Civil Procedure I Outline

Civil Procedure

Shipley

Spring 2015

I. Personal Jurisdiction

Ø Authorized by:

1. State statute

2. Federal constitution—14th Amendment “Due Process”

a. Minimum Contacts

b. Appropriate notice/opportunity to be heard

Ø Rule 12(b)(2): Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction

Ø 3 Types:

A. In Personam—jurisdiction over the person (judgment creates an obligation and requires “full faith and credit”—recognition by other states)

1. State Requires:

i. Present in the state (no matter how brief)

Burnham v. Superior Court (Tag Jurisdiction—when defendant enters forum state and is personally served with the complaint)

Facts: plaintiff’s home in NJ…divorcing wife (agreed to “irreconcilable diff claim) claimed desertation so wife sued; plaintiff was visiting children in CA and was personally served; plaintiff contesting jurisdiction

Issue: for jurisdiction over litigation are defendant’s contacts with state required by due process when defendant is physically present?

Rule: state’s have jurisdiction over non-residents when they are physically present in state; no matter how fleeting his visit is

Holding: based on physical presence alone constitutes due process bc it is a continuous traditional standard of legal system that define “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”; different from previous case Shaffer v. Heitner (p. 141) which plaintiff relies on bc this case references absent defendants (then minimum contacts is relevant)

ii. Domiciled in the state (even if not present)

ü Defined: where a person maintains her permanent home; intention to make her home; determined by law

ü Citizenship: US citizen (even if domiciled abroad is subject to personal jurisdiction in US

Miliken v. Meyer:

Facts: resident of Wyoming served in state of Colorado for suit in Wyoming; does not appear; default judgment; defendant appeals jurisdiction for failure of service

Holding: Judgment was valid bc authority of a state over its citizens does not end bc they are not in the state (personal service not required as long as the means to provide service is designed to provide defendant with notice)

iii. Consent

ü Voluntary Appearance: contesting case without challenging P.J

ü Implied

ü Express

1. By Contract

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute

Facts: carnival appealing lower court’s decision not to enforce forum-selection clause (required suit in Florida); original plaintiffs (Shutes) injured while on ship/sued Carnival; respondents say: shouldn’t be enforced bc it was not a product of negotiation/enforcement would deprive them of their day in court

Holding: Reasons clause is permissible: (in response to respondents’ claim: unreasonable to assume petitioners should respondents) not type of contract where individuals have bargaining power also, 1. Special interest in limiting location of suit (many customers from different places, even international) 2. Limits confusion about where suit needs to be brought 3. Reduced fares to passengers as a result of saving expenses in litigation in other places; Court looks at fairness: 1. Was not done in bad faith/to discourage passengers from litigating 2. Location in clause was reasonable (principle place of business in FL; respondents had notice of clause 3. No evidence Carnival had any fraud/overreaching in obtaining consent of Shutes)

2. By appointment of agent to accept service

iv. Act brings defendant within Long Arm Statute (Limitation—[below])

2. Constitution Requires:

i. Sufficient Contacts

ü Traditional Rule: (narrow) based on “physical power” of state Pennoyer v. Neff: Whenever served in the state personal jurisdiction is proper *later added consent & domicile

Issue: Is constructive service sufficient notice to attach property within the forum state owned by a nonresident? Was the result of the first suit proper/did it extinguish Neff’s title to the land?

Technically involves 2 suits:

1. Mitchell v. Neff (Oregon)

Mitchell (OR resident) sues Neff (nonresident of OR) for unpaid legal fees and wins; Neff later acquires property within the state of Oregon; Mitchell has sheriff seize land (debt to Mitchell is satisfied and Pennoyer buys land)

2. Neff v. Pennoyer (arises from result of first suit)

Neff has original deed and therefore wants Penn. to leave; Penn. has deed from Sheriff to show ownership and therefore feels entitled to land

Rule: proceedings in a court of law to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom the court has no jurisdiction are invalid for want of due process of law; no person subject to jurisdiction of court of the State unless he appears in court, is found in the state, is a resident of the state, or owns property in state (in case of property ownership: property must be owned at the time jurisdiction is attached/suit commences) p. 66 *requiring personal service to someone while they are within the state serves a dual purpose: gives court personal jurisdiction over him and provides him with notice; if property was owned at the time of the suit the court could have exercised in rem jurisdiction

Holding:

Reasoning: not valid bc there was no personal notice to Neff and no attachment/other proceeding against land until after the judgment of first case

Q1. Did Neff ever learn of original suit? No

Q2. Is absence of notice the basis for S.C decision? No

Q3. How could court have rendered binding judgment in first case? If he was personally found or served in state/if he owned property at the time of the first suit

ü Modern Rule: (expanded) International Shoe: minimum contacts to ensure “fair play & substantial justice” not offended—how fair it would be to exercise jurisdiction over an absent defendant; to determine if there are sufficient minimum contacts, court looks to:

1. Purposeful availment:

A. Stream of Commerce

1. Merely placing item in stream of commerce alone—not sufficient

2. Unresolved (but unlikey) that placing item in stream of commerce with knowledge or hope it may end up in particular place is sufficient (must show intentional targeting!)

3. Placing in stream of commerce with specific intent (modifying to comply with state law, maintaining sales office within state, etc.)—sufficient

B. Internet—unresolved test

Passive website (only view content)

Active website(order/download products)

Something in between?

2. Foreseeability –defendant must reasonably see that activities make it reasonable for her to be haled into court there

Facts: state of Washington seeking company to pay into state unemployment fund; plaintiff s