Civil Procedure II
Professor: Hines
Type: Open book/notes
Structure: Written exam (likes to have about half as multiple choice)
Length: 3
Date/Time: 05.8.08 (Thursday)/ 9:00AM
Computer: Yes
Personal Jurisdiction: Overview, Minimum Contacts, Consent
I. Overview
A. Two categories of personal jurisdiction: In personam and in rem.
1. In personam: Jurisdiction over the Δ herself.
2. In rem: Technically, it is jurisdiction over a particular item of property owned by a person. Practically, however, it allows the court to adjudicate the rights of one person or many people in the property.
a. True in rem: A “true” in rem action is one in which the main purpose is to adjudicate competing legal interests in the property in question. The quiet title action and mortgage foreclosure are forms of true in rem actions.
b. Quasi in rem: Actions brought for a purpose other than determining competing rights to property. Sometimes separated into two types:
i. Type 1: When the claim before the court arises out of or is otherwise related to the property.
ii. Type 2: When the claim before the court is unrelated to the property. In these cases, the property mainly serves as an asset to satisfy any judgment that the court may enter against the owner. This type of jurisdiction is extremely limited by Shaffer.
3. Differences between in personam and in rem:
a. How jurisdiction obtained: In personam jurisdiction is obtained by serving the Δ personally with process. Jurisdiction in rem is obtained by seizing (attaching?) the property.
b. Effect of judgment:
i. In personam: If in personam jurisdiction exists, the judgment binds the defendant personally. The judgment winner can have certain assets owned by the Δ seized and sold in order to satisfy judgment.
ii. In rem: A judgment in an in rem case affects only the property and, accordingly, is limited to the value of the property. The Π cannot use the judgment to seize other property owned by Δ.
II. Development of the Minimum Contacts Test
♣A. Pennoyer v. Neff (US 1877)
1. Facts: Π took Δ to Oregon state court for non-payment of legal fees. Δ was not personally served and was a non-resident of Oregon. Π gave notice through a newspaper publication and 300 acres of Δ land was sold to pay the judgment.
2. Analyses: The States have many of the same characteristics of independent nations.
a. Two territorial principles: (1) “every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory. (2) “no State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without its territory.”
b. Limits on jurisdiction:
i. Person or property in state: A court could exercise in personam jurisdiction over any person, and in rem jurisdiction over any property, found within its borders at the time the suit was commenced.
(a) Presence sufficient: It was irrelevant how long the person or property was in the state. Therefore, a state had jurisdiction over a person merely passing through the state provided the person was served while within the borders. In addition, a court could hear any claim, regardless of whether it related to the reason the person or property (quasi in rem) was present in the state.
(b) Notice
1. In personam: Person had to be served while in the state.
2. In rem: The court had to seize or attach property at the outset of the action.
ii. Person or property
nce.
2. Analysis: International Shoe rejected Pennoyer’s territorial approach in lieu of an approach that looked to the connections between the Δ and the forum.
a. Minimum Contacts Test: Jurisdiction is proper over a Δ who has certain minimum contacts with the state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
b. Specific and general jurisdiction: The Court then noted that number of contacts necessary for jurisdiction turned on whether the claim arose out of those contacts.
i. Arose out of: If the claim arose from the contacts, even single or occasional acts might suffice. Today this is referred to as Specific Jurisdiction.
ii. Did not arise out of: Conversely, if the claim was unrelated to the contacts, jurisdiction would not be allowed even if there were a significant number of contacts.
ii. Overwhelming contacts: However, the Court also suggested that there might be cases where the contacts were so continuous and systematic that jurisdiction over the corporation might be allowed even if the claim was completely unrelated to those contacts. Today this is referred to as General Jurisdiction.
c. Fairness: The opinion provides little guidance into what the Court means by “fair play and substantial justice,” other than to mention the inconvenience of litigating in a distant forum.
