CIVIL PROCEDURE II – SPRING 2012
PROF. MASHBURN
CHOOSING THE CORRECT CT: Personal Jurisdiction, Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Venue
I. Personal Jurisdiction: Power of the Court over a defendant (what state can I file in?)
** Def CAN consent to personal Jurisd**
a. 3 Kinds of cases arise
i. In Persona: need both people, every day dispute such as a Tort or a K breach
ii. In Rem: Settling an issue over a piece of land (such as ownership); the land itself is sued
iii. Quasi in rem: Used to adjudicate issues of status (such as dissolution of marriage) where the person is not in the state but has property there. Property used to get jurisdiction over the person.
b. The Source of the Conflict
i. States always have personal jurisdiction over their residents; non-residents are the issue
ii. In order to get jurisdiction over non-residents (or those not present in the state) states enact long arm statutes extending their jurisdiction. In order to assert jurisdiction under a Long Arm Statute the following 2-step analysis is required:
1. Statute Interpretation: à Does the Statute grant jurisdiction in this case?
a. Language of statute (analyze every part)
i. Ex: Tortuous acts occurring in the state vs tortuous acts having effects in the state
ii. Argue both sides: Does the tort occur where the screw is not attached property or when the damages actually result at the place it blows up?
b. Legislative history
c. Case Law interpretation
2. Constitutionality of the Statute
a. Limited by Due Process (14th Amendment) à General notion of Fairness
b. Cases below look at the question of what is required to satisfy due process:
c. What is required to satisfy Due Process?
i. Finished Goods
1. Hess v Polowski: Statute making driving into the state “implied consent” to being represented by registrar for service of process to c/a related to crash is OK
2. International Shoe (4 categories; “Minimum Contacts”)
a. Spectrum
i. Specific Jurisdiction: Where the C/a is related to or arises from the activity in the state (include fact-specific analysis in the test as to HOW)
ii. General Jurisdiction: Where the C/a is unrelated but the presence is so strong that we do not feel bad suing them in state A for something not arising out of the specific activities there. Only applies to corporations.
b. Language: “Due Process requires minimum contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
i. Foreshadows that reasonableness will come into play
3. WWVW à Foreseeability alone is not enough
a. Minimum contacts should be such that they should be able to reasonably anticipate being haled into Ct there
i. Adopts purposely avail language of Hanson. The question to be asked is did the defendant seek to serve this mrkt?
1. Did they close sales in the forum state?
2. Did they perform services?
3. Did they avail themselves of the privileges and benefits of the forum state’s law?
4. Did they solicit business?
a. Through salespeople?
b. Through advertising?
5. Did they have chains of distributions meant to end up there which they controlled?
b. Reasonableness analysis (if no min contacts no jurisd, no matter how reas.)
ii. Component Parts
1. Gray (radiators)
a. Language:
i. Stream of Commerce as the predictable path that component parts take until they reach the final consumer (theory is that final location is contemplated)
1. SoC ends when the item is bought
ii. Did defendant invoke the benefits and protections of the laws of the state?
1. Did the laws benefit the final product being sold in the state (gets him sales)
2. Asahi
a. 2 part test affirmed
i. Purposely availed?
1. Issue: Is just SoC enough to constitute PA? à SPLIT:
a. O’Connor: not enough, applies WWVW, looks for substantial connection to state, intent to serve the market
i. Designing for state (for O’Connor design for US in gen, not enough) (special reqs, m v km, volts)
ii. Advertisement/ trade shows?
iii. Established channels to provide regular advice to end customer
iv. Marketing through a dist in the state
**Criticism: very diff for component parts, very standard.
b. Brennan: SoC is enough
i. Path it takes predictable
ii. Ends when consumer buys (once bought, if brought by consumer to different state, WW applies)
c. Since there was no majority, the Calif SC decision stands: SoC is enough
ii. Reasonableness (look to margin prev page)
1. Big burden on D side can be overcome by substantial interest by P. Balancing task.
iii. Contract Cases
1. McGee
a. Language: “substantial connection” to forum state (the K)
2. Hanson
a. Language: Purposeful Availment
b. the unilateral activities of a 3rd party cannot create min contacts required
3. Burger King:
a. 2-step test:
gh (no majority)
i. Scalia: Historical way of doing it so OK
ii. White: historical is ok unless it becomes unfair across the board
iii. Brennan: historical not enough à did the person derive benefits?
II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: the power of the Fed Ct to hear a certain kind of case (what system do I file in? allows you to decide whether you can go to State Ct, Fed Ct or both)
**The Constitution allowed for a creation of lower federal courts by enumerating (upper limits) its subject matter jurisdiction, but did not actually create them. The lower federal courts are actually thus created by Congress who also sets forth their jurisdiction w/in the limits of Article III.***
**Defs CANNOT consent to Subject Matter Jurisdiction**
à The Following are the cases over which lower FEDERAL Cts has Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
a. Diversity Jurisdiction à Set forth by § 1332
i. Rationale: to avoid bias against out of state or foreign citizens
ii. Jurisdiction under §1332 (analysis):
1. Possible diversity cases (“A”):
a. citizens of different states
b. citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign state
c. citizens of different states + foreign citizens parties
d. citizen of a state v foreign state
2. Amt in Controversy (“B”): à Min $75,000
a. Determined at the time of filing from the complaint
b. Standard of legal certainty that the claim is really for less is required in order to dismiss (very high strd in favor of P)
i. do the math, look at all possible gains and losses
c. Aggregating (separate amts can sometimes be added to satisfy)
i. 1P à 1D , multiple indep claims à ADD
ii. P à D1 + D2 à NO add
1. must satisfy amt for each individually!!
iii. P1 + P2 à D , JOINTLY à ADD
1. must own property jointly (it is therefore 1 claim)
iv. P1 + P2 à D, indep claims à NO add
1. Cannot add even if same incident (car crash)
2. exeption: when either claim alone satisfies the amt the other P may join (Supplemental Jurisdiction)
