Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Mississippi School of Law
Oliveri, Rigel C.

Civil Procedure I
Fall 2006
Professor Rigel Oliveri
I.                    Personal Jurisdiction
a.       Origins:
                                                               i.      Pennoyer v. Neff Case:Court required actual service of process in state for establishing personal jurisdiction. First court did not have jurisdiction over Neff because he did not own the property before the default judgment against him. Constructive service fine for quasi in rem and in rem actions, but not in personam. Established that state has power within own boundaries and cannot exert power over person or things outside (this not the case now). So court 1 didn’t have jurisdiction to begin with.
1.       Different Classifications
a.       In personam
                                                                                                                                       i.      An Action against a person. The judgment will affect the person’s rights and obligations
b.       In Rem
                                                                                                                                       i.      An action against a specific piece of property. The judgment is therefore limited to the value of the property
c.        Quasi in Rem
                                                                                                                                       i.      “kind of like” an action in Rem. An action and judgment against a person, but in order to satisfy the judgment, property is taken as a substitute.
2.       Important Concepts introduced
a.       Jurisdiction = Power
b.       Notice
                                                                                                                                       i.      Constructive service: quasi in rem and in rem
                                                                                                                                      ii.      Personal Service: in personam
                                                                                                                                    iii.      Exceptions:
1.       Determine status in regards to another person
2.       Designated agent
c.        Consent
                                                                                                                                       i.      Force Consent: Quasi in rem or in rem by attaching an giving notice if no reply than assume D consents….dealing with a problem of having to dispense of land.
                                                                                                                                      ii.      Consent: need personal service and person appear to have in personam
d.       Presence
                                                                                                                                       i.      If served in state than enough to establish jurisdiction
                                                                                                                                      ii.      Can only file claim where D present for in personam.
                                                              ii.      Rule 8 “General Rules of Pleading”
1.       File for Jurisdiction
2.       Beginning of lawsuit with short plain statement of grounds for jurisdiction, statement why pleader entitled to relief, and demand for judgment.
                                                            iii.      28 U.S.C. § 1738 Full Faith and Credit Clause
1.       Full Faith and Credit Clause: Article 4 Sec. 1
2.       Honor and enforce the laws of other states
3.       You may have to try the case in every court in the U.S. to enforce it if we didn’t have this
4.       Relevant to personal jurisdiction through implication
5.       Need to make sure the court that originally heard the case had the power to do it
                                                            iv.      Constitution
1.       Article IV Sec. 1 above.
2.       Amendment V and XIVGovernment cannot deprive an person of life, liberty or property.
a.       In order to be valid you have to make sure the process is fair; so there must be certain procedures
                                                                                                                                       i.      Example: Person must be notified, etc.
b.       Can’t be summoned to a court that it doesn’t make sense for him to be
c.        If a case is successfully challenged on personal jurisdiction….that case cannot remain in that state. Case will just be dismissed
                                                             v.      Challenge and Waiver
1.       Collateral Attack
a.       D can refuse to appear and judgment entered.
b.       D can then challenge jurisdiction on appeal.
c.        Dangerous: if second court rejects jurisdictional challenge than D can raise no other defenses on merits.
d.       Only jurisdiction open to collateral attack.
2.       Rule 12 p. 34
a.       Can raise jurisdictional defense in pre-answer or answer
b.       Must challenge with first paper to court.
c.        12(b) motions that can be made
d.       12G can raise multiple motions
e.        12(h): must raise certain defenses first or waived
                                                                                                                                       i.      Lack of jurisdiction over person
                                                                                                                                      ii.      Improper venue
                                                                                                                                    iii.      Insufficiency of process
                                                                                                                                    iv.      Insufficiency of service of process
b.       Modern Constitutional Formulation of Power
                                                               i.      International Shoe Co. v. Washington
1.       Facts
a.       State of Washington brought suit against Co. for not paying into state compensation fund.
b.       Court held that Washington had jurisdiction over company because of minimum contacts with state (salesman who ordered shoes from home base for customers.
c.        Does not require consent or physical presence in state.
d.       Maintenance of suit must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
2.       Adds to Pennoyer which said can establish personal jurisidiction if: Personal service inside state; Consent; The presuit attachment of property that is inside the state (Shafer v. Heitner eliminates this bases)
3.       Court says personal jurisdiction requires Minimum Contacts
a.       Specific Jurisdiction: If continuous and systematic, and realted to the suit
b.       General Jurisdiction: If continuous and so substantial and of such a nature that they need not be related to the suit (general jurisdiction) (Milliken)
4.       Notice: enough to send letter to home office and give to salesman
a.       Knew they were being sued.
5.       Fairness: privileges bestowed upon salemen while in state.
                                                              ii.      Absorbing In Rem Jurisdiction
1.       Shaffer v. Heitner
a.       Quasi In Rem Case
b.       P, young boy who own one share of stock, brings suit against 28 individuals (officers and shareholders in co).
c.        Under Delaware seizure law P seized all stock w/o hearing from judge.
d.       Court extended minimum contacts requirement to property and held that D’s ties with Delaware were not sufficient to establish jurisdiction.
2.       Minimum Contacts test applies to property and People
a.       Property a type of contact
b.       Why:
                                                                                                                                       i.      Fairness: state has interest in property
                                                                                                                                      ii.      Material Reasons: most important documents in state
                                                                                                                                    iii.      Interest in resolving disputes within borders.
c.        Narrow Holding:
                                                                                                                                       i.      Holding stock not enough
                                                                                                                                      ii.      Acting as officer not enough for personal jurisdiction (no evidence ever been to state)
3.       ConsentThrough legislation state can extract consent to jurisdiction if notice is given before hand.
4.       ExceptionMaybe the plaintiff’s property would be enough to establish jurisdiction because there is no where else to go. (Foreign).
c.        Specific Jurisdiction
                                                               i.      Introduction Cases:
1.       McGee v. In’l Life
a.       CA resident bough life insurance policy from TX co. When P died D refused to pay….no offices in CA.
b.       Court held that met min contacts test and jurisdiction in CA proper.
2.       Hanson v. Denckla
a.       Woman established trust in Del. And moved to Fl. If. Fl. Had jurisdiction two sister’s got everything if Del. Then shared equally.
b.       Court held that Delaware had proper jurisdiction because woman made a unilateral move that trustee could not control.
c.        Fact dependant
3.       Key Differences
a.       State Interests
                                                                                                                                       i.      McGee: regulating insurance industry
                                                                                                                                      ii.      Hanson: none
b.       Burden to Defendant
                                                                                                                                       i.      McGee: don’t have to worry because communication and travel easy
                                                                                                                                      ii.      Hanson: just because simple still require min contacts
c.        Purposeful Availment (Key Concept)
                                                                                                                                       i.      McGee: Insurance Co availed self by mailing letters and soliciting business
                                                                                                                                      ii.      Hanson: Trustee had nothing to do w/ woman moving.
                                                              ii.      Modern Cases
1.       World Wide VW v. Woodson
a.       P bought car in NY from D’s and in an accident in OK.
b.       D are the regional distributor (3 states) and retail dealer.
c.        Court holds that Ok jurisdiction is not proper because D had not purposefully availed itself to Ok customers….
d.       Adopt legal foreseeability instead of factual foreseeability.
2.       Important Concepts:
a.       Foreseeablity
                                                                                                                                       i.      FactualBy entering into stream of commerce….court does not adopt…need more than just letting it go….
                                                                                                                                      ii.      Legal
1.       Effort to serve market in particular state
2.       Marketing and adver

.       State exists to bring all claims against individuals and corporations
2.       Corporation
a.       Location of incorporation, and
b.       Primary place of business
3.       Individuals: domicile
                                                              ii.      Helicopteros v. Hall
1.       D, consortium of U.S. companies, plane crashed in Peru and P, survivor, want to sue in TX.
2.       Court says no general jurisdiction because:
a.       No continuous or systematic business
b.       No real business at all
c.        Bought stuff but didn’t sell anything
d.       Weren’t in some ongoing relationship
e.        Bought some stuff and took it out….then crashed
3.       Connections need to be continuos and systematic….one big purchase not enough.
4.       Dissent: Brennan argues that should consider as specific: conduct that is related should grant jurisdiction
                                                            iii.      Coastal Video Comm. Corp. v. Staywell Corp.
1.       P producing handbook about back safety. VA co.
2.       D producing similar handbooks. Principal place of Business in CA. Inc in Delaware
3.       P files declaratory judgment in VA.
4.       Court allows more discovery because connections may be enough for General Jurisdiction
a.       Selling products there
b.       Agent there
c.        Website…interactive
5.       Important:
a.       Court will look at all connections to determine whether general
                                                                                                                                       i.      Look at percentage of business
                                                                                                                                      ii.      Total amount
                                                                                                                                    iii.      Get view of just how related to jurisdiction the defendant is
                                                                                                                                    iv.      Number of contacts
b.       Courts may analyze substantial justice factors also
c.        Address specific jurisdiction then general if specific not enough.
                                                            iv.      Burnham v. Superior Court
1.       P filed for divorce and moved to CA. D also filed on grounds of desertion.
2.       D came to visit and P had D served while in CA.
3.       D argues for a min contacts test to apply to D caught in state.
4.       Courts upholds CA jurisidiction that its ok to tag some in state…diversion over why
a.       Scalia: min contacts not necessary when caught in state….framers intent
b.       Brennan: D availed himself to laws of CA.
5.       Burnham not applicable to corporate defendants.
e.        The Constitutional Requirement of Notice
                                                               i.      Mulane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust
1.       P, guardian of trust, brings suit against D, administrator of trust, about notice requirement to only post in paper about chance to challenge accounting practice.
2.       Law required notification in periodical of trust name (didn’t require any names of trustees).
3.       Court holds that notice must reasonably convey required information and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make appearance.
4.       For those w/ known addresses, must notify through mail because this is reasonable.
5.       Second group (i.e. moved or had future interest) can use periodical to notify since mail is unreasonable.
6.       Important:
a.       Erosion of Pennoyer
                                                                                                                                       i.      Notice must be given in all cases (in personam, in rem, quasi)
                                                                                                                                      ii.      If seizing land still have to notify.
b.       Rule 4
                                                                                                                                       i.      Requires good but not perfect notice.
                                                                                                                                      ii.      Notice doesn’t even have to work aslong as you try.
                                                              ii.      Doosenberry v. U.S.
1.       Prisoner didn’t get notice that going to sell car and take cash.
2.       Court held it was enough that sent letter to prison and his house.
                                                            iii.      Jones v. Flowers