Civil Procedure I Outline

Eaglewoman Civil Procedure Outline
Fall 2016
Jurisdiction over the parties
The Traditional bases for JX
Before a ct. can decide it must have Jx over the parties as well as over the subject matter
Requirements for JX over the parties
In Personam JX: = JX over the defendant based upon: 1) serving within the state; 2) consent; or 3) serving outside of state if defendant is a citizen of state
In rem JX: personal jx by attaching property within the state – seizure of property and publication of suit
Quasi in rem JX: The action is begun by seizing property owned by (attachment), or debt owed to (garnishment) the D, w/in the state forum. Different from in rem because the action is not really about the “thing” seized; instead the thing seized serves as a pretext for the ct. to decide the case w/o having jx over the Ds person.
Pennoyer v. Neff: Under the Due Process Clause, no person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court unless she voluntarily appears in the court, is found within the state, resides in the state, or has property in the state that the court has attached. (Mitchell jerk atto)
No out of state services- state power to the edge of there borders, cannot run into another state
In state presence at the time of service suffices- has to be served w/in the state. It will suffice if he is personally served w/ process w/in the state or voluntary appeared.
Domicile: JX may continuously be exercised if domiciled w/in forum state.
 A person is considered to be domiciled in the place where he has his current dwelling-place, has an intention to remain for an indefinite period.
Domicile = current dwelling + intention to remain there
Expanding the bases for Personal JX
Hess v. Pawloski: A state has the power to regulate the use of its highways by nonresidents. A state thus has the power to claim jurisdiction over a nonresident for claims arising from the nonresident’s use of the state’s highways. JX is proper b/c arose out of use of highways
A new theory of JX
Minimum Contacts Requirement: Regardless of the type of JX, a ct. may not exercise it unless the D has “minimum contacts” w/ the state in which it sits. The D must take actions that are purposefully directed towards the forum state (selling goods, incorporated in state, etc.). W/o minimum contact’s. JX would violate the Ds Federal Constitutional right to due process 5th amendment. If state court, it’s the 14th amendment guarantee of due process.
Balancing test: Even if the D has the requisite minimum contacts w/in the forum state, the court may not exercise JX if considerations of “fair play” and “substantial justice” would make requiring the D to defend the action unreasonable as to constitute a due process violation.
Asahi Metal Industry co. v. Superior Court: where the only parties remaining are foreign corporations that never did business in the US, it is unfair to require D to litigate in Cal. (this case is unusual normally if have minimum contacts not unreasonable)
International Shoe v. Washington: (still good law) Washington sought to collect unemployment taxed based on commissions paid by Int’l shoe to Washington based sales man,
For a defendant not present within the territory of a forum to be subjected to a judgment in personam, due process requires that 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. Could exercise JX.
In personam and Minimum contacts
1) by state statute and 2) consistent with the 5th or 14th amendment due process clause “Minimum contacts” that satisfy fair play and substantial justice
Minimum contacts = systematic & continuous business activities
Long arm statutes are the first consideration provide for jx over non-residents & personal service of process outside of state (notice)
General Principles over corporation Ds.
Domestic Corp- incorporated in the stateà JX ✔
Presence of a corporate agent: occasional presence of an agent does not automatically allow tag JX, corp.  must still meet minimum contacts
Specific JX and St. Long arm Statutes
Due Process: the exercise Jx by a state court must meet the requirements of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. If D is lacking in connections w/ the forum state, it will violate D 14th amendment rights.
Specific v. General JX
Specific: refers to a cts. Exercise of personal JX to hear a claim related to, and arising out of, the Ds voluntary contacts with the forum state. In general, a smaller degree of contact between the D and the forum state is required than general.
General: refers to a situation in which the state court is exercising in personal JX to hear a claim that does not arise out of or relate to the Ds contacts w/ the forum state. à need much more extensive contacts. If personal if the D is domiciled in, or personally served w/ process in, that state
Minimum Contacts expanded:
McGee v. International Life insurance: Texas insurance co. to a California resident. Could D be brought in Cal? Mailed all premiums from Cal, Cal residents, witnesses to death in Cal, D has no offices in Cal, never solicited or done business. Contacts were sufficient. Cal has a strong interest in protecting its citizens, by giving them a local forum to sue. Based on a K with substantial connections. Residents at a severe disadvantage if forced to go out of state.
Importance: represents least contact w/ forum St. and has been approved by Supreme Court. (Ex. Of specific arose in St.)
Hanson v. Denckla: went other way did not have minimum contacts. Involved funds from a trust. Only D voluntary contacts w/ the forum state. Held: Florida ct. could not have JX over Delaware trustee, since K with Florida was insufficient. Trustee never done business in Fl. First case since Int’l shoe that invalidated JX over foreign corp.
Distinguish the two cases: Hanson: some act by which the D purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conduction activities w/in the forum state.
Minimum contacts still required.
 Minimum Contacts in domestic relations:
Kulko v. Superior Ct.: held a father residing in NY does not acquire minimum contacts with Cal. Merely b/c his daughter lived there with her mother. Refused to let mother bring in personam suit against the father in Cal.
Long arm statutes: Even when the requirements for due process (min. contacts) are satisfied, the defendant may not be se