CIVIL PROCEDURE
Conley
2013
I. PERSONAL JURISDICTION (power of court over an individual D; Art. IV, sec. 1)
A. History of P.J. – Pennoyer v. Neff (state of the law until 1945)
1. Holding: No jurisdiction unless you can serve process inside state or person is a resident of that state; use of collateral attack (2nd suit) and wins, first court had no PJ
2. Two wings of this case:
a) In personam – states unable at this time to cross boundaries (state sovereignty)
(1) In Pennoyer, Mitchell used constructive service (notice in newspaper)—court says you must personally serve process
b) In rem – attach property to achieve jurisdiction (owner not in-state but property is)
(1) In this case, Mitchell could not attach property because Neff did not own it at the time of the attachment
(2) In rem is about litigating the title of the property
(a) Quasi in rem – you commence the action against the property but the litigation is about something else
B. 1st see if notice was proper (Mullane) then see if there is P.J.
C. Steps to determine if there is P.J.
1. Does the state long-arm statute permit it?
a) Fed Rule 4(k)(1)(a): fed court only has jurisdiction if state court of forum state would have jurisdiction
b) In diversity case – use state long arm statute
c) In federal question case – if fed long-arm statute, use it; if not, use state. No state, use 4(k)(2)
2. If so, does due process permit it? = is use of the statute constitutional?
a) Minimum contacts / Fairness/Reasonableness
b) Even if long-arm provides same standard as constitution, mention long-arm!!
3. List all contacts
4. Determine specific or general jurisdiction?
a) Specific:
(1) Minimum contacts
(2) Case arises out of contacts with that state
b) General:
(1) Continuous and systematic contacts
(2) Claim does not have to arise out of contacts
(3) If contacts are substantial enough for general jurisdiction, you can be sued in that state for any claim
c) If only 1 or 2 contacts, might be that only specific works
d) If clear connection between contacts and claim, need fewer MC to satisfy due process
e) Tip: if in the middle, argue both ways
NOTE:
· If court talks about fairness – usually means jurisdiction
· If court talks about sovereignty – usually means they will deny jurisdiction
D. Minimum Contacts Test
1. International Shoe: if D is not present in the state, personal jurisdiction requires minimum contacts with forum such that the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
a) Four Categories:
(1) Specific jurisdiction
(a) Continuous and systematic à Fair
(b) Isolated/single à depends on nature of contacts
(2) General jurisdiction
(a) Continuous and systematic à could go either way
(b) Isolated/single à not fair
b) Holding: sweeps away physical presence required by Neff; upheld P.J. in Washington over International Shoe based on its contacts with the state
(1) Int’l Shoe had continuity of contacts there (salespeople) and enjoyed the benefits and protections provided by the state (lawsuit arose out of Washington wanting unemployment taxes – arises out of contacts)
c) Rule (minimum contacts + fairness) applies to both individuals and corporations
E. Purposeful Availment
1. McGee (1957) – contRact as contact- look at where k is made, performance, state interest
a) P.J. upheld over insurance company who entered into long-term contract with decedent – ins. co. initiated contract; he paid premiums every month; enough for minimum contacts
b) Another factor to tip the balance: California’s interest in having lawsuit there – insurance heavily regulated by the state
2. Hanson (1958) – unilateral activity of P cannot subject D to P.J.
a) No P.J. for Florida because trustee’s only contact with state was managing trust of Mrs. Donner; need purposeful availment of D (not present here)
(1) Unilateral activity by someone other than D is not enough to form M.C.
(2) Trust set up in Del. – only reason Fl. has any relation to it is Mrs. Donner moving there
(3) Bank drawn to Fl just based on Mrs. Donner’s move there – unlike McGee where ins. co. sought out contact
b) Opposite of unilateral activity going forward is “purposefully avails”
3. World-Wide Volkswagon (1980)
a) Purposeful Availment:
(1) Requires intentional connection with the state by D
(2) Should be reasonably anticip
ue and hazardous character, high volume to CA annually
(c) O’Connor: not PA, not intentionally marketing to state; didn’t design product in anticipation of sales there
G. Internet Activities as M.C.
1. Websites on a continuum (3 levels):
a) Passive informational
b) Middle ground: interactive websites where a user can exchange information with a host computer
c) Clearly does business over internet
2. Pavlovich – passive informational website – D posted code on website for a program used bypass technology that encrypts and protects motion pics; company owning program sued, claiming D targeted movie industry in CA (used calder test)
a) Court said no PA—on weaker end of just posting information, passive sight; however if they were clearly doing business with “knowing and repeated” transactions with active engagement with forum state, would be different story. An interactive website that’s maybe not repeated could go either way (are they targeting? Foreseeability?)
3. Calder – National Enquirer case – targeting analysis in this case – even though D had very little contact with forum, if D targeted P in forum that alone can sustain jurisdiction (a single act)
H. Formula for M.C.
1. Contact: Purposeful Availment
a) Intentional connection with state such that
b) D can reasonably anticipate going to court there
c) If so, then:
2. Fair Play and Reasonable: 5 factors to consider
a) Burden on D
b) Interest of forum state
c) Convenience for P
d) Interests of judicial efficiency
e) Social policy considerations of several states
I. 2 Functions of M.C.
1. Protect D from inconvenient litigation
2. Ensures states don’t intrude on sovereignty of other states
