Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Oregon School of Law
Girvan, Erik J.



a. In personam- Court has power over the Def. – In what States can the P sue D?

1. Definition: A lawsuit in which the case is against a specific individual, that person must be served with a summons and complaint to give the Ct. Jx to try the case.

2. Types:

i. General Jx

a. Can be sued in forum for any claim that arose anywhere in the World

b. Claim does not have to arise from the activities of the D in the forum State

c. Case

i. Helicopteros: General Jx

1. Continuous and systematic ties with the forum

ii. Specific Jx

a. Being sued in claim that arises in the forum

b. Related to activities in the forum.

3. The Constitutional Limit

i. Traditional bases of P.Jx.– Pennoyer

a. ∆ is served with process in the forum. (General) (presence- at the time of service) (Transient)

i. OR ∆.’s agent served in the forum.

b. ∆ is (domiciled) in the forum (General)

i. current dwelling place

ii. Intention to remain

iii. For indefinite period of time

c. Consent

i. Express: Waive right

ii. Implied: Ex. Driving in a forum.

ii. Min Contacts & Fairplay/ substantial. justice (Int’l Shoe)

a. Notes

i. Serve outside of the forum

ii. Two parts: Contacts and Fairness

iii. Does not overrule Pennoyer. Alt to Pennoyer

b. Cases:

i. McGhee: TX Insurance K with CA resident

1. Reached out and asked CA to enter into K

2. Isolated (1 contact)

3. State has an interest in providing justice for its residents

ii. Hanson: Trust in DE, kids in FL.

1. Under Int. Shoe, Contact must result from the ∆’s PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT.

a. ∆’s voluntary act.

b. Reach out to forum in some way

c. Invoking benefits and protections within f.s. laws

iii. Shaffer: Sequestering DE stock for greyhound AZ.

1. In rem Jx requires int’l Shoe analysis.

iv. World-Wide Volkswagen- NY to AZ drive, accident in OK. No Jx in OK.

1. No purposeful availment

2. D’s did not send product to OK.

3. Foreseeable that product will get there is not enough.

4. MUST BE FORESEEABLE THAT ∆ will get SUED in the forum


v. Burger King: K made in FL, business in MI.

1. Court makes it clear that there are two parts of Int’l Shoe

a. Contact

b. Fairness

2. Must have relevant contact before fairness is even a factor in the analysis.


a. Must Show

i. Forum is gravely inconvenient

ii. Severe disadvantage in the litigation

iii. Wealth of parties is irrelevant.

iv. Near impossible to show

vi. Asahi- Components sold to company who then re-distributed to other places.

1. Stream of commerce

a. Brennan Theory

i. Contact if put product in the stream and reasonably could anticipate it would land up somewhere.

ii. Why? He makes money

b. O’Connor Theory

i. You need more, need intent to serve places where it shows up.

ii. Advertise, Consumer service.

iii. More than a unilateral act of a 3rd party

2. Agree that it would not be fair!



vii. Burnham- Served in process in forum (4/4split) (General Jx upheld by both)

1. Does traditional bases of Pennoyer good by itself or is Int’l shoe analysis still needed?

a. Domicile

b. Consent

c. Presence in f.s. (transient)

2. Scalia:

a. Traditional bases is still good law, no need for Int’l Shoe

3. Brennan:

a. Must meet Int’l Shoe for every case.

viii. Helicopteros: Crash in Peru, meetings in TX

1. General Jx

a. Continuous and systematic Contacts in F.S.

ix. Calder: National Inquirer tort case

1. State has p.Jx. for any party whose harm is directed towards a person in a different f.s.

2. Effects Test:

a. Intentional Conduct in the f.s. was calculated to cause injury to the P in the f.s.

b. D can reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the f.s.

x. Toys R Us: Website infringement in Spain

1. Spanish corp did not purposefully avail itself to US.

a. Facts

n: Jx that enables a court to exercise power over a D’s property by attachment, and use it to satisfy a P personal claim against the D. (Limits the P to the amount not exceeding the value of the property)

i. Dispute is not about property, but claim unrelated. Pennoyer: Mitchel v. Neff. (QIR not good because they did not attach/seize the property at the beginning of case)

2. Steps:


a. Court can attach property that D owns or claims to own.


a. Must attach at beginning of the case; AND

b. Must show that Def. (not her property) meets the International Shoe test. (Shaffer.)

i. Min Contact, Fairplay/substantial Justice

ii. Owning property in State may be enough to show that it meets international Shoe.

e. Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment: Sets the outer limits on how far a court can reach

f. State must have statute that they have Jx.


a. Service of Process: RULE 4

1. Why?

i. To ensure that the party being served acquires all the necessary and relevant documents

2. Process consists/ Procedure standards:

i. Summons

a. Requirement:

i. Issued by the court clerk

ii. Bear the court’s seal and signature

iii. Identify the district court, name the parties, and list the names and address of the P or the P’s attorney

iv. Be directed at a specific D.

v. State the time within which the D must appear and defend the lawsuit

vi. Caution about the consequences of the D’s failure to appear

vii. Copy for each D.

ii. Copy of the complaint

3. Can be made by

i. Any non party

ii. At least 18 years old.