Civ Pro II Outline
(I-IV: what court to litigate in; selection of a forum)
I. Personal Jurisdiction (1st hurdle in forum selection) (Pennoyer crap)
A. One key question: In what states can the Plaintiff sue the Defendant?
1. Court must have power over something
a. Power over Defendant themselves thru contacts
b. Power over Defendant property
2. Three types of PJ
a. in personam
1. power over person
b. in rem
1. power over property
c. quasi in rem
1. power over property
3. How do you know if there is In personam or in rem?
a. Depends on due process clause of constitution
1. tells court how far can go to exercise PJ
2. to have power case must fall within constitutional parameters (circle)
3. The fact that it falls within constitution doesn’t mean that PJ is there…state must have a statute that gives a state PJ
1. if statute is present (long-arm), then;
a. the constitutional test to determine if w/in due process
B. In personam jurisdiction
1. General Jurisdiction
a. D can be sued in that forum on a claim that arose anywhere in the world
2. Specific Jurisdiction
a. D can be sued in that forum on a claim that arises from activities in a forum
3. Constitutional Test (IA3a31a): Learn relevant principals that each of these case teach (what is the due process circle?)
a. Pennoyer v. Neff:
1. stresses raw physical power the state has power of people and property inside it’s state line…person property in state, state has power over them
2. traditional basis of IP Juris: if D is served with process in the forum state, that gives forum In Personam General Jurisdiction.
3. traditional basis of IP Juris: Service of process on D’s agent in forum
4. traditional basis of IP juris: In Personam if D domiciled in forum state
· =gen jurisdiction
5. traditional basis of IP juris: D can consent to IP general jurisdiction
6. ONLY WAY TO GET IP J is if D is served in state
b. Tess v. Polaski
1. non resident motorist statute
a. by using a motor vehicle in a state, you have consented to jur. For a claim that arises out of any wreck in the state
· specific jurisdiction
b. consented to appt of state official as D’s agent (Pennoyer (a3))
2. completely consistent with Pennoyer
a. serv. on agent and consented
c. Int’l Shoe
1. not going to push traditional basis of Pennoyer anymore
2. Make new constitutional test
a. Jurisdiction when D has such minimum contacts with forum, so that exercise of juris does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
3. More flexible than the Pennoyer test
4. you can NOW serve process outside of state
5. two parts of Int’l Shoe
a. minimum contacts
b. fair
6. did not overrule Pennoyer
a. only the test if D is not present in the forum
1. Pennoyer still rules that case
d. McGee v. Int’l Life
1. Court focuses on 3 things to find minimum contacts in foreign state
a. D (Tx) solicited business from P (Ca)
b. P’s claim arose from D contact (relatedness)
c. State’s interest
1. Calif had a strong interest in protecting citizens from foreign companies ripping them off
e. Hansen v. Dankla
1. NO JURIS. WHY?
a. P moves to foreign state after K/trust was formed
b. Foreign state (Florida) had no relevant contact with D (bank in DE)
1. Purposeful availment of forum
c. different from McGee because D (DE) did not reach out to P (FL) in any way
f. WW VW
1. No Juris…Why?
a. there was juris over importer . . . does business everywhere
b. juris over mfr VW…does business everywhere
c. NO JURIS over WW VW (regional)…doesn’t do business in
OKLAHOMA
1. stationed in NY only does business in the tri-state area
d. NO JURIS over the car lot….b/c didn’t do business in OK
1. stationed in NY only does business in NY
2. Didn’t reach out to OK
e. NO PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT IN OKLAHOMA
1. got there because of a 3rd party
2. must be foreseeable that D (VW regional and dealer) will
get sued in that forum (OK)
1. What to show to have General J
a. General JurisdictionTEST: if D has continuous and systematic OR
substantial ties to forum…then D is subject to general J (claim that stems from anywhere in the world)
1. domiciled individual, state of incorp or principal place of
business = automatic substantial, continuous, systematic tie to state
L. RECAP OF IP JURISDICTION
1. Hit all the following factors
a. Flag whether one of the traditional basis from Pennoyer applies (presence when served, agent, consent, domicile)
1. if so, say “those those maybe enough, but also say they maybe not enough, then use minimum contacts
a. use both because of Burnam
2. If notàuse Int’l Shoe’s must have relevant contact
between D and forum and then fairness test
a. Purposeful availment (CONTACT)
1. relevant contact if the contact is purposefully availed by the D. D reaches out
to forum.
-D store on a interstate highway
-Accepts checks from out of state customers
-Argue both ways if it is close.
2. Foreseeablity that D can get sued in that forum
b. Fairness Factors: (REASONABLENESS – fair
play and substantial justice)
1. relatedness: does this claim arise from D’s contact with the forum?
2. If continuous and systematic OR
