Civil Procedure I Outline

Civil Procedure

Professor Lear

Spring 2011

1. Personal Jurisdiction: the power of a court to enter a judgment against a specific defendant. Geographical limitation on places where a P may choose to sue a D for a particular claim.

a. Arises from 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. This requires notice and opportunity to be heard.

b. Privilege of D.

c. Three types

i. In Personam- by virtue of a person’s presence in territory or citizenship

ii. In Rem- power to determine status of property. When you sue the property, the real owner turns up to claim.

iii. Quasi-in-Rem- power over a person, but recovery limited to value of property within the jurisdiction

d. Long Arm Statute

i. Is there a state statute that authorizes personal jurisdiction under the circumstances? ANALYZE EVERY PART

1. Tortious acts in the state versus the effects

ii. If there is, would it be constitutional under the due process clause to do so?

1. Purposeful Availment

2. Reasonableness

e. Early Cases

i. Pennoyer v. Neff- OVERRULED BY INTERNATIONAL SHOE. P, non-resident claimed possession of land in Oregon through US patent; D claimed possession of SAME land through sheriff’s deed (because of a judgment against P, his land was taken from him). The court held that the judgment against P was invalid and his land shouldn’t have been taken because P’s land was never attached (nailing stick into ground). Judgment is invalid when P is a non-resident, wasn’t personally served, did not appear, and did not have property attached.

ii. Hess v. Pawloski- Driver, out of state resident, negligently drove on public highway in Massachusetts and got into an accident with resident. Massachusetts statute said either he or an agent appointed by him could be served process. The court held that the Massachusetts statute allowing substituted process was constitutional. Driving on a public highway in a different state than you are from is the equivalence of appointing an agent to be served process and this is constitutional.

1. Consent Theory: presupposes that a foreign corporation could transact business in a state only with that state’s consent.

2. Presence Theory: a foreign corporation is amenable to process if it is doing business within the state in such manner and to such extent as to warrant the inference that it is present there.

f. Main Case- Minimum Contacts

i. International Shoe v. Washington- Company hired salesman who lived/worked in WA to sell shoes and refused to pay employment tax on them. The official contract of the sale was made in Missouri. The court held that they must pay based on a minimum contacts theory. For a nonresident to be sued within a state, one must have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit doesn’t offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

1. 1945

2. If you benefit from state law, you should be accountable as well.

3. Because court’s power to exercise jurisdiction derives from the defendant’s voluntary relation to the state, the power should be limited to cases arising out of that relation.

4. Minimum contacts established by whether it is reasonable and an estimate of inconveniences. The quality and nature of the contacts are important.

5. Court considered these contacts:

a. Volume of business

b. How long people worked

c. Systematic or haphazard

d. Rights and privileges

e. Timing

f. Number of salesman

g. Salesman paying rent

h. Quality and nature

i. Continuousness

6. Introduces paradigm of 4 types of cases

7. Doing Business statutes: COA doesn’t arise in state, but may still be able to sue there if doing business there. Similar to presuming they are present.

ii. Guidelines

1. Minimum contacts test applies to individuals and corporate defendants.

2. Limitations found in long arm statutes are distinct from the constitutional limits imposed by the minimum contacts test.

3. A defendant may have sufficient contacts within a state to support minimum contacts even though she did not act within the state.

4. Minimum contacts focuses on time when defendant acted, not the time of the lawsuit.

iii. Specific Jurisdiction

1. Isolated Act

a. McGee v. International Life Insurance- only policy holder in California died leaving money to McGee, but insurance company would not pay out. CA had a statute which subjected insurance corporations to file suit there with in state policy holders. The court held that the contract was a substantial connection to the state and CA had jurisdiction. Even where there is only one contact, if it is in substantial connection to the state, state may have jurisdiction.

i. 1957. There was 1 c