Civil Procedure Outline – Fall Semester 2009 (Brown)
Due Process of Law
5th Amendment – “The federal government shall not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
14th Amendment – “No state shall deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
I. Notice and the Opportunity to be Heard
FCRP Rules 1, 2, and 3
a. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FCRP) #1, 2, & 3
A. Rule #1 – These rules govern the procedure in the United States district courts in all suits of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity or in admiralty. They shall be constructed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.
1. There used to be separate courts systems of law, equity, and admiralty – but now we have one federal rule
2. Distinction between Law (cases that seek to recover damages) and Equity (cases that seek injunctive relief instead of monetary compensation)
3. Creates an efficient law process
B. Rule #2 – There should be one form of action, known as “civil action.”
1. Revokes difficult pleading
C. Rule #3 – A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.
1. In many states you have to both file and serve your complaint before that statute of limitations runs
2. Explains commencement of a civil action when a complaint is filed
Due Process of Law
b. Due Process of Law
A. Constitutional guarantee under the 5th (federal) and 14th (state) Amendments, giving each individual a chance to present their side of the story before being convicted or a crime or dismissed from government sponsored employment (due process is not required for employees of private business entities).
B. Sniadach v. Family Finance Corporation (1969) – This case began the due process revolution ruling that wage garnishing denied due process of law from a debtor (opened the door to attack other issues of prejudgment seizure of property).
C. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank (1950) established that an individual must be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property rights. The court rules posting by publication unconstitutional.
D. The Mathews Test
Created under Cleveland Board v. Loudermill (U.S. Supreme Court – 1984, This cases establishes what predetermination process (due process) must be accorded to a public employee who can be discharged only for cause. There must be 1) an opportunity to be heard and 2) there must be notice so that an opportunity to be heard can occur.
This is a balancing test between the private interest of employees to keep their job on one side and the government interests in having an efficient and speedy process. (Usually comes out in favor of the government)
Interest of Each Side
Individual Government
Retain Employment Speedy Discharge
Value of being Heard Administrative Burden
1) Accuracy Avoiding Disruption
2) Avoid Disruption
Shared Interest: Erroneous Termination
E. Due Process Requirements when Seizing Property (need collateral to collect from)
1. The person has to have notice
2. A judge will issue an order for the prejudgment seizure … can’t be done arbitrarily through just filing with the clerk
3. Plaintiff posts a bond to guarantee their action and add credibility to the claim
Notice
c. Notice
A. Greene v. Lindsay (1982)
1. Although personal notice requires service in persona, less rigorous procedures of notice have enjoyed substantial acceptance throughout our legal history
a. Court recommends notice by mail – but says when the dispute involves property posting might be sufficient
2. RATIONAL: Want to provide notice that is going to actually get to the individual, because if they do not receive proper notice they will not receive a meaningful opportunity to respond
Service of Process
d. Service of Process
A. Rule #4: Federal Rule for Service
1. Sections of the Rule
a. Parts of summons
b. How a summons gets issued by the court
c. The summons shall be served together with a copy of the complaint … 120 days to serve the complaint or the court will dismiss the claim without prejudice
d. Waiver of service (preferred method)
e. Service within the US
i. Service can occur anywhere in the US dependant on the laws where the service is done or the suit is filed (incorporating state law)
ii. OR by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint at personal place of abode (dwelling) with the person or a person of at least 18 years of age
B. National Development Co. v. Triad Holding Corp. and Adnan Khashoggi (1991)
1. Facts – Khashoggi is a worldwide citizen who maintains 12 residences all over the world. He claims that he is a citizen of Saudi Arabia and that service is only proper there. He was served by NDC, by giving the summons to his housekeeper at his condo in NY. The issue for the court was whether service was proper and whether under FRCP §4(d)(1).
2. The court finds that regardless of the fact that Khashoggi had “actual notice” of the lawsuit, this does not cure void service (process of service is very important). However, the court does say that the service is valid b/c the condo is properly characterized as a place of abode or dwelling house under FRCP §4.
C. Mid-Continent Wood Products v. Harris (1991)
1. Facts – This was a suit for breech of contract. The court says that “actual knowledge” and “substantial compliance” is not enough. The court says that there must be strict compliance and that “trying diligently” is not enough b/c the person must be actually served. MUST HAVE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES OF §4.
Due Process and Jurisdiction
II. Due Process and Jurisdiction
Types of Jurisdiction
a. Types of Jurisdiction
A. In personam jurisdiction – Jurisdiction over the person: the court may render a judgment against a person by virtue of his presence or citizenship within the state’s territory
B. In rem jurisdiction – Jurisdiction over the property: the court may determine the status of property located within its territory, and the determination is binding to all interest holders (property at issue)
C. Quasi in rem jurisdiction – Combination of A & B: the court may rend
i. International Shoe claimed that there was a lack of personal jurisdiction b/c 1) they were not incorporated in WA and 2) they were not an employer within the definition of the statute
ii. International Shoe’s actual connection to WA: maintained 11 -13 employees paid on commission and shoes were delivered FOB (free on board) to the state
b. NEW TEST – “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 has certain minimum contacts with such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
c. Purposeful Availment
i. Jurisdiction by minimum contacts is based on the premise that nonresident enjoyment of the privilege of conducting business in the forum carries with it an obligation to respond to jurisdiction in that state
d. Two Pronged Test for Jurisdiction:
i. Does defendant have minimum contacts within the forum?
1. Its acts have been continuous and systematic, and given rise to the cause (quality and nature of minimum contacts)
a. Sporadic or casual acts of Defendant in forum, or a single, isolated act there may not be enough if acts are unrelated to the cause
2. Specific Jurisdiction – Sporadic of a single act may give rise to jurisdiction under certain circumstances where the cause arises out of the acts of the defendant
3. General Jurisdiction – continuous activity of defendant in the forum may allow causes unrelated to the cause of action (but it is not wise to jump to general, b/c there need to be a lot of contacts)
ii. Is jurisdiction consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?
1. Relative convenience of forum to parties
2. Interest of state in regulating the types of activity in which D is engaging
3. Relative convenience of parties to suit in the alternative forum
Rules of Civil Procedure 302 – Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliary which are a basis for jurisdiction
1. Transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state
2. Commits a tortuous act within the state, except to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act
3. Commits a tortuous act outside the state causing injury to persons or property within the state if he:
