PROESSOR PAGE
Civil Procedure
University of Florida
Spring 2013
Personal Jurisdiction
1) International Shoe [1945] **Applies to both individuals and companies**
– Required certain minimum contacts [contacts of such a “quality and nature” but not “casual or isolated” contacts] such that “the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
(1s) Continuous and systematic + C/A arises from those contacts.
(2g) Casual or Isolated activities + C/A unconnected to those contacts
(3g) Continuous and systematic + C/A does not arise from those contacts
(4s) Isolated Act (single act) + C/A arises from that act.
Ex.) International Shoe
No personal Jurisdiction
Suit may be allowed, maybe not – no more likely
Suit may be allowed – yes more likely
Hess v. Pawloski [Implied consent to jurisdiction by driving in the state]
2) McGee [1957]
– “Substantial connection” with forum state. State’s interest.
3) Hanson [1958]
– The plaintiff's unilateral contracts with the forum do not create a constitutional basis for requiring the defendant to defend there.
4) Gray [Only in Illinois][1961]
– Invented the “Stream of Commerce”
– A 'tortious act' took place where a negligently constructed product caused an injury.
5) Schaffer [1977]
– Due Process standard is Int'l Shoe
– All jurisdiction is subject to fair play
6) World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson [Products Liability][1980]
– Rejects the notion that it only needs to be reasonable, that you just need minimum contacts.
– Need some actual purposeful availment, that Δ could foresee being haled into court there.[Focus on Δ’s actions]
o The foreseeability that their product will end up in the forum state is not a sufficient basis for exercising jurisdiction.
· Not responsible for the unilateral acts of a third party.
– 2-Step Due Process Analysis
o (1) Purposeful Availment [Separate from Reasonableness!]
§ Had to seek to serve the forum state. [Did they have offices there, did they design for there]
o (2) Reasonableness
7) Helicopteros [1984]
– Standard for general jurisdiction is very high.
o Need more than you normally have for specific jurisdiction.
o Continuous and systematic general business contact. [Each contact analyzed separately.]
– Unknown if reasonableness analysis should be conducted. [Likely that you do, but SCOTUS never specified.]
8) Burger King [Substantial Connection][1985]
– In order to show Purposeful Availment look for a substantial connection between the contract and the signer (?).
o Purposeful Availment
§ Negotiation / Future Consequences / Terms of the Contract / Actual Course of Dealing
o Reasonableness
§ Defendant has burden to show compelling case of reasonableness. [defense mobility]
9) Asahi [Component Parts][1987]
– Reasonableness factors
Burden on Δ
Interests of forum state
Interests of ∏
Interstate Efficiency
Interest of state in furthering fundamental substantive social policy
Defense Mobility
H +S of citizens
∏ mobility
Other states have an interest
Deterrence + Compensation
– Purposeful Availment: **NO MAJORITY, NO BINDING AUTHORITY **/ Court was split
o O'Connor: Seek to serve, need more than “mere awareness” good will end up in forum state.
§ Did they design for that market, advertising there
· Brennan: Stream of Commerce: A defendant who persistently takes advantage of the opportunity to market his product in the state may fairly be called to account in the state if a product he sold into the state causes tortious injury there.
o Stevens concurrence
10) Burnham v. Superior Court of California
– TAG JURISDICTION: Defendant [can only be an individual] only needs to be present in the state. Need no contact with the state prior to service.
PERSONAL JURISDICTION ANALYSIS
Long-Arm Analysis
1.) Is the defendant a resident of the forum state?
2.) Is the defendant present?
– TAG JURISDICTION: See: Burnham v. Superior Court (If an individual is physically present in the state, you can be served)
– If NO, do Long-Arm Analysis
3.) Is there a long arm statute?
Long-Arm Statute
Applicability – Detailed reading of the statute.
– “Tortious act within the state” See: Gray v. American Radiator: (Illinois only) “Ordinary usage of the term tortious act”, stream of commerce would have brought into the state. “Reasonable expectation” product would enter the forum market. Reasonable inference that there was “substantial use and consumption” in the forum state.
– See: Int’l Insurance Co v. McGee (insurer sent an offer to re-insure to a policy holder in Cali. “deliberate reaching”)
v GENERAL JURISDICTION[Helecopteros][CORPORATIONS ONLY]
v Doesn’t say to do a reasonableness analysis, but likely that you do have to do one.
v Does the defendant have continuous and systematic general business contacts
– Look at each contact individually
Due Process Analysis
v Purposeful Availment for a FINISHED PRODUCT/TORT [World-Wide Volkwagen v. Woodson]
v Forseeability of being hailed into court not enough [WWV]
v Must seek a “direct benefit” from activities in the forum state.
v “corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state” [Offices in the area? Advertisement?]
v Must SEEK TO SERVE
v BUT: By distributing product in the forum state, Δ sought to serve (See: Keeton v. Hustler Magazine)
v Purposeful Availment for a CONTRACT [Burger King]
v Contract does not automatically infer minimal contact.
– Contract with a Substantial Connection to the state [prior contemplating, actual course of dealing, ∏ sought out Δ, franchise agreement, negotiation, future consequences]
v Where the Δ has purposefully directed activities to the forum state, jurisdiction is presumptively reasonable.
v Purposeful Availment for a COMPONENT PART **NO MAJORITY, NO BINDING AUTHORITY**[Asahi]
– O'Connor: Need clear evidence that the Δ “sought to serve”, mere awareness that stream of commerce may sweep goods into the state not enough.
· Designing product for the market in that state, advertising there.
– Brennan: Stream of Commerce indicates the “regular and anticipated flow of products from manufacture to distribution to retail sale”. If you intended to access the US market you are benefiting from the global distribution system and should be on the hook. A defendant who persistently takes advantage of the opportunity to market his product in the state may fairly be called to account in the state if a product he sold into the state causes tortious injury there.
– Stevens: Substantial benefit overall. Look at volume, systematic activities
Reasonable-ness
v Reasonableness
(1) Burden on Defendant [Distance, foreign legal system, mobility of defense]
(2) Interests of the forum state [Safety of its citizens, matters of state law, deterrence]
(3) Interest of the plaintiff [Location of evidence, accident liability]
(4) Interstate Efficiency [Gains from having case instate]
(5) Interest of states in advancing substantive social policy [Concern over impact on foreign policy]
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Diversity – 1332
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $ 75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between
(1) Citizens of different States;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;
(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States
For the purposes of this section, section 1335, and section 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.
(b) Except when express provision therefor is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where the plaintiff who files the case originally in the Federal courts is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $ 75,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of interest and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff.
(c) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title–
(1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business, except that in any direct action against the insurer of a policy or contract of liability insurance, whether incorporated or unincorporated, to which action the insured is
xpected to try them all in one judicial proceeding”
· Case does not = claim/cause of action, but all that would come in one proceeding.
· Instant Case: State claims falls within the case.
· BUT: Just because the court has the power does not mean it must hear the case
· Judicial Discretion; Consideration of judicial economy and convenience and fairness to litigants; “Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well”
· BUT: Can dismiss state claim if:
· Tied to questions of federal policy; Likelihood of jury confusion
Pendent Jurisdiction
Plaintiff is adding claims again a party who is already there on a federal jurisdiction claim.
– Ex.) Plaintiff sues Δ under __ USC __. May also want to sue for a related state law claim. Even if there is no diversity.
Ancillary Jurisdiction
Extra cases, cases that arises from the same occurrence of the subject matter, but are unsupported by the original jurisdiction.
– Ex.) Plaintiff sues Defendant for $100,000. Defendant counter-claims for $30,000. Does not satisfy independent federal jurisdiction due to the low amount in controversy.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Supplemental Jurisdiction – 1367
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.[Common Nucleus of Operative Fact] Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.
**DIVERSITY ONLY**(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332[Diversity] of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332. [If you bring someone in under 14,18,20,24 and that destroys diversity, there is no supplemental jurisdiction]
(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if–
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[Federal Question], or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction[Has to be really inappropriate for fed court]. [Even if you have the power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction the courts can decline jurisdiction.]
(d) The period of limitations for any claim asserted under subsection (a), and for any other claim in the same action that is voluntarily dismissed at the same time as or after the dismissal of the claim under subsection (a), shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.
