Civil Procedure Outline
I. PERSONAL JURISDICTION – courts power or authority over a person or entity
A. General Knowledge
1. stems from the due process clause of the Constitution, 14th – Fed, 5th – State
2. PJ is an individual right and can be waived (not a constitutional guarantee)
3. protects Δ from being sued in an unfair locale
4. personal jurisdiction must be evaluated the moment a lawsuit is filed and must be evaluated for each litigant individually
5. without personal jurisdiction judgment is void
B. 3 Options to Respond
1. Default – ignore and collaterally attack jurisdiction, can’t attack merits of case only procedural error
2. Answer – General appearance, express consent to jurisdiction
3. Special Appearance – File 12(b)(2) – challenge jurisdiction
C. General Terms
1. In personam – lawsuit directed toward a particular person
2. In rem – applies to property or “all the world” instead of a specific person, anyone who owns or uses the property
3. Quasi in rem – affects rights to the property only between the persons involved and does not “bind the entire world” as does a judgment based on “jurisdiction in rem”
D. 4 Traditional Bases
1. Domicile/Citizenship – residence alone can suffice for assertion of jurisdiction
a. Milliken v. Meyer – a person may always be sued for all claims, regardless of where they arise, in their state of permanent residence or in the case of a corporation, the state in which it is incorporated
2. Consent – a Δ who has not been served can voluntarily consent to jurisdiction (implied, expressed, forum selection clause)
a. failure to file a timely 12(b)(3) motion
b. Hess v. Palowski – (implied) consent can be given before a lawsuit arises – state can legislate that a nonresident motorist using its highways be deemed to have appointed a local official as his agent to receive service of process in any action growing out of the use of the vehicle within the state. However, the state must provide actual notice to the nonresident defendant.
c. Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute – (forum selection clause) – The Court held that United States federal courts will enforce forum selection clauses so long as the clause is not unreasonably burdensome to the party seeking to escape it.
– Forum Selection Clause
i. must be conspicuous and reasonable
ii. does accident arise from contract?
3. Presence + Service – presence in the forum state plus service
a. Pennoyer v. Neff – The physical presence of a defendant in the forum is a sufficient basis for acquiring jurisdiction over him, no matter how brief his stay.
b. Burnham v. Superior Court – (plurality) – if Δ is present in the forum state for 3 days or more, then a person is subject to jurisdiction, any fewer may have to apply Shoe test
4. Property + Service – property in forum along with proper service
a. Schaffer v. Heitner – The Shoe standards of fairness and substantial justice (mc) that govern in personam actions are applicable to in rem and quasi-in-rem actions as well.
– basically says fictional property (corporate stock) does not apply
E. If no traditional bases, move to general/specific jurisdiction.
1. Specific jurisdiction – cause of action arises because of Δ’s contacts with forum state. (vast majority of cases are this)
a. Long-Arm Statute
i. enumerated (list)
– does it fit?
– constitutional analysis (MC + TNFPSJ)
ii. to the limits of the Constitution
– is it Constitutional?
2. “Minimum Contacts” – quality and nature
a. International Shoe – New Test – If the Δ is out of state, yet has certain “minimum contacts” within a jurisdiction, we will determine whether that court has personal jurisdiction based on “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
b. Basic Principles of Shoe
i. Jurisdiction is permissible if the contacts are continuous and systematic, and the cause of action relates to that activity
ii. Sporad
part of the defendant. The threshold for satisfying minimum contacts is higher than in specific jurisdiction cases
i. Blackmun looks at the contacts individually and determines that each one in isolation is not continuous and systematic, thus there is not general jurisdiction
ii. Fairman suggests that Blackmun should have looked at the contacts in toto. Here’s the problem: you can look at the contacts apart or together, and depending on how you do it, you’ll get to a different result.
iii. Even though a FSC is present, it is not applicable b/c the accident did not arise from the contract
c. Burger King – (plurality) Δ’s purposefully availed themselves to the protections of the forum state and are, therefore, subject to jurisdiction there. The Court reasoned that the Δ’s had a “substantial and continuing” relationship with Burger King in Florida and that due process would not be violated because the Δ’s should have reasonably anticipated being summoned into court in Florida for breach of contract – however, a contract alone is not sufficient contacts to assert jurisdiction
4. Internet
a. Zippo Test – zippo sliding scale test helps to quantify whether a person/entity has purposeful availment toward the forum state – once the mc has been satisfied through evaluation by the zippo test, must still evaluate if exertion of PJ comports with TNFPSJ
– sliding scale test
i. clearly doing business over internet by entering into transactions w/ residents of the forum state, involves knowing and repeated transmission of computer files (jurisdiction is proper)
