum Contacts: “Minimum contacts requires that the defendant purposefully avail himself of benefits and privileges of the forum state such that the D could reasonably foresee being haled into court there. There are two relevant ways to satisfy the minimum contacts part of the test: specific jdx and general jdx.”
2. Form 1: General Jurisdiction: Systematic and continuous contact (Diamler)
a. Continuous & Systematic: “A D’s contacts with the forum state satisfy general jdx if they are ‘continuous and systematic’ – so much so that these contacts are ‘substantial enough to fairly deem the D at home.’ This is a more difficult test than for specific jdx.”
i. Ask:
1. Does it do business in the forum state?
2. Does it have ops there?
3. Does it market there?
4. Does it sell products there?
ii. List:
1. All activities from fact pattern
b. Comparative Inquiry: “Under Daimler, GJ is a comparative inquiry, so contacts with other states may be relevant to determining the limited number of states that can exercise PJ over the D. The paradigmatic examples of “home” for a corporation are its state of incorporation and PPB. Only ‘exceptional’ cases will allow GJ beyond them.”
c. Comparative inquiry between possible states. You have to look at what other contacts are happening in other states.
d. A very high threshold now – must be at home in comparison to all its other contacts with other states.
e. But there are exceptional cases (this is your opening for argument)
3. Form 2: Specific Jurisdiction: Actions arose from that contact (McIntyre)
a. McIntyre Rule: “For a defendant to be subject to a state’s personal jurisdiction, it must purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state such that it could reasonably foresee being hailed into court there. This is a lower threshold than general jdx.”
b. Own Actions: “The D’s own actions must establish the contacts in the forum state rather than the unilateral or fortuitous actions of a 3rd party.”
c. Consider McIntryre options
i. Kennedy:
1. Summary: Purposefully avail itself to benefits and privileges of the state then it is a proxy for consent => implied consent
2. Describe: What facts show intentional targeting?
3. Transition: “However, this plurality opinion of McIntyre had a whopping 5 justices disagreeing with it so we would be wise to consider the other opinions…”
ii. Breyer [concurring]:
1. Summary: Using precedent, need either regular business in the state or purposeful targeting of the state.
2. Single sale not sufficient – A single isolated sale of a product into a state, even if accompanied by a sales effort, is not sufficient to support personal jurisdiction, even if the D knows & hopes that such a sale will take place.
3. Marketing awareness – A defendant that placed a product into the stream of commerce may be subject to a state’s jurisdiction “[a]s long as a participant in this process is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State . . . . ”
iii. Ginsburg [dissenting]:
1. Summary: Fair and reasonable for defendant knew its products could possibly end up there
2. Difficulty litigating – Is the person or company powerful/large enough that it would have no difficulty litigating in proposed forum state? If so, then it would not offend any traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
3. Foreseeability – Could the D have reasonably foreseen having to defend in forum state?
4. Fairness – Is it fair that they escape liability when one of their products causes harm?
iii. Requirement #2: Fair Play and Substantial Justice
1. Fair play / substantial justice – minimum contacts that
unless there is a legal impossibility of such an AIC for example based on state laws capping recovery.”
b. Amount in Controversy: Must exceed $75,000 (exactly $75K is no good) exclusive of interests and costs
i. “Aside from complete diversity requirements, 1332(a) requires satisfaction of an AIC based on dollar amount of the good-faith prayer in the claim. The prayer must exceed $75k exclusive of interest and costs. The one exception is if the D can show to a legal certainty that the claim amount cannot be reached, otherwise the P’s good-faith prayer is taken as stated. (Mas v. Perry)”
ii. P Controls – P’s allegations normally control AIC. P can claim any amount as long as it is a good faith approximation. It is rare for the AIC to not be in good faith.
1. Smaller cases have may have hearings that are near the amount.
2. Unless specifically excluded by a legal certainty, punitive damages are included in AIC as well.
a. If you are in a jurisdiction that does not allow punitive damages for that claim, then you cannot use punitive damages to calculate AIC.
b. State caps the amount you can recover
iii. Injunctions – AIC can include non-monetary relief. These would have to be translated into a dollar value.
1. Injunction stopping defendant from doing something
2. There is a debate between parties and courts on how to translate into dollar value.
a. Each jurisdiction is different.
b. Look at the value to the plaintiff of the possible harm to the defendant.
iv. Aggregation – AIC against multiple parties
1. Justification – Bias tends to decrease if there’s less at stake
a. AIC minimum used to be $2,000.
2. Multiple Claims – P v. D with multiple claims: P can aggregate the value ALL claims against a single defendant
a. C1: 50K C2: 25K Punitive: 50K Total: $125k
3. Multiple Defendants – P v. D1 + D2
a. Claim against each defendant must be >$75k, otherwise there is no ODJ over that defendant.
b. UNLESS the thing which is being sought is indivisible (for example, a house worth 150k)
