Civil Procedure
Gibson
Fall 2013
I. Personal Jurisdiction
· Can the plaintiff sue defendant in this state?
· The court must have power over either the defendant, herself, or the defendant’s property
· 3 kinds of p.j.
o In personam- court has power over defendant, herself (various contacts with the forum)
o In rem- court has power over defendant’s property
o Quasi-in-rem- court has power over defendant’s property
· Due Process Clause says how far power can reach
o If case falls in Due Process, judgment is constitutional and valid; if not, void
o State also must have statute that grants p.j. in this case
· 1) Is there a statute allowing jurisdiction?
· 2) Is jurisdiction constitutional (does it fit in Due Process Clause)
A. In personam jurisdiction
· Either general or specific
· General- defendant can be sued in this forum on a claim from anywhere in the world
· Specific- defendant is sued on a claim that arose in the forum
o Does claim arise from defendant’s activities in the forum? (relatedness)
1. The Due Process Limit
· Pennoyer
o Defendant served with process in forum à gives general jurisdiction
o Defendant’s agent served with process in forum à gives general jurisdiction
o Defendant is domiciled in forum à gives general jurisdiction
o Defendant consents to general jurisdiction à gives general jurisdiction
· International Shoe
o New Formula: To have jurisdiction over defendant, the defendant must have such minimum contacts with the forum so that jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
§ 1. We can serve process outside of the forum
§ 2. Two parts: (1) contact (2) fairness
§ 3. It does not overrule Pennoyer
· McGee
o A company the takes over another purposefully avails itself to the latter’s minimum contacts
o Upheld jurisdiction in California over Texas Insurance company based on sale of one contract of insurance in California
o California had interest in providing justice for its citizen
· Hanson v. Denkla
o No jurisdiction; under Shoe, the contact must result from purposeful availment
§ Defendant must reach out to forum
· Worldwide VW
o NY family buys vehicle in NY, gets in wreck in OK, family sues in OK on defective design
o Supreme Ct. held OK had no jurisdiction over NY retailer and NY distributor à no purposeful availment; unilateral act of third party
§ Court said foreseeability is relevant, but not foreseeable product may get there, must be foreseeable defendant could get sued in that forum
· Burger King
o Jurisdiction upheld over two BK owners in Mich. for Florida
o There are two parts to International shoe (as thought in International Shoe) à (1) contact and (2)fairness
o Must have a relevant contact befor
ood law under Pennoyer because traditional pedigree
o Brennan (4) apply International Shoe to all cases; historical pedigree does not matter
§ Note: All 9 judges agreed based on facts there was jurisdiction
· Goodyear (general in personam jurisdiction)
o Before, needed substantial continuous ties with forum
o General jurisdictions okay if ties with forum makes defendant essentially at home in forum
§ Humans: domicile
§ Corporations: place where incorporate, principle place of business
o General jurisdiction cannot be based on buying and selling in the state
o Physical presence needed
· Recap
o Look at long-arm statute of forum
o Is jurisdiction constitutional under Due Process
§ Does a traditional basis apply? Presence, domicile
· Based on Burnham, maybe traditional basis is sufficient by self (Scalia)
· Maybe not enough, of if no traditional basis, you might have to do Shoe (Brennan)
· 1. Is there a relevant contact between defendant and forum?
o Is there purposeful availment of privilege of conducting activities, or benefits from there?
o Is it foreseeable that defendant could be sued in forum?