Civil Procedure I Outline
Personal Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction is the power to bring parties before court and bind them to judgment
Traditional Test
Pennoyer v. Neff (1877)
A state court has power over a party IF:
I. Party has sufficient connection to the state AND
Elements to I.: State statute that gives courts power over such a party and statutory compliance with the U.S. Constitution (Due Process Clause—14th Am.)
II. Party was given proper notice of lawsuit
According to Pennoyer, due process means only:
D appear (consent—voluntarily subjecting yourself) in the lawsuit
Found in state
Reside in state, OR
Property (only up to amount)
Hypothetical based on Pennoyer
Smith (KY) à Jones (VA) for car accident in WV—Where is PJ good?
WV: if found there and personally served
VA: easy yes, even if resident leaves state
Consent is interpreted by actions. For example, using the above hypothetical, if Jones counterclaims, then Smith consents to being subjected to the powers of the VA courts)—as seen in Adam v. Saenger.
Hess v. Palowski (1927)
MA had a statute that said if you drive here, you can be sued here.
Because driving is a perceived dangerous activity, the SC held that the state’s power to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by nonresidents as well as by residents. That is, states not only have the ability to enforce their own laws but protect their citizens as well.
Modern Rules (“Minimum Contacts”)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945)
“Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Table of “Minimum Contact” Requirement from International Shoe
Substantial/Continuous
Isolated/Single
Related
OK/YES
SOME YES, SOME NO
Unrelated
SOME YES, SOME NO
NO
Specific Jurisdiction (upper right cell of table)—where D has little to do with forum state but suit grows out of that contact
McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. (1958)—substantial connection—AZ incorporated insurance company (TX) with one police in CA; sued in CA. HELD: It is sufficient that the suit was based on a contract which had a substantial connection with that state.
tacts. The separation of the parties took place in NY. Exercising jurisdiction would impose an unreasonable burden on family relations, and one wholly unjustified by the “quality and nature” of D’s activities in relating to CA.
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985)—can franchisee reasonably anticipate out-of-state litigation—Burger King, a FL corporation sued a franchisee that had restaurants in Michigan in US District Court in Florida. The initial 20-year contract said that the contract was to be governed by FL law, and franchise payments went to FL. Day to day business was governed by district offices, however. HELD: Because Rudzewicz established a substantial and continuous relationship with Burger King’s Miami headquarters, received fair notice from the contract documents and the course of dealing that he might be subject to suit in Florida, and failed to demonstrate how jurisdiction in that forum would be fundamentally unfair, personal jurisdiction was good in this case.
