Select Page

Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction
University of Oklahoma College of Law
Parkinson, Jerry R.

Civil Procedure II – Jerry Parkinson- Spring 2018
 
Intro
4 req’s before suit can be brought in a particular ct
Personal Jurisdiction (geography)
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Venue
Ability to withstand a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens (more appropriate forum available to the parties)
Jurisdiction- ct has authority
Fairness to D is key; P has power to choose where to file (waives personal juris defense)
Can always go to D; can’t always make D come to P
Rooted in the DPC
Jurisdiction based in Con law NOT statute
Full Faith a& Credit Clause- when does a state have to give recognition to judgment in another state?
Federal Judiciary Act 1789
Fed ct may exercise juris only if the cts of the state in which it sits may exercise juris over the D
Personal Jurisdiction
Power of ct to engage in binding adjudication over a person; geographical
Waivable
Issues arise: transactions occur in more than 1 state
Kinds:
In Personam
Personal (over a person)
To determine personal rights and obligations of parties
In rem
Property rights w respect to the whole world (rare); adjudication to the rights of all persons who claim interest (property is the object of the suit)
Quasi en rem
Not against the “whole world”
2 kinds:
1. Resolves a dispute about the property itself; property rights adjudicated, but not all rights
2. Underlying dispute is unrelated to the property; D’s property is attached to satisfy a judgment
Property is brought w/in juris of the ct by attachment and the absent D is then put to choose btwn coming into state to litigate or stay outside and lose by default
Pennoyer
Not used much
Don’t need actual notice: assumed owner always has possession of land
Shaffer
Applies Int’l Shoe’s min contacts test along with it’s progeny to jurisdiction analysis
Juris over property = juris over people with an interest in property
Absorbs quasi en rem juris into min contacts standard
Historic formula
Pennoyer
Juris to ct w/o right would violate DPC (no notice)
3 steps:
Have to meet state stat req’s for service & juris
Have to meet Fed Cons req’s
Physical presence test:
D actually physically in the state and receives personal service
In personam suit: no constructive notice
In rem suit: constructive notice (publication) okay
To be brought in as a nonresident D must either
Voluntarily appear or
Be brought in by service of process w/in state
Exceptions (status):
Marital: can assert juris in a divorce where 1 is a nonresident
Business partnership: can assert where non res enters a partnership w/in the state
Enforceable kx: consent to the appointment of in-state agent to accept service of process
3 ways to establish PJ:
Attachment (Quasi In Rem, In Rem)/Domicile
Personal Service (Actually in the state and you serve them personally)
Consent
Modern Formula
International Shoe (most important pj case; still gover

ctivity of those who claim some relationship w a nonresident D
Purposeful Availment: D must take action by which it purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, invoking the benefits and protections of its law
Refining Modern Formula
World-Wide Volkswagen
Makes Int’l Shoe test a 2 prong test:
“That in order to subject a defendant to ta judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory if the forum, he (DEFENDANT) have certain minimum contacts with it. Such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
 Sovereignty branch: focuses solely on D and their contacts w the state
Purposeful availment test; foreseeability won’t work
P bears the BOP initially; must prove D’s min contacts
Threshold
Convenience branch: Considers other factors as well
D now has the burden of proof of inconvenience
Fair Play Substantial Factors:
Interests of the forums state
Interests of the Ps
Interests of interstate judicial system (efficiency)
Shared interests of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies