Civil Procedure – Flanagan – Spring 2012
a) Personal Jurisdiction
In what states can P sue D? We’re not worried about state or federal court – that’s SMJ.
The court must have power to give that adjudication. Either has power over D herself of D’s property.
Three kinds of PJ:
§ In Personam (court has power over D herself)
§ can be either general or specific
§ general jurisdiction – D can be sued in a forum on a claim that arose anywhere in the world
§ state of domicile (for individuals) and incorporation and principal place of business (for corporations) comprise the easy instances of general jurisdiction.
§ specific jurisdiction – D is being sued on a claim that has some connection to the forum
§ In Rem (power over D’s property)
§ Quasi In Rem (also power over D’s property, but dispute is not over property)
14th Amendment § 1
§ forbids states from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
1. CONSENT as a substitute for POWER
§ consent can be a substitute for power; if consent, no need for minimum contacts; consent alone is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. Still need notice.
§ D may consent to jurisdiction in three ways:
§ express consent: can be made before or after a suit is filed; is sufficient for jurisdiction (regardless of other contacts)
§ implied consent: pl who files suit in forum consents to personal jurisdiction for that lawsuit; Defendant: raise it or waive it. If def files other claims or defenses in the proceeding, they are deemed to having consented to jurisdiction
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, p141
§ passenger injured on cruise ship v. cruise line that put forum selection clause on ticket
§ Issue: whether the court should enforce a forum-selection clause forcing individuals to submit to jurisdiction in a particular state. Holding: Yes, as long as the clause is fair.
§ Rule: forum-selection clauses forcing individuals to agree to submit to jurisdiction in a particular place are enforceable so long as they pass the test for judicial fairness.
2. POWER
how do we know if the court has power? DUE PROCESS CLAUSE sets boundaries for court’s power
there’s another step: the court must have a statute that gives it PJ in this case – LONG ARM STATUTE
§ First step: “Is there a statute that allows it?” If there’s no statute, no PJ
§ Second step: If there is a statute, evaluate if it’s constitutional
1. Statutory Test
Is there a statute or rule that gives the court jurisdiction? If no statute, no PJ. MUST have enabling legislation to have power over non-resident D, usually long arm statute
Look at Long Arm Statute first, if it doesn’t grant PJ over D, then there is no need to do Constitutional test (Int’l Shoe)
Long Arm Statute: grants courts in forum state power over a non-resident D who performs or causes to be performed certain acts within the state.
§ usually designates specific acts as warranting jurisdiction (ex: transaction of any business within state, tortuous act, marital domicile, contracting to insure, real property)
§ Cannot extend beyond what the Constitution allows, but can limit jurisdiction to less than allowed by the Constitution
Gibbons v. Brown, p160
§ two years after Gibbons, TX resident, sued Mr. Brown in Florida, Mrs. Brown brought suit against Gibbons in FL
§ Issue: whether by previously availing oneself of a jurisdiction as a pl. automatically renders one subject to defending later suits in the same jurisdiction. Holding: No.
§ Rule: merely bringing a suit in a particular jurisdiction does not act indefinitely to expose that party to defending a future suit in the same jurisdiction.
CA Long-Arm Statute, p160
§ grants the courts the full scope of personal jurisdiction permissible under the due process clause.
§ “A Court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis no inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” CA Code of Civ Pro § 410.10
NY long-arm statute, p162
§ does not extend its jurisdictional reach to the full extent permitted by the constitution
§ see casebook, pg 162
2. Constitutional Test
§ D must have such contacts with the forum state that the exercise of PJ would be fair and reasonable. D must also be given appropriate notice of the action and an opportunity to be heard.
§ how broadly can a court exercise jurisdiction constitutionally?
§ if D has consented to jurisdiction, was served with process within the forum state, or was domiciled in the state (Traditional Rule (Pennoyer)), that might be enough! Must also say that even though there is a traditional basis, some justices say that you have to go through the Shoe test
Pennoyer v. Neff, p61
§ stresses raw physical power – state has power over people and property within its boundaries
§ gives us the traditional basis of In Personam Jurisdiction:
1. the D is served with process while in the forum
2. D’s agent was served in the forum
3. the D is domiciled in the forum (gives general jurisdiction)
4. D consents to jurisdiction
§ shows that it is difficult to get IPJ under Pennoyer – as society became more mobile, this became a problem. Supreme Court wanted to expand it.
§ Issue: can judgments obtained against non-residents who fail to appear in court be sustained by default judgments where service of process is accomplished solely through publication?
§ Rules: proceedings in a court of law to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom the court has not jurisdiction are invalid for want of due process of law
1. A state has exclusive jurisdiction over people and property within its borders.
2. No state can exercise jurisdiction over people or property in other states.
3. Judgments in personam without personal service of process shall not be upheld.
4. Judgments in rem with only constructive service may be upheld.
5. The “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution only applies “when the court rendering the judgment had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter”.
§ FOUNDATION FOR JURISDICTION – NO LONGER GOOD LAW (Traditional basis may still be evaluated)
In Rem Requirements
§ less important today than it used to be b/c we’ve expanded in persomam
§ jurisdiction over D’s property
§ what is the difference between in rem and quasi in rem?
§ In Rem: dispute is over who owns the property
§ Quasi In Rem: dispute has nothing to do w/ ownership of the property
§ how do we do this today? attachment statute
§ basically says that the court can seize or attach property that is in the forum that the D owns or claims to own
Constitutional Test
§ Pennoyer said that all you need to do is seize or attach at the outset of the case
§ Shaffer Sup Ct held that for the constitutional test for IR and QIR, you must access whether there are minimum contacts
§ for QIR, there’s no question that the present of the property is not enough to get jurisdiction – have to do Shoe test.
Shaffer v. Heitner, p87
§ Rule: the minimum contacts standard for jurisdiction applies to proceedings in rem as well as proceedings in personam.
§ Reasoning: suits really affect a person’s interest in property, not the physical property itself. Because due process protects a person’s interest in property, in rem cases should be analyzed according to the same due process standard used in in personam cases.
§ Shaffer does not destroy in rem jurisdiction: Shaffer merely prevents the use of quasi in rem jurisdiction when property is the only contact and the action has nothing to do with the property.
§ Property alone may be enough: if the case directly involves ownership of the property (a true in rem action) the property is enough of a contact to satisfy the minimum contacts test.
Requirements for IN PERSONAM Jurisdiction
as established by International Shoe, D must have certain minimum contacts with the forum state that are not against traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
minimum contacts: D must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum so that the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable. 2 key factors:
a) purposeful availment: some voluntary action by the D establishing a relationship with the forum, purposely availing herself “of the privilege of conducting ac
s: Fairness comprised five factors:
1) the burden on the defendant, which the Court indicated was the “primary concern”
2) the interest of the forum in adjudicating the case
3) the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining “convenient and efficient relief”
4) the interest of the interstate judicial system in efficient resolution of controversies; and
5) the “shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies”
§ Fairness irrelevant absent contacts: Court held that these fairness factors were not to be considered unless there were purposeful contacts between the D and the forum
§ OK does not have jurisdiction – no purposeful availment, it is not foreseeable to D that he would be sued in the forum
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, p114
§ Issue: whether jurisdiction is appropriate where non-resident defs. have willingly negotiated and entered into a contract with a corporation residing in the forum state. Holding: Yes.
§ Rule: where a D who has purposefully directed his activities at forum residents seeks to prevent jurisdiction, he must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.
§ merely entering into a contract with a resident of the forum is not alone sufficient. But if the contract is negotiated and/or to be performed in the forum, that is evidence that the parties have purposefully availed themselves of the forum
§ made it clear that there are two parts:
§ contacts – you must have contact before you look at fairness
§ fairness
§ Sup. Ct. said burden is on D to show that forum is unconstitutional.
§ must show that it is so gravely inconvenient that you are at a severe disadvantage in the litigation. May be inconvienient, but it’s not unconstitutional.
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, p107
§ split case; both schools of thought are valid; talk about both schools of thought on exam
§ pl sued a Taiwanese D, who in turn impleaded a Japanese third-party D; all claims other than the claim b/t the Taiwanese D and the Japanese third-party D were settled.
§ stream of commerce case: plurality opinion – Justice White & three others opined that placing the item in the stream of commerce, with the knowledge that it would end up in a particular forum, constituted purposeful availment. O’Connor & three others opined that there would also have to be a showing that the D took some additional step to avail itself of the forum.
§ WorldWide fairness tests used.
§ Rule: the substantial connection between the D and the forum state necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the D purposefully directed toward the forum state.
§ Holding is that CA does not have jurisdiction.
§ Majority Opinion (O’Conner): “mere awareness” that stream of commerce may bring goods into the state after they leave D’s hands is not enough to “purposefully avail.” Must show that D seeks to serve the market in the particular state- designing products for the market or advertising there.
§ Concurring Opinion (Brennan) (lesser showing): sending goods into the stream of commerce in substantial quantities constitutes “purposeful availment,” whether or not they know the goods will be sold in a particular state or cultivates customers there. They foresee and benefit from such sales.
