CIV PRO OUTLINE
I. Personal Jurisdiction
A. Traditional/Early Personal Jurisdiction
a) PJ = court’s power over a defendant (in personam) or property (in rem)
b) Judgement or Jurisdiction:
(1) In Personam—makes D personally liable. Examples:
(a) Declare D liable to pay $$ to P (damages).
(b) Order D to begin or cease a certain activity (injuction).
(2) In Rem—permits the court to seize/dispose of property (“arrest the property”). A judgment in Rem extinguishes the claimed rights of persons on the property involved, though the persons could be anywhere in the world.
(a) Pure In Rem—binds the rights of “the world” against a property (condemnation)
(b) Quasi In Rem—binds the rights of an individual against a property
(i) Quasi In Rem Cases—cases where P is allowed to assert jurisdiction (through attachment, garnishment, etc) over D’s property, not D’s person, even though the case has nothing to do w/ the property.
c) Due Process
(1) Guaranteed in Art ? Sect ?
(2) A course of legal proceedings according to the rules & principles when have been established for the protection and enforcement of private rights.
d) Transient jurisdiction—permits a state to exercise jurisdiction over D even though D is only in the state for a short period of time.
a) States should have exclusive jurisdiction over people and property within their territory, and not exert control outside their territory.
a) Pennoyer v. Neff (1877):
(1) Summary: Mitchell got an OR judgment against Neff, a CA resident, for unnamed property he owned in OR, where Neff “received” notice via an in-state OR newspaper ad. Neff later bought more property in OR, which Mitchell claimed and then sold to Pennoyer. Neff sued Pennoyer saying that OR did not have jurisdiction.
(2) Rule: Publication in state, or sent to D out of state, is insufficient notice to create personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state resident. D must be served personally while physically in the state.
(a) In Rem jurisdiction—process by publication is OK when the action proceeds in Rem (where the property is under the control of the court).
b) Hess v. Pawloski (1927)
(1) Summary: D, from PA, was involved in a car accident in MA. MA law said that by driving on the road, D accepted their procedures for service of process (certified letter) to establish personal jurisdiction. D objected to MA jurisdiction. MA SC & US SC affirmed that jurisdiction was properly established. Note: This gave states a little bit of a reach outside of their jurisdiction.
(2) Rule: Implied consent OK. The MA law was constitutional b/c the act that implies consent to jurisdiction related to the cause of action.
(a) Note: The MA law does not discriminate against non-residents—it puts them on equal footing as residents.
a) How could Mitchell have gotten jurisdiction over Neff in the 1st case?
b) In Rem Jurisdiction—find Neff’s OR property and attach it prior to judgement.
c) In Persona—go to CA, find Neff, and serve him in person.
d) Could have sued in CA in persona, and then get OR to honor CA’s judgment under Art. 4’s “full faith and credit” clause. He would not have been able to attach the OR property to the CA case.
B. Minimum Contacts:
a) Jurisdiction over corporations:
(1) States require corporations doing business there to register a d
(i) Commercial activities should be treated differently vs. personal activities b/c corps should be able to anticipate and prepare for out-of-state suits.
(ii) Witnesses, evidence, etc. are in the other jurisdiction.
(iii) Stream of commerce should include consumer.
(iv) D should show why it makes more sense to be in another state, not just why it doesn’t make sense to be in the one.
(v) If D conducts business in a state, they have received the benefits and protections of that state.
(vi) States have an interest in protecting their citizens from out-of-state corporations
(b) Arguments Against extending jurisdiction:
(i) Would open floodgates for many companies to be sued anywhere, effectively getting rid of minimum contacts rule.
(ii) Stream of commerce ends w/ consumer.
b) McGee v. International Life Insurance (1957):
(1) Summary: P received a judgment against D, a TX co, in CA state court, after serving D process via certified mail, but was unable to collect. She brought the CA judgment to TX, and TX refused to enforce, saying it was void under the 14th amm. US SC overruled.
(a) Defense out of state does not put an undue burden on national corporations.
(b) Mailing premiums/contracts to an address is enough to satisfy the minimum contacts rule to establish jurisdiction. No need for a personal agent in the state.