Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Iowa School of Law
Stensvaag, John-Mark

Professor Stensvaag Civil Procedure Spring 2012

Personal Jurisdiction
1)      Federal Court Analysis
a.       Did the D file a waiver under Rule 12
i.      If yes the federal court has PJ
b.      Does Rule 4 (k)(1)(a) apply?  3 Cases
i.      100 mile Bulge; if yes PJ appropriate
1.      Only applies to third party brought in to case
ii.      Federal Statute; if yes than under Rule 4 (k)(1)(c ) PJ appropriate
1.      If there is a federal question: Anti trust laws, patent
iii.      Is the D an alien not subject to any PJ in the US
1.      If yes under Rule 4(k)(2) go to CONST ANALYSIS
2.      Determine minimum contacts
iv.      If none of the cases hold under Rule 4(k)(1)(a) look at State Analysis (LAS)
2)      State LAS Analysis
a.       Does the LAS authorize the court to exercise Const Limits (Rhode Island)
i.      If yes go to Const Analysis
ii.      If no than the LAS requires specific factual circumstances to exercise PJ move forward
1.      Ex) NY LAS
b.      Do the facts of the dispute/case fall w/in the LAS?
i.      If No, than no PJ
ii.      If Yes, than look at the Constitutional Analysis
3)      Constitutional Analysis
a.       Do the traditional in personam requirements hold, if yes than PJ is appropriate
i.      Presence
1.      Even if in state for a day to visit kids, work, vacation (Burnham)
2.      Exception: if brought to state under fraud (Newman)
ii.      Domicile
iii.      Voluntary general appearance
iv.      Consent
1.      General or implied
b.      Is this an in rem action (held under personal owned, tangible property w/in the forum; if yes PJ is appropriate
c.       Is this a quasi in rem or quasi in rem (Gimmick)
i.      If quasi in rem, must still show minimum contacts (Shaffer)
ii.      If Gimmick
1.      May be based on the presence in the forum state of non-resident D’s intangible property
a.       Property of the non-resident D must be present in the forum state
2.      May be permitted even though non-resident D’s right to property is in dispute
3.      May be permitted even though non-resident D claim to property is inchoate
iii.      Insurance Policy
1.      If you lose in court for an auto accident, insurance company has obligation to indemnify you (1st principle)
2.      Asset (court award) does not exist unless you lose (2nd Principle)
3.      Not entitled to the money now only in the future (3rd principle)
4.      Attaching obligation to insurance for quasi in rem can be done everywhere:  Seider Doctrine
a.       Must still have minimum contacts as presence of property is not enough:  Rush
d.      Shoe Matrix; determining minimum contacts
i.      Are the contacts continuous/systematic and related; if yes than PJ is appropriate
1.      Int. Shoe
ii.      Are the contacts continuous/systematic but not related
1.      If yes minimum contacts may be sufficient move to the Reasonable and Fair Analysis
iii.      Are the contacts single isolated and unrelated
1.      If yes than No PJ
iv.      Are the contacts single isolated but related move forward
e.       Purposeful Availment; if yes to any than move to the Reasonable and Fair Analysis
i.      Did the party enjoy the benefit and protections of the laws of the forum state
ii.      Was it reasonably foreseeable that the D would have a contact/ or product affect someone w/in the forum state
iii.      Is it in the interest of the forum state
1.      Did the contact/product cause a tort against someone w/in the state
2.      Stream of commerce w/in the state
3.      Is there a public policy issue in the state requiring PJ
iv.      Does Jurisdiction by necessity apply?
4)      Reasonable and Fair Analysis; If yes than PJ is appropriate if no, than there is no PJ
a.       Would the exercise of PJ be unreasonable or unfair in regards to
i.      Relationship between both P and/or D
1.      Does P have a strong interest on obtaining relief in the forum
2.      Would the inconvenience of the forum affect his ability to mount a defense
ii.      State interest
1.      Does the state have a strong interest in resolving the dispute
iii.      Forum convenience
5)      Challenges to Personal Jurisdiction
a.       Collateral Attack
i.      Do not show up to the 1st claim against you
ii.      When party attempts to enforce judgment against you make a claim against them that they did not have PJ
iii.      IF the courts claims they did have PJ you are screwed; cannot go back to the original court and claim defend on its merits since you defaulted on that original claim
b.      Direct Attack
i.      Must include in your answer, pre-answer motion
ii.      If you go to court to fight on your merits and you did not include this you have WAIVED your right to attack PJ
iii.      May make a voluntary special appearance where you do not fight on the merits of the case but specifically to fight on PJ
1.      Not all states allow this

Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1)      Original Federal Court Jurisdiction
a.       Diversity:  28 USC §1332
i.      Parties involved can be:
1.      Individuals: parties involved domiciled and present in the state of US and territories
2.      Corporations:  place incorporated and principal place of business
ii.      Are all parties one on side of the action diverse from all parties on other side?
1.      Yes move forwards
2.      No, no complete diversity
iii.      Has a party been improperly made and joined to invoke jurisdiction
1.      No diversity; “anti-shenanigan” provision:  28 USC § 1359
iv.      Is the amount in controversy greater than $75,000?
1.      Yes diversity met
2.      No, No such diversity
b.      Federal Question:  28 USC §1331
i.      Does the claim contain an essential federal element that arises under federal law? (Well Pleaded Complaint Rule)
1.      If claim is based on a federal statute or the Constitution, than SMJ allowed
2.      If the federal question can be anticipated or is likely to be brought up in court…THIS IS NOT ENOUGH to grant SMJ:  Mottley
ii.      Example
1.      If claim is for a fraudulent patent claim where the complaint seeks damages form the patent contract
a.       Although patent claims are Federal Questions under 28 USC 1338 (a)
i.      This is a contract dispute and must go to

in that state §1441 (b)
ii.      Corporations:  residency is where they would be subject to PJ; §1441 (c )
iii.      If yes, then venue is proper in district where D’s reside
1.      Continue on to verify, can be multiple venues
iv.      If no, venue is not proper
b.      Is there a district where a claim arose or a substantial part of property subject to the action?
i.      If yes, venue is proper §1441 (b)
ii.      If  no, and venue could not be found under (a) look at fallback provisions
1.      Also must be make sure LAS under Rule 4(1)(k) applies for PJ
c.       If it is a corporation:
i.      Is the corporation the D? §1441 (c )
1.      Then venue is proper where the courts can hold PJ
ii.      Is the corporation the P?
1.      Then venue is only proper in the corp personal place of business
d.      Fallback provisions: §1391 (b)(3) and (c )(2)
i.      if there is not district in any of the above actions than any judicial district in which any D is subject to PJ
e.       Ex)  ; claim arose in state Z
1.      Under §1441 (a):  does not work because D’s do not reside in the same state
2.      Under §1441 (b):  claim arose in Z
3.      §1441 (c ) is inoperable since we found venue in §1441 and b
4.      Venue only in Z
f.       Ex) ; claim arose in Z (ASK STENSVAAG)
2)      Transfer of Venue:  28 USC §1404
a.       Forum Non Conveniens (CL Doctrine)
i.      Courts may refuse to take jurisdiction over matters where there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties
1.      Is there an alternative forum available?
a.       If no then venue cannot be transferred
b.      28 USC §1404
i.      Courts have discretion to transfer cases instead of dismissing
1.      Can only transfer between federal courts; FC to State NOT ALLOWED
c.       Public and Private Interests in court discretion to transfer
i.      What is the location of the events giving rise to the case?
ii.      Availability of the compulsory process for attendance of unwilling party
iii.      Can other parties be impleaded to transferred court?
iv.      Locations of relevant witnesses and evidence
d.      Hoffman v Blaski
i.      ; complaint was for patent infringement (federal question)
ii.      P wanted case in IL federal court; D wanted in TX federal court
1.      § 1404 only allows transfer to a proper court (where PJ, SMJ and venue are valid)
a.       D’s would not have PJ in IL §1391 (a)
b.      Conduct was presumed to have been in TX §1391 (b)
c.       §1391 (c ) not operable; Venue cannot be in IL