Select Page

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

C I V I L   P R O C E D U R E
Class Information:
·         Subject: Civil Procedure
·         Semester: Fall 2013
·         Professor: Girvan, Erik
·         Book:  Cross, Civil Procedure: Cases, Problems and Exercises 3rd Ed.; ISBN 978-0314185105
       I.            Personal Jurisdiction
·         In personam – Jx. Over the person
·         In rem – Jx. Over the property
·         Quasi in rem – Jx. Over property to satisfy personal judgment unrelated to the property
Personal Jurisdiction Analysis
When is it relevant?  When we have a non-forum Δ.
·         Does it meet the long-arm statute?
·         Does it meet the 14th amendment?
o   In personam/quasi in rem
§  Consent
§  Personal service – tag jurisdiction
§  Min contacts
·         General J – continuous and systematic
·         Specific J – purposeful availment, stream of commerce, effects test
o   FP&SJ – Δ burden, π interest, forum state interest….
o   In rem
§  Attachment still works.
·         Domicile? – If someone is from the state there is no question
·         FRCP 12(b) 2 – If action started and ∆ waived then jx is appropriate.
·         Long Arm Statute? – Due process long arm or enumerated/laundry list?
·         Constitutional? – Does it satisfy 14th Amendment required due process?
o   Traditional bases
§  In-state service – Tag- (personal or agent) (Gives GJ) Burnham v. Superior Court
§  Consent
§  Domicle – ∆ is domiciled in forum state
o   Exceptions
§  Consent (maybe in a forum selection clause)
§  State Citizen?
o   General Jurisdiction (International Shoe) – (Jx. over any and all claims.)
§  “Continuous and Systematic” or “single and isolated” and related to claim?
·         Continuous and Systematic and Related? (Jx. Is good.)
·         Continuous and Systematic but Unrelated
o   Depends. Are they “substantial?” Helicopteros
·         Single and Isolated and Unrelated? (No jx. ever)
·         Single and Isolated and Related (No GJ, maybe SJ)
o   Specific Jurisdiction – (jx. over claim that arose in the forum.)
§  Minimum Contacts – between ∆ and forum state?
·         Purposeful Availment – ∆ gained privilege of acting w/in the forum state, received benefits from state protections? Hanson, McGee, BK
o   This assures that ∆ will be able to reasonably anticipate being haled into court. World-Wide Volkswagen.
o   Purposeful availment doesn’t work based on unilateral actions of π.
·         Intentional Torts / “Effects” Test – ∆ intentionally targeted conduct at a forum resident and caused the brunt of harm to that resident? (Calder v. Jones, Epstein, Hy Cite)
·         Contractual Contact – Does ∆ have contractual relationship w/ forum resident? Consider place of negotiation, execution, performance of the contract, forum selection clause (Burger King, Helicopteros, McGee, Hanson)
·         Stream-of-Commerce – Product entered the stream of commerce to harm ∆? Expectation it would get to the forum state? Toys “R” Us v. Step Two Foreseeability is not enough, must be expected. WWV, Asah, Hy Cite.
·         Internet – Courts slide away from Zippo sliding scale. Focus more on ∆’s purposeful conduct directed toward the forum. (Epstein, Hy Cite, ToysRus)
·         Quasi in Rem – Analyzed like any other contacts. Property ownership is isolated but directly related contact for jx purposes. (Shaffer v. Heitner)
§  Reasonableness – Fair play and substantial justice (Asahi, WWV)
·         Burden on ∆ – inconvenience to ∆ constitutionally burdensome? Would it impact the ∆’s ability to mount a defense? (BK put a huge burden on this)
·         Forum State interest – Does the state have an interest in resolving the dispute?  Are its laws, policies, citizens, or corporations at stake? (McGee)
·         π interest – Does the π have a strong interest in obtaining relief in the forum state? π lives there or it’s the only place she can seek adequate relief.
·         Systemic Efficiency – Would jx. promote the interstate judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of controversies? Witnesses and evidence?
·         Furtherance of social policies – Would jx. promote the shared interest of the States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies? Is another state’s substantive policy interest at risk?
Traditional Methods
·         Personal, in forum, service always grants jurisdiction / comports w/ due process
Burnham v. Superior Ct. – CA woman served husband w/ divorce papers while he was in CA. GJ jx.
·         Minimum contacts applies to quasi in rem jx as well as in personam.
Shaffer v. Heitner – π stockholder brought action in DE against ∆ whose officers lived in DE. π moved to obtain ∆ stock, technically physically located in DE. Court said no b/c quasi in rem jx needs min. contacts.  Having ∆ property in a state does not give that state jx. on causes of action unrelated to that property unless ∆ also passes min. contacts test from Shoe.
·         ∆ must have such minimum contacts w/ forum so that jurisdiction doesn’t offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Int’l Shoe – jx proper.

time to appear?
o   Method – Were the most reasonable means of notifying the party used?
§  Where a superior method exists but is too expensive, time consuming, or burdensome, then it need not be employed over more practical methods. Mullane.
·         Opportunity to be heard – Due Process
o   Satisfied by the token efforts of Mullane. Good faith efforts suffice.
1.       4(a)(1) Process consists of the summons and a copy of the complaint.
a.       Summons is signed by the clerk, from the court itself.
2.       4(c)(2) – Can be made by any nonparty who is at least age 18.
3.       4(e)(2) – How to serve a person:
a.       4(e)(1) – Anything allowed by state law
b.      Personal or agent
c.       Substituted – only possible at ∆’s dwelling/abode
                                                               i.      Must serve someone of suitable age who resides there
4.       4(h)1 – How to serve a business:
a.       4(e)(1) – Anything allowed by state law
b.      Serve an officer or managing or general agent
5.       4(d) Waiver of service
a.       π mails ∆: process, 2 copies of waiver form, SASE.
                                                               i.      Doesn’t waive any affirmative defenses, just service.
b.      If not waived: ∆ has to pay the cost of the service.
6.       Constitutional Standard
a.       FRCP 4 – always constitutional
b.      Notice must be reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise the party of the proceeding. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank
  III.            Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction
What types of “disputes” can Federal Courts resolve?
Does the court have the authority to hear this case/claim?
·         Subject matter jx cannot be waived, can be brought up by either party at any time in the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal.
·         Court can sua sponte, at any time even for the first time on appeal, dismiss the cause for lack of subject-matter jx.
·         SMJ deals with the claim, not the person.