Civil Procedure I Outline

Civil Procedure
Professor Stancil
Spring 2007
 
For the final exam, the outlines were limited to 10 pages. This outline therefore focuses on brevity and breadth rather than depth of coverage.PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Pennoyer v. Neff
Lack of jurisdiction is a violation of due process (this view is still accepted)
Three types of jurisdiction:
In personam – only available by serving the person in the jurisdiction under Pennoyer
Quasi in rem – Personal jurisdiction by virtue of property in the state; up to value of the property.
In rem jurisdiction – Jurisdiction over the thing itself (e.g. disputes over ownership)
Exceptions:
Consent (e.g. corporation)
Divorce (or “determining the status of a citizen with respect to a non-present person”)
Collateral attack: if a court lacks jurisdiction, its decision can be attacked later in another proceeding on those grounds and vacated if the defendant did not appear (see preclusion)
Modern Personal Jurisdiction
·         International Shoe (YES jurisdiction)
§         Minimum contacts, fair play and substantial justice
§         Not irregular or casual (Systematic and continuous) (focus on quality, not quantity)
§         “Taking advantage” of the protections of the state (Purposeful availment?)
·         Shaffer v. Heitner
Must be minimum contacts to exercise quasi in rem – eliminates usefulness of QIR
§         World-Wide Volkswagen
·         Contacts must be such that he should reasonably foresee being haled into court there, considering:
·         Burden on defendant
Forum state’s interest
Interstate judicial system’s interest in efficiency
Shared interest of the states in “fundamental substantive social policy” (i.e. “We have to let him sue somewhere…”)
·         Not enough that item sold in NY could foreseeably have ended up in OK
·         Brennan’s dissent – stream of commerce argument (emphasizes forum state’s interest)
Burger King – Yes jurisdiction
Brennan’s two step test:
Are there minimum contacts?
Frames purposeful availment as subtest of foreseeability
Would the application of jurisdiction violate substantial justice and fair play?
Uses WWVW factors
·         Asahi – Court unanimous that there is no jurisdiction
Court generally agrees on balancing burden on the defendant (convenience) against state interest in hearing case – reaffirms WWVW factors
O’Connor’s opinion:
Minimum contacts must arise from “an action of the D purposefully directed toward the forum state”
·         Mere awareness that D was placing an item in the stream of commerce not enough
·         No minimum contacts here “such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction is consistent with fair play and substantial justice”
Brennan’s opinion – applies two step test:
There are minimum contacts here, under a stream of commerce analysis
BUT, “fair play and substantial justice” defeat jurisdiction in this “rare” case
Miscellaneous Personal Jurisdiction Cases:
§         Burnham (divorce case – man visits kids, gets serve