MASHBURN – CIVIL PROCEDURE – SPRING 2011
Personal Jurisdiction: A court’s power to issue an enforceable judgment against the parties in the dispute.
· Personal jurisdiction must exist for a court’s judgment to be valid
· PJ analysis is ∆-focused; plaintiffs grant jurisdiction by filing a complaint
· Every state has PJ over its domiciliaries
Framework of Personal Jurisdiction
1. U.S. Constitution
· 14A: Due Process Clause
o DP requires that process of litigation is fair and reasonable
· A4: Full Faith & Credit Clause
o States required to give full faith and credit to legitimate judicial proceedings
o Compels states to make sure they have Jx before adjudicating a case
2. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)
· Rule 4(k): Federal court have same jurisdiction as state court in which USDC is located
3. State Long Arm Statutes
· Extend a state’s reach beyond its own borders
· Two categories:
o Constitutional Limit (Broadest)
o Limited Reach (More Narrow)
Types of Personal Jurisdiction
In Personam
In Rem
Quasi In Rem
Court’s jurisdiction over ∆
Court’s jurisdiction over in-state property
Court’s jurisdiction over ∆ where P’s potential recovery is limited to value of ∆’s in-state property
Voluntary appearance (consent) or personal service in-state are sufficient
Requires attachment of in-state property prior to litigation
Published service (out of state) never sufficient
Published service (out of state) may be sufficient
Published service required
In Personam
Specific Jurisdiction (SJx)
General Jurisdiction (GJx)
∆ can be sued for a claim arising from activities in the forum
∆ can be sued for claim arising from anything in the world
Specific or general jurisdiction is a function of relatedness.
EXAM
1. Reach of state authority (statutory)
2. Meet constitutional standards?
In personam jurisdiction requires two levels of analysis: statutory and constitutional (state).
The due process clause of the 14A defines the outer boundaries of personal jurisdiction. Second, the states must “take” jurisdiction for themselves, and they do this in the form of statutes.
· Every state confers SJx over non-resident motorists and GJx over domiciliaries.
· Every state has a long-arm statute that will articulate triggers for asserting specific jurisdiction over non-resident ∆s.
Statutory Framework
Long Arm Statutes
Virtually every state has a long-arm statute that defines the contours of their jurisdictional reach. There are three (3) general types of long-arm statutes. (Remember: this is specific jurisdiction)
1. Enumerated – laundry list of contacts that trigger jurisdiction (NY)
2. Enumerated Plus – enumerated statute + state SC has interpreted jurisdiction to extend to constitutional limits (OK)
3. DP Limits – no enumeration. Simply says “necessary minimum contacts,” so co-terminal with constitutional limits
Constitutional Framework
Traditional Bases of Jurisdiction
Pennoyer v. Neff. Mitchell gets judgment in absentia against ∆. ∆ later acquires property in Oregon and Mitchell has sheriff seize it to satisfy judgment. P buys land from sheriff. Holding: OR lacked PJ over Neff. Rule: For in personam, non-resident ∆ must be personally served. For quasi in rem, the disputed property must be attached prior to litigation.
In Pennoyer, the Court articulated four (4) traditional bases of state assertions of personal jurisdiction:
1. ∆ served in-forum [General Jurisdiction]
2. ∆’s agent served in forum
3. ∆ is domiciled in-forum [General Jurisdiction]
4. ∆ consents to PJ
These traditional bases are still relevant today, although the Court split in Burnham on whether they need to be interpreted in light of International Shoe. With ∆s increasingly able to evade jurisdiction by avoiding the forum, the Court needed to expand the doctrine.
Implied Consent: PJ Expands
Hess v. Pawlowski. ∆ (PA) was in a car accident with P (MA) in Massachusetts. MA law provided that non-residents would be served via an agent in MA. ∆ challenged the suit, alleging lack of PJ. Holding: PJ can be asserted by implied consent. Rule: Implied consent is valid exercise of PJ over non-residents.
Every state in America now has an implied consent statute for non-resident motorists, conferring specific jurisdiction over the ∆ for any claim arising from a vehicle accident.
International Shoe & MC+FP
International Shoe v. Washington. P was a DE corporation with HQ in St. Louis. Employed a dozen contract salesman in WA. State of WA sued Int’l Shoe for not paying into state unemployment fund. P moved for dismissal based on lack of PJ. Holding: WA had specific jurisdiction over P. Rule: State can assert PJ over non-resident ∆ so long as ∆ has “minimum contacts such that maintenance of suit does not offend notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
International Shoe is the defining case for state assertions of specific jurisdiction. The case law revolves around two components: minimum contacts and fair play (aka reasonableness).
Burden Shift!
Once P establishes that the ∆ has minimum contacts,
ful availment established by product entering stream of commerce and ∆’s reasonable anticipation it will reach the specific forum
o O’Connor Theory: Purposeful availment also requires specific intent to service consumers in the forum (marketing etc.)
The Reasonableness Standard
International Shoe’s “fair play and substantial justice” rule creates a need for “reasonableness” in asserting personal jurisdiction over the ∆. Reasonableness is only considered once the plaintiff has established the ∆’s sufficient forum contacts.
5 Reasonableness Factors (from Worldwide Volkswagen)
1. Fairness to ∆ in avoiding distant litigation
o Burger King: Inconvenience ≠ unfairness
2. State’s interest in adjudicating dispute
o McKee: CA interest in consumer protection
3.
Courts have not addressed 4&5
P’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
4. Interstate judicial efficiency
5. Shared, several state interest in furthering “fundamental substantive social policies”
Burger King v. Rudzewicz ∆s were Michigan franchisees of P corporation (FL). MCs were present due to ∆s “reaching into” FL, but they challenged PJ on reasonableness grounds. Holding: Forum not so inconvenient as to be unreasonable. Rule: ∆’s burden to show that forum would be “gravely inconvenient” so as to put it at disadvantage.
· In order to show unreasonableness (MC+FP), a ∆ must show that the forum is so gravely inconvenient that it is as a severe disadvantage in litigation (WW VW Factor #1)
· Brennan: DP does not guarantee a good or convenient forum, merely a fair one. Advances in travel raise the bar for what is truly “unreasonable”
Asahi v. Superior Court. Taiwanese tire manufacturer seeks to indemnify ∆ (Japanese component part manufacturer). ∆ contests PJ, alleging lack of MCs in California. Holding: Unreasonable to adjudicate claim between 2 foreign companies in CA.
· Policy Argument: US is seen globally as having very liberal personal jurisdiction. If it’s too broad, it can damper investment in US because companies fear litigation. The Asahi opinion recognizes this.
