Professor Martin
Civil Procedures I
Fall 2015
I. PERSONAL JURISDICTION
-Must satisfy all 4
1. Prerequisite Constitutional requirements
-Defendant must have notice and court must have JD through:
a. Due process clause in 14th Amend. (fair and reasonable JD of fed ct. over D)
b. Full faith & credit clause, Art. IV (FF&C given to each state, if DP respected)
2. Need either in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem (Pennoyer v. Neff: didn’t have IP when OR court served CA resident, and didn’t have IR/QIR for land not attached at onset )
-IP can be satisfied by following:
-Present in state
-Individual: domicile (current dwelling and intent to remain indef.)
-Corp.: place of incorporation, principle place of business
-Hang in state for a while=at home (Perkins: avoid WWII in OH)
-Can make special appearance to court, w/o consenting to P JD, by shopping up to make pre-answer motions (12) to contest IR P JD
-Tagged in forum
-Burnham: visiting divorced wife and kids in state; ct. had JD
-Consent
-Waived by showing up and making responsive pleading
-Implied consent deemed by law (Hess: using dangerous vehicle)
-Contract
-In rem (property w/in forum and cause of action related to that property)
-Attach property at onset (Pennoyer)
-Recovery limited to attached property
-Quasi in rem (Cause of action unrelated to that property, but min cont (Schaffer))
-Attach property at onset (Pennoyer)
-Recovery limited to property attached, although true interest = create JD
3. International Shoe Test (Minimum contacts)
-If D not present in state, forum must have minimum contacts over person to satisfy “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (Shoe); assume min. cont. for IP
-Minimum contacts require:
A. Purposefully availment to forum; beyond foreseeable
-Asahi: continuous and systematic stream of commerce from unilateral act of third ok (4 J’s), if substantial (Stevens: 10k parts)
-However, foreseeability alone not enough (WW Volkswagen)
– McGee: bill one client in state w/ no other relationship to state, enough for JD
B. Sufficient contact for either general or specific JD:
i. General JD: cause of action can be unrelated to contact with forum, if: -contact is continuous, systematic, and substantial
-presence in forum
ii. Specific JD: cause of action must be related to D’s contact
-Stream of commerce
-Unilateral act of third party is substantial
-Contracts
-Contract not inherently, but here 20 yr + prior neg. (BK)
-Choice of forum clause normally honored (Carnival Cruise)
-Fair play satisfied when following factors balanced:
A. D’s interest (World Wide VW: burdensome on VW to be liable in any state which car driven into, so NY co. not w/in OK JD when car exploded there)
B. P’s interest: convenient and effective relief
C. Forum state’s interest: regulate its activities and allow P’s recovery)
D. Several state’s common interest: social policy and judicial efficiency
4. Rule 4(k)(1)
-Fed Dist. Ct. has same JD as state courts of state fed court resides
-State Long-Arm Statute: extends state’s power beyond borders
Development of Personal Jurisdiction by Case
A. Pennoyer: D must be physically present in forum state for service to establish In Personam jurisdiction
B. Hess: physical presence not required if there is an appointed representative upon whom service is made in the state, the appointment can be implied.
C. International Shoe: T
Case between state, and resident of another state
i. 11th Amendment does a lot to limit this
g. Case between citizens of different states (diversity JD)
i. To keep judge and jury neutral
ii. Often still applying state laws
h. Case of same state, claiming grants of land sold by state
i. Dated, from days of settling state
i. Controversies of state or residents of a state to a foreign states, citizens, or subject
ii. Statute
1. Diversity cases (§1332)
-Complete diversity
-No P can reside in same state as any D
-Expands Article III minimum diversity requirement
-Minimum amount in controversy
-Auto supplemental JD if supp. claim from same common nucleus operative facts (§1367(a))
2. Federal question cases (§1331)
-Well pleaded complaint (Motley): P could have originally brought case there (fed law intrinsic to case)
i. Case must arise under federal law; and
ii. Fed issue must appear on face of complaint; and
iii. Fed issue must not be frivolous
-Counterclaim can’t anticipate Fed Q (defense≠ fed Q)
-Grable 3-part test:
(1) Plaintiff necessarily raises federal issue
(2) Federal issue actually disputed and substantial
(3) Asserting Fed JD does not upset balance between state and fed courts (opens floodgates to fed courts)
-Policy: makes fed court available, but does not create right to enter–“door mat not key”
