Civil Procedure Stravitz Spring 2015
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
· The power of a court to enter a judgment against a specific defendant. This power is based on the state’s connection to the parties or property
o Waivable 12(b)(2)
o A court can assert personal jurisdiction only if its power is authorized by statute and does not exceed the limitations of the DPC. A state would violate due process if its courts entered judgments against defendants without a fair judicial procedure, which includes limits on the places where defendants can be required to defend a lawsuit
· Types of Personal Jurisdiction
o In Personam
§ Jurisdiction over the defendant’s “person,” gives the court power to issue a judgment against her personally. Thus all of the person’s assets may be seized to satisfy the judgment, and the judgment can be sued upon in other states as well
o In Rem
§ Jurisdiction over a “thing.” Gives the court power to adjudicate a claim made about a piece of property or about a status (Example – action to quiet title to real estate)
o Quasi in rem
§ Action is begun by seizing property owned by (attachment), or a debt owed to (garnishment) the defendant, within the forum state. The thing seized is a pretext for the court to decide the case without having jurisdiction over the defendant’s person. Any judgment affects only the property seized, and the judgment cannot be sued upon in any other court
· In Personam
o (1) Presence within the forum state
§ Jurisdiction may be exercised over an individual by virtue of his presence within forum state
§ Even if the individual is an out-of-state defendant who comes into forum state only briefly, personal jurisdiction over him may be gotten as long as service was made on him while he was in the forum state
§ Main case: Pennoyer v. Hess
o (2) Domicile or residence within the forum state
§ Jurisdiction may be exercised over a person who is domiciled within the forum state, even if the person is temporarily absent from the state.
§ A person is considered to be domiciled in the place where he has his current dwelling place, if he also has the intention to remain in that place for an indefinite period
§ Corporation – Two potential domiciles
· Place of incorporation
· Principle place of business
· Hertz v. Friendly
o (3) Consent to be sued
§ Express
· Forum Selection Clause
§ Implied
· Filing suit in forum state
· Voluntarily appearing and defending on the merits
o Waiver – appearing and not contesting jurisdiction in your answer or via a Rule 12 motion
o If you appear to consent to personal jurisdiction, you voluntarily consent to the court deciding that issue and granting any discovery necessary to decide the issue. If court rules against you, you better defend on the merits, or risk default
· Expanding basis of Personal Jurisdiction
o Hess v. Pawlowski
§ D, while driving in MA, had and accident with P. D was a PA resident and P was MA resident. P brought action against D in MA court. MA law considered usage of MA roads by out of state drivers as consent of those drivers to appointment of registrar of motor vehicle as the drivers’ agent. The service of process on the registrar was considered the same as the service on nonresident drive while present in MA. D claims that this law denied him due process.
§ Court upheld jurisdiction based on the statute and treated driving within the state as implied consent to suit in that state on claims arising from that driving
· Court used an implied consent theory to establish the court’s jurisdiction over the D, because “minimum contacts” requirement of International Shoe was yet to come. The Court is simply trying to reach a fair result and reach in personam jurisdiction
· Modern Day Basis
o Two types of personal Jurisdiction: specific and General
· Specific Jurisdiction
o Process of establishing personal jurisdiction
o Test
§ Step One – Does the South Carolina long-arm statute apply? If yes move on to step two to make sure the statute does not exceed the 14th Amendment’s DPC
· A statute which permits the court of a state to obtain jurisdiction over nonresidents
· These statutes predicate jurisdiction over nonresidents upon the defendant’s general activity in the state, or the commission of any one of the series of enumerated acts within the jurisdiction, or, in some cases, the commission of a certain act outside the jurisdiction causing consequences within it
o Substituted Service – Long arms typically provide for substitute service since in-state personal service is not possible
· If the court has the constitutional power to assert jurisdiction, it automatically has the statutory power to do so.
· Out of state act with in-state consequences – some “in-state tortuous act” long-arm clauses have been interpreted to include acts done outside the state which produce tortuous consequences within the state. In a products liability situation, a vendor who sells products that he knows will be used in the state may constitutionally be required to defend in the state, if the product causes injury in the state
· It is well established that in law the place of a wrong is where the last event takes place which is necessary to render the actor liable. And the alleged negligence in manufacturing cannot be separated from the resulting injury
§ Step Two – Analysis under two-branch due process test
· First branch – Traditional Minimum Contacts
o (1) Did the nonresident defendant purposefully direct activities at, or establish contact with, South Carolina?
o (2) Did the nonresident defendant direct activities or establish contact in a manner sufficient to invoke the benefit and protections of South Carolina law?
o (3) Did the nonresident defendant direct activities or establish contact in a manner sufficient to reasonably anticipate litigation in South Carolina?
· Second Branch – Fair Play and Substantial Justice
o (1) Burden on nonresident defendant
o (2) Adjudicative interest of South Carolina
o (3) Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
o (4) Systemic interest of the national judicial system in obtaining the most efficient solution of the con
he interests of all persons in a thing where it has jurisdiction over the thing, even though it may not have jurisdiction over the persons whose interests in the thing are affected
§ Example – Specific performance of a land sale contract – Even if the D is out of state and has no connection with the forum state other than having entered into a contract to convey the instate land, the forum state may hear the action
§ D does not have to have minimum contacts with the forum state for the action to proceed – it is enough that the contract involved in-state land, and that D has received reasonable notice
· (2) Quasi in rem
o Actions that would have been in personam if jurisdiction over Ds person had been attainable. Instead, property or intangibles are seized not as the object of the litigation, but merely as a means of satisfying a possible judgment against D.
§ Type I – property is at issue in the case. P is seeking to secure pre-existing claim in the subject property and to extinguish or establish the non-existence of similar interests of particular person
§ Type II – property used to litigate some other issue. P seeks to apply what he concedes to be the property of the D to the satisfaction of a claim against him
· Cases
o Pennington v. 4th National Bank –
§ Although petitioner did not reside in the forum state, the Court held that attachment of his in-state bank account satisfied due process
o Harris v. Balk
§ Original site of the debt does not matter, nor does the character of the stay of the person in debt – while he is in the state, the creditor can sue him. The obligation does not remain at the situs of the debt, it follows him wherever he goes. (Obligation of the debtor to pay debt clings to him)
§ Note: After Shaffer – the fact that Balk’s debtor happened to be in MD and available for personal service was irrelevant. Since Balk himself did not have minimum contacts with MD, and thus could not be sued there personally, Shaffer means that a quasi in rem suit based on Harris’s debt to him may not be heard in MD.
o Shaffer v. Heitner
§ Old rule
· obligation of the debtor to pay his debt clings to and accompanies him wherever he goes
· If the creditor can sue the debtor in personam, then the creditor should be able to sue the debtor’s debtor in personam
§ Landmark case requiring minimum contacts for quasi in rem jurisdiction. Quasi in rem traditionally based on attachment or seizure of property in the jurisdiction and not on contacts with the forum state.
