Select Page

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

 
Civil Procedure
Stensvaag
Spring 2015


I.   Selecting a “Proper Court”
a.   Personal Jurisdiction – the court has the power to bind the defendant with a judgment i.   In personam  jurisdiction – a court may enter an “unlimited” judgment, which
may be satisfied out of the defendant’s assets that are not exempted against execution, against the defendant ***shake guy by the legs to get the last
penny***
ii.   Minimum Contacts – see written outline go through all 8 options for minimum
contacts
1.   Long arm statute
a.   i.e. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine – NH long arm statute has the same scope as the constitution-> anything the constitution reaches this long arm statute reachesΔ
2.   Compliance with due process clause
a.   MINIMUM CONTACTS IS GIVEN BY DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IN CONSTITUTION
i.   If conflict of law with this federal law always wins
3.   Notice
a.   Mullane Standard: “The means employed must be one that someone actually wanting to give notice would use that method”
b.   Trickery is allowed if those served are attempting to evade
notice
c.   McGee v. International Life Ins. Co.
i.   Process can be served across state lines and service is allowed in other states
1.   Forseeability- linked to fairness
d.   Rule 4(e) – ways to serve an individual
e.   Rule 4(k) – territorial limits of effective service
i.   (1)(a) – a federal court may borrow a state long arm statute
ii.   (1)(b) – “100 mile bulge” provision
1.   allows PJ for parties under Rule 14 or 19 (3rd
parties) if they are served within 100 miles of the court house
iii.   (1)(c) – federal courts can use federal statues that are effectively like long-arm statutes
1.   i.e. Sherman Anti trust
iv.   (2) – unique federal question long arm statue
1.   If constitutional to assert PJ over defendant but
no state long-arm statute this can be used f.   How to get out of process:
i.   Fraudulent inducement doctrine
1.   Wyman v. Newhouse
ii.   Immunity from service of process g.   Options for responding to a summons

i.   Special Appearance – claim no jurisdiction
1.   File Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss due to lack
of personal jurisdiction
a.   Must be the first piece of paper filed in
the case
2.   You can appeal a special appearance only if you
raise it originally
a.   Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men’s
Ass’n
ii.   General Appearance – fight on the merits
1.   If you generally appear then you cannot appeal based on PJ
iii.   Default – do not respond
h.   Options for responding to a Complaint/ Options for your answer:
i.   Admit allegation
ii.   Deny allegation
iii.   Say you don’t know enough (move for a more definitive statement under Rule 12)
iv.   Excuse/affirmative defense iii.   Other methods to gain in personam jurisdiction
1.   Presence in the state – proved through “service of process”
a.   Grace v. McArthur (1959) –served on an airplane while over a state
b.   Burnham v. Superior Court (1990) – don’t really know what this means but maybe…
i.   3 Judges: Jurisdiction by pure presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of the legal system that define the due process standard of “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
1.   No courts or statutes have abandoned in-state service
2.   Many cases reaffirm this
ii.   1 Judge: yes because widely accepted
iii.   3 Dissent: says no
iv.   1 Judge: easy case (no reasoning)
v.   Temporary presence not sure
vi.   Distinguish from Wyman: Wyman just got off a plane while Burnham was there for awhile
2.   Domicile/Residency in state – fulfills minimum contacts
a.   If the person is out of state but still a resident of the state then
there is PJ
i.   Milliken v. Meyer (1940) and Blackmer v. U.S. (1932)
b.   It is fair to be sued at home and everyone should be able to be
sued somewhere

3.   Voluntary General Appearance
a.   Defendant goes to court to fight on the merits
i.   Defendant can make a “limited” or “special” appearance just to argue that the court has no personal jurisdiction
4.   Actual Consent – Contract can meet minimum contacts
a.   Agreement in advance that says the defendant agreed to be sued in a state
5.   Implied Consent – maybe okay under Shoe
a.   When a non resident comes to a state files a lawsuit or uses
protection of a state and then returns home
i.   In re Beasley-Gilbert’s (1968)
1.   If the defendant counterclaims against the plaintiff and it is unrelated to the main claim there is no implied consent
iv.  In rem jurisdiction – only thing being decided is who owns the property; does
not make the loser personally liable for anything
1.   Requirements:
a.   Lawsuit contains disputed property located in the state
b.   Lawsuit results in a judgment that binds the whole world
i.   i.e. action to quiet title
2.   Makes sense for real property, but also can be used for intangible personal property
3.   Bring only when the defendant has minimum contacts but doesn’t fit in the long arm statute unless property is attached
v.   Quasi in rem jurisdiction
1.   Category 1: Ownership
a.   Just like true in rem jurisdiction but the judgment only binds those who are named
i.   i.e. adverse posserssion against 1 or 2 people
1.   Pennoyer Case #2 could of done this
b.

jurisdiction because of Pennoyer residue may suggest quasi mimimum contacts through quasi in rem Gimmick are not equivalent to in personam minimum contacts
2.   Dunlevy- no minimum contacts so no PJ
3.   Harris v. Balk – reversed
a.   “The obligation of the debtor to pay his debt clings to and accompanies him wherever he goes”
i.   A plaintiff may enforce his claim against the defendant’s debtor.
ii.   A debtor (the one holding the defendant’s asset) is subject to personal jurisdiction wherever he is present and personally served.
4.   Mullane – would survive only if minimum contacts in NY or in personam jurisdiction by necessity (still up in the air)
x.    Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court (1987)
1.   No personal jurisdiction, even if there are minimum contacts, if it is
not fair
a.   i.e. Japan valve maker; Taiwan tire maker-> no point of it
being in California
2.   Makes International Shoe a two part test
a.   Need minimum contacts “power test”
b.   Needs to be fair “reasonableness test”
3.   Does not overrule Gray v. American Radiator
4.   J. McIntyre Machinary v. Nicastro (2011)
a.   Court revisits Asahi
b.   Split opinion
i.   4 judges – due process is more than placing product into stream of commerce -> need BUZZOID
ii.   2 judges – isolated sale isn’t sufficient you need regular and anticipated flow of goods
iii.   3 judges – national contacts test -> allows exercise of jurisdiction whenever a national marketing scheme
leads to sale in a specific state
xi.  Walden v. Fiore (2014)

1.   Upholds World-Wide Volkswagen and says that something more than a foreseeable forum state injury may be necessary to comply with the Due Process Clause
xii.   Seider Doctrine Cases – not affected by Shaffer
1.   You can be sued anywhere you have auto insurance because you have an indemnification asset located anywhere the insurance is (which is basically everywhere now)
2.   Seider v. Roth
a.   Attached debt is the promise to “defend and indemnify…if a suit is commenced and damages are awarded against the insured.”
i.   Can serve as the basis of quasi in rem jurisdiction