Civil Procedure Outline
Spring 2011; Prof. Lear
SELECTING THE PROPER COURT
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
A. The Traditional Bases for Personal Jurisdiction (does ct have power to make you show up to ct / hail you in?). Geographical limitation on the places where a plaintiff may choose to sue a defendant for a particular claim. Intended, as matter of basic fairness, to prevent a plaintiff from suing a non-resident defendant in a state unless that defendant has est. a relationship to that state that would reasonably lead him to anticipate being sued there.
1. Pennoyer v. Neff – Presence within the Forum State
a. Rule: P’s can’t bring suit wherever they choose b/c t would violate the defendant’s due process rights. As such, a number of bases for personal jurisdiction have evolved (including domicile, consent, physical presence, and the minimum contacts standard).
b. Originally, presence within the state was the chief, if not sole, basis for PJ. “The authority if every tribunal is necessarily restricted by the territorial limits of the state in which it is established.” Since the state’s power only ran until it’s borders, “process from the tribunals of one state cannot run into another state and summon parties there domiciled to leave its territory and respond to proceedings against them”
c. Today, presence w/i forum state is just one of many ways to get jurisdix over a person, but it is still a constitutionally valid way of getting jurisdiction
d. Reason ct was concerned that he wasn’t personally served: Just not fair. Procedural DP requires 1) Notice, 2) Opportunity to be heard.
B. Expanding the Bases of Personal Jurisdiction
1. Hess v. Pawloski
a. MA statute held that MA had jurisdiction over anyone who operated a motor vehicle within the state, on the grounds that such a person could be said to have impliedly consented to jurisdiction by the act of operating the vehicle.
b. The state has a right to require entering non-residents to appoint an in-state agent to receive process served against them, the state has a right to exclude those who refuse to make this appointment, therefore the state may infer that those who drive into the state without being forced to appoint agents would have done so if they had been forced to, and they may be said to have impliedly consented to substitute service.
C. A New Theory of Personal Jurisdiction
1. International Shoe Co. v. Washington
a. Facts: WA sought to collect unemployment taxes based on commissions paid by the firm to it’s WA-based salesmen. Company was incorp. In DE, it’s principle place of business was MS, firm had no WA office, but the salesmen rented display rooms in the state, all order were shipped to Washington from the home office in MS, total commissions paid to WA salesmen = $31k.
b. Minimum contacts standard à In cases where the D is not from the forum state, the only basis for exercising personal jurisdiction is the min. contacts test developed in Int’l Shoe. “DP requires only that in order to subject a D to a judgment in personam, if he be not present w/I the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Whether jurisdix is permissible depends on the “quality and nature” of the contacts (court said that in some cases, a single contact will do, but not contacts that are isolated or casual).
c. Did the D take advantage of the benefits and protections of the laws of the forum state?
d. Analysis must always consider the relationship between the contacts that gave rise to the suit and the state where the suit is brought.
e. 4 possible categories of cases:
· Related C/A: Specific Jurisdiction (D is only subject to jurisdix for those min. contacts; C/A arises from contacts with forum state)
ú Continuous and Systematic Activity + C/A arises from these activities (Always presence of Pers. Jurisdix)
ú Casual / Isolated Act + C/A arises from the Act (Chance you will have personal jurisdiction because of their nature and quality and circumstances of their commission).
· Unrelated C/A: General Jurisdiction (D may be sued in the state for any claim, even one completely unrelated to its in-state activities b/c in-state contacts are very substantial; C/A does not arise from contacts with forum state)
ú Co
mmerce is sufficient contact to justify a requirement that he defend here”
· When looking at a statute authorizing personal jurisdiction, 2 steps:
ú is jurisdiction authorized by the state? (see statute)
ú is it constitutional to take the case? (violate DP?)
2. Due Process and Long Arm Statutes
a. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.
· Upheld specific in personam jurisdix over claim arising out of a single contract solicited in the state
· Insurer sent an offer to re-insure to a policy holder in CA. Supreme Court held that this was a deliberate reaching and supported jurisdix over the insurer.
· Helped spell out the limits of the minimum contacts test spelled out in Int’l Shoe à Contacts b/w the Ins. Co. and the forum state: co. assumed the insurance obligations of the deceased’s previous insurer and sent the deceased a reinsurance offer which he accepted, deceased mailed all premiums to the D from CA until his death, both the deceased and the P were CA residents, witnesses were from CA, Ins. Co. had no offices in CA, had never solicited or done business in the state apart from the one policy in this case
· S. Ct. held that these contacts were sufficient to allow jurisdix. b/c CA had a strong interest in protecting it’s citizens and because the suit was based on a K which had substantial connection with the forum state.
b. Hanson v. Denckla
· Because the toughest problem in applying the min. contacts test is defining the “quality and nature” that makes a contact sufficient to support jursidix, many cases rely on the statement in Hanson that the D must have “purposely availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities w/I the forum state, this invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”
