Civil Procedure Outline – Lear – Spring 2017
Selecting the Proper Court
Personal Jurisdiction
Generally
Personal Jurisdiction is the power of a ct. to require a D to defend a lawsuit
Specific Jurisdiction: c/a arises from D’s contact w/ the forum state; contacts related
General Jurisdiction: c/a does not arise from D’s contacts w/forum state, but D’s unrelated contacts are enough that it is not unconstitutional to make him appear in that state’s ct. (only applies to corporations)
14th amen. limits power of state courts to exercise PJ (Due Process Clause)
Basic rule: D must have a significant relationship to the forum state
Rule: federal ct. must analyze PJ as if it were a ct. of the state in which it is located
Rule: the burden of proving PJ is on the P
A default judgement is a judgement made when D does not show up
The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution says states must recognize other states’ judgements
Grounds for Personal Jurisdiction
Domicile (reside + intent to remain)
Consent (PJ can be waived)
Physical Presence (Tag)
Continuous and Substantial Contacts (General Jurisdiction)
Minimum Contacts (purposeful availment + reasonableness = Specific Jurisdiction)
Background
Pennoyer
D (= P in collateral suit) notified of lawsuit through notice in newspaper; D doesn’t show up, loses his land; D not a resident of OR, not present when newspaper notice ran; Held: No PJ
General rule: lawsuit is constitutional only if: (1) D has proper notice AND (2) D has opportunity to be heard
Rule: process served to D in his home state does NOT compel him to appear
Rule: you can serve a citizen of the forum state by constructive notice (e.g. notice in paper)
Hess
D sued for negligence in state in which he crashed into someone w/car; no personal service/property attachment; MA has statute that appoints Sec. of State as nonresident’s agent, and any motorist on MA roads has notice of this; Held: Yes PJ
Rule: a state can regulate all drivers on its roads, because D gives implied consent to appointment of representative by driving on the roads
See also Kane v. NJ: NJ CAN require a written instrument from out-of-state motorists appointing a NJ agent to receive process as a condition of using the state’s highways
Specific Jurisdiction
Long-Arm Statutes
A long-arm statute is a statute that allows a state’s courts to assert jurisdiction over a non-resident D
Establish circumstances under which a D can be “haled into court”
General rule: LA-Statutes usually have separate section for SJ and GJ
SJ = c/a “arises from” conduct described in sub-sections
In order to assert jurisdiction under a Long Arm Statue à 2-step analysis
Statue interpretation à Does the statute grant jurisdiction in this case?
LA-Statute factors:
A) language of statute (analyze every part)
E.x. tortuous acts occurring in the state v. tortuous acts having effects in the state
Aruge both sides: Does the tort occur where the screw is not attached properly or when the damage actually results as the place it blows up?
B) case law
C) legislative history, intent
Constitutionality of the statute
Limited by Due Process (14th Amendment) à general notion of fairness
Gray
Valve makes its way from OH to IL to become part of a water heater that causes injury in IL; ct. interprets injury resulting from “tortious act” refers to where the injury took place; it is impractical to analyze where separate elements of a tort occurred; Held: Yes, PJ-SJ
Note: only citable as persuasive/explanatory authority (Supreme ct. of IL.)
Note: cites McGee
Legislative intent = reading words in ordinary and popularly understood sense (“general purpose and effect”)
Legislature considered convenience
Stream of Commerce Theory: there is an identifiable chain from manufactureà middlemanà state consumer (ordinary expected flow of commerce)
Rule: SOC ends when product becomes retail and is sold to consumers
Note: this ct. says awareness/expectation is enough
Introduction to New Theory of Specific Jurisdiction
International Shoe (Minimum Contacts analysis)
Shoe is out-of-state co.; WA sues for unpaid taxes, D employs salespeople that live in WA to sell shoes; an order for shoes must go to St. Luis, where the order is filled and shipped; WA serves salespeople in WA w/process; H: Yes, PJ (SJ)
Rule: A corporation will be subject to the jurisdiction of any state with which it has “minimum contacts” that make the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Contacts= facts
Continuous & systematic + cause of action related = Specific Jurisdiction
Minimum Contacts Factors:
Nature
Permanent salespeople in state
Reasonable – should have known they would be able to be sued
Volume
Size of shipment/goods
Time Period
Number of months/years
Growth since beginning
Benefits to D from laws of state
D has right to resort to state cts.
Economy of forum state
Relationship to c/a
Four Categories of PJ Cases (“Shoes Spectrum”)
Jurisdiction?
Type of Contacts
C/A
YES
Continuous & Systematic
Arises from or related to activity in the state
à Specific Jurisdiction
MAYBE
Isolated Activity
Arises from or related to activity in the state
MAYBE
Continuous & Systematic
Unrelated
à General Jurisdiction
NEVER
Isolated Activity
Unrelated
Hanson (unilateral contact of one party ≠ enough)
PA resident establishes a trust in DE, names a DE trustee; PA resident moves to FL, dies; mean sisters file suit in FL to invalidate trust; DE trustee files suit in DE; both states claim PJ; H: NO PJ (SJ) in FL
Unilateral contact of one party ¹ enough
Rule: D must do something to purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thus invoking benefits/protection of the law (defendant-centric)
DE trustee had no connection to FL/no action direct at FL
Rule: unilateral activity of P does not create contacts for D (i.e. only look at D’s actions)
Finished Products
World-Wide Volkswagen (finished good tort; two part test)
P bought car from D in NY and drove through OK in process of moving to AZ; gas tank explodes during accident in OK; ct. says jurisdiction must be somewhat predictable to D; Held: No PJ in OK
J. White
Note: NOT SOC, b/c SOC ends when consumer buys (so SOC did not take car to OK from NY)
Parts manufacturer can be sued in NY
Rule:
emnification between Taiwanese corp. and Asahi; H: No PJ in CA (SJ)
PA analysis:
O’Connor (plurality): No PJ à SOC +
Rule: PA for component parts = substantial connection = S2S = D action purposely directed at forum state
(i.e. unilateral act of consumer + foreseeability ≠ PA)
Rule: placing something in SOC ≠ action purposefully directed at forum state
S2S factors: (a) designing product for forum state; (b) advertising; (c) channel for regular advice
Note: O’Connor standard is the highest; if D contacts satisfy, they likely satisfy the rest
Brennan: Yes PJ à SOC
Note: inherent in concept of SOC is foreseeability
D benefits from sale in CA (even if indirect)
Rule: regular and predictable flow + awareness of marketing in forum state = PA
Stevens: Yes PJ à “eyeball test”
“Eye-ball it” theory (undisclosed numerical requirement = PA)
based on volume/value/hazardous character of materials
100K units annually over several years is enough
No PA analysis necessary; reasonableness is enough to determine PJ
Reasonableness analysis: (see also WWVW)
Note: “when minimum contacts have been established, often the interests of the P and forum state… will justify even the serious burdens placed on the alien D”
A) burden on D (*not just distance but WHY distance creates problem)
Transport witnesses to CA
Long litigation means employees must be brought to CA too
Evidence is in Japanese (also needs to be transported)
Foreign legal system (“alien D”); mistakes/costs resulting from difference in language/common v. civil system (different c/a in U.S.) (though big companies probably retain American counsel)
B) forum state interest
Protection of CA residents’ safety is too broad of an argument
This is an indemnification action in any case
P is not CA resident
Sale was made in Japan
Not clear whether CA law would apply
Deterrent effect accomplished by consumers suing CA distributors
Note: if P never settled, CA interest would be higher
Interest in applying law?
Open doors to citizens to litigate – they pay taxes, pay for the courts (but not applicable because no citizens involved in case)
C) P’s interest
“slight” because P also has to travel from overseas; only some witnesses/evidence in CA
D) interstate judicial system
If cases can be resolved in many parts, want efficiency to determine whole case in one place
This case is going off-shore, not gaining any efficiency
Want to avoid parallel litigation
E) several states (shared interest) – social policy
Better for U.S. foreign relations to let one of the other countries resolve
