Civ Pro I Fall 2014 – E Burch
1. Personal Jurisdiction Analysis
FIRST: Statutory Analysis
Is there a statute that permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction?
Four general types of long-arm statutes that purport to exercise jurisdiction over non-residents:
Those that permit the exercise of jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the Constitution
Those that limit the exercise of jurisdiction to certain situations, which is less than the Constitution permits
Those that purport to extend jurisdiction beyond what is Constitutional
Attachment Statutes
SECOND: Constitutional Analysis
(1) IS THE CASE IN PERSONAM, IN REM, OR QUASI IN REM (1 OR 2)?
in personam – exercised over the defendant herself because she has some appropriate connection with the forum; jurisdictional predicate is the defendant herself.
Entitled to enforcement in other states under the principles of full faith and credit
“traditional bases for [in personam] jurisdiction”:
Consent – Court notes that a D can be subject to in personam jurisdiction if she “appears in court”(Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute) [Forum-selection clause contained in ticket.]
· Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. (1972)
a forum-selection clause may be found unreasonable if:
“[its] formation was induced by fraud or overreaching”;
the complaining party “will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court” because of the grave inconvenience or unfairness of the selected forum;
the fundamental unfairness of the chosen law may deprive the plaintiff of a remedy; or
“[its] enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum state.”
Residence – Defendant’s Domicile
Presence – State has in personam jurisdiction over a defendant “found within the State.”
Not just presence once upon a time, but Defendant must be served w/ process while present in the forum
Burnham v. Superior Court – court split 4-4 on whether Pennoyer applied or whether International Shoe applied.
2. in rem
True in rem cases are rare and involve a dispute over the ownership of the property that is the jurisdictional predicate and purport to determine the ownership interest in that thing as to every person in the world.
3. quasi in rem (2 types)
QIR-1: adjudicate the ownership of the property that is used as the jurisdictional predicate and purport to determine that ownership as between and among the parties to the case (as opposed to the whole world)
Shaffer v. Heitner – When the property is the source of the controversy as in QIR-1 and In rem jurisdiction, it “would be unusual for the state where the property is located not to have jurisdiction”
QIR-2 – dispute has nothing to do with the property and is not over who owns it.
Shaffer v. Heitner – Presence of property may also favor jurisdiction in cases where ownership of the property is conceded but the cause of action is otherwise related to the rights and duties growing out of that ownership
Language refers to QIR-2 cases in which the property that is the jurisdictional predicate CAUSED the injury to the plaintiff
Will likely have jurisdiction in this instance
If Plaintiff’s injuries are unrelated to the property that is the jurisdictional predicate, apply the minimum contacts analysis
Harris v. Balk (1905)
State could acquire jurisdiction by “attaching” the defendant’s debts.
Overruled by Shaffer v. Heitner – must apply minimum contacts test now
(2) APPLY INTERNATIONAL SHOE’S MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST TO ALL THREE CATEGORIE
Minimum Contacts Test (as stated in International Shoe Co. v. Washington): Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
(A) Is there a relevant conta
Plaintiff felt the brunt of the harm to her reputation in the forum state that became the focal point of the injury
specific activity can be shown by which the defendants conduct was “expressly aimed” at the forum state and was “calculated to cause injury” there.
Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. – Sliding scale analysis
first category, where exercise of jurisdiction is proper, includes Web sites that enter into contracts over the Internet.
o Known as the “active” website – D engages in activities such as transmitting files to the forum over the Internet or entering contracts w/ residents of the forum
third category, (other end of the spectrum) where jurisdiction is not proper, includes Web sites that are passive, merely providing information.
o Even though others can gain access to it, it does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it.
In the middle are the interactive Web sites, where information is exchanged between the user and the host, although no commercial transaction occurs. Courts are divided in this category.
o Zippo court, “[i]n these [middle] cases, the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site.”
3. General or specific jurisdiction?
Specific jurisdiction – claim arises from something the defendant has done in the forum or some effect she has had there
· this “relatedness” may make up for a relatively low amount of contact between the defendant and the forum.
General jurisdiction – relatedness is not required. Instead, the defendant’s contacts with the forum must be continuous and systematic
· Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown – Defendant must be “essentially at home” in the forum
