Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Illinois School of Law
Hyman, David A.

 
CIVIL PROCEDURE
HYMAN Spring 2014
 
 
I. Jurisdiction over the Person
• Whether a particular court has power over the D
◦ PJ is today a question of contacts and fairness: It prevents a P from suing a non-resident D in a state unless that
defendant has established a relationship to that state so that it would reasonable to anticipate being sued there
▪ If D lacks connections with the forum state, Due Process forbids courts sitting in that state from rendering a valid judgement binding D
• “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” 5th Amendment, applied to the
states through the 14th Amendment ◦ 2 kinds of PJ, general and specific:
A. General Jurisdiction: Substantial and Continuous Contacts
• D can be sued in forum for claim arising anywhere ◦ Traditional basis:
                            ▪  D is served with process in the state (territoriality)
                            ▪  D has an agent in the state that is served with process
                            ▪  D is domiciled in the state
                            ▪  D consents to PJ in the state 
i. Territoriality: Pennoyer v. Neff (US, 1877)
• Sovereignty: States are all powerful within their borders, conversely, states have no power outside of their borders: A state
may not render valid judgement over D over which it has no jurisdiction over
◦ States have jurisdiction over persons within their borders (domicile or transitory) and over property within their
borders (were the claim concerns the property – in rem – or where jurisdiction attaches through property over the person and judgement cannot exceed the value of the property – quasi-in rem)
▪ quasi-in rem was weakened by Shaffer v. Heitner
• Jurisdiction based on physical presence satisfies due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system and defined due process (Pennoyer and federalism; Shoe was an expansion): Scalia plurality in Burnham v. Superior Court, US 1990 (4 – 4 split)
◦ Under Brennan's concurrence, Shoe can be applied broadly so that visiting can be purposeful availment (enjoy benefits
of state, safety, etc.)
ii. Domicile
• Domicile in the state is alone sufficient to bring an absent D within the reach of the state's jurisdiction Milliken v. Meyer, US, 1940
◦     So long as there is adequate notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard, Due Process is satisfied (satisfy implicit notions of fair play and substantial justice)
◦     Citizenship arises out of domicile, and is not dissolved by mere absence
▪ Corporations are citizens of their state of incorporation and the principal place of business
• A court may assert GJ over foreign corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the state are so continuous and systematic so as to render them essentially at home in the forum state
iii. Waiver
• PJ, when not challenged in the first action or motion, is waived. See FRCP 12 (b), (g), (h)
◦     Making any pre-answer motion that omits a defense of personal jurisdiction is a waiver of the defense; By non- 
assertion, the following defenses are waived (FRCP 12 (h)):
                                                    ▪  (2) Lack of PJ
                                                    ▪  (3) Improper venue
                                                    ▪  (4) Insufficient process
                                                    ▪  (5) Insufficient service of process
◦     Defenses can be joined with others (FRCP 12 (g)) 
iv. Consent
• Forum-selection clauses forcing individuals to agree to submit to jurisdiction in a particular place are enforceable so long as they pass the test for judicial fairness Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, US 1991
◦ Among the factors considered are:
                            ▪  valid interest in limiting fora;
                            ▪  efficiency gained by selection;
                            ▪  price considerations taken

s unilateral act of bringing the defendant's product into the forum state is not a sufficient basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, US 1980
                                                    ▪  Foreseeability is not a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause; instead, it 
is the D's conduct and connections to the forum state that determines whether it is reasonable for a D to be 
haled into court
                                                    ▪  Purposeful availment as purposefully directing activities towards a state
◦     PJ as a two-part test: Minimum contacts + fairness
                                                    ▪  Where a D who has directed activities at forum residents seeks to prevent jurisdiction, he must present a 
compelling case (grave inconvenience) that the presence of other considerations would render jurisdiction 
unreasonable Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, US 1985
                                                    ▪  Where a forum state seeks to assert specific jurisdiction over non-resident, fair warning is satisfied if D has 
purposely directed his activities to residents of the state and litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of those activities
• Notice: Brennan establishes an asymmetrical two pronged test:
◦     Minimum contacts (reasonably anticipate being asked to stand and defend at forum, purposeful direction)
◦     “Fair play and substantial justice” (if state interest is strong, there can be less minimum contacts)