Albright Civil Procedure Spring 2012 Outline
I. Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)
a. POLICY: due process requires that defendant not be subject to suit in unexpected places, to limit where he needs to appear to defend
b. RULE: Requirement that any court’s jurisdiction over defendant a particular type of action be in accordance with Constitutional (“due process”) and applicable statutory (“long arm statute”) limits.
c. Ways to establish “due process” for in rem/quasi in rem (QIR) actions:
i. RULE: Presence of property within borders of state is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction
ii. ISSUE: do minimum contacts need to be found if property within state?
1. YES: Broad Shafer v. Heitner
a. Policy: indirect haling of D into court through QIR should require same requirements as in personem
2. NO: Narrow Shafer v. Heitner – only for QIR actions
a. In rem actions or other forms of in personem don’t need minimum contacts
i. Other forms of in personem not needing minimum contacts found in Burnham v. Superior Court (PJ due to personal service w/in state)
d. Ways to establish “due process” for in personem actions:
i. Domicile
1. SEE SMJ
ii. Consent
1. RULE: D’s appearance in court is sufficient
2. RULE: D’s appointing of an agent in state is sufficient
a. NOTE: incl automatic appointment may be okay, as Hess v. Pawloski
3. ISSUE: Corporation’s appointment of agent w/in forum – consent to general or specific jurisdiction?
a. Courts split on this issue – some say general, some say only specific
iii. Physical presence (incl “tag”)
1. RULE: Physical presence w/in state is sufficient to establish that state’s jurisdiction over defendant
2. XCPN: Service to transient Corporate agent not sufficient to establish PJ over Corporation, even if agent is on Corporate business (James Dickinson Farm Mortgage Co. v. Harry)
iv. “Minimum contacts” (International Shoe)
1. RULE: Defendant must have “minimum contacts” with the forum. “Quality and nature” of D’s contacts with forum are used to assess whether court has power over him
a. POLICY: D’s “purposeful availment” of benefits/protections of the law subjects him to its enforcement mechanisms (Hanson v. Denckla)
i. Focus is on D’s behavior. P’s unilateral actions have little effect (WWVW)
b. RULE: “purposeful availment” must be made by D. If D has not purposefully acted towards forum, jurisdiction may not be proper.
c. Established via
i. General jurisdiction (“dispute blind”) (Helicopteros)
1. Definition: D has continuous and systematic contacts with the state.
2. Rationale: D knows that he can be sued in the forum-it is like D’s second home.
3. What is CS: I is like corporate domicile. SoC does not suffice. (Goodyear v. Brown).
4. Transient Presence:
ii. Specific jurisdiction (“dispute specific”)
1. Definition: P’s claim arises from D’s limited contact..
2. State of contacts are assessed at time of defendant’s activity, rather than time of filing of suit.
3. The arises out of element.
a. Evidence Test: Claim arises out of D’s instate contacts only if D’s forum contact provides evidne of one of more lements of the underlying claim.
b. The but for test: Claim arises out of contact if the cliam would not have arisen but for D’s contact with the state.
c. Substantial Connection
i. Is there a substantial connection etween the contacts and the operative facts? More broad than the evidence test.
iii. General v. Specific as a sliding scale
1. Definition of this test:
a. If contacts wholly unrelated to claim, then contacts had better be systemic and high quality.
b. If contacts more related to claim, then contacts have to be less so
2. RULE: “Fair play and substantial justice” factors may defeat jurisdiction even when minimum contacts are met
a. NOTE: If factors not met, then unconstitutional to sue. This distinguishes these factors from FNC. Contacts are necessary, but not sufficient.
b. NOTE: Factors enumerated in World Wide Volkswagen, first specified as a secondary test in Burger King
c. Factors:
i. Burden on D
ii. Forum state’s interest in adjudicating
iii. P’s interest in getting relief
iv. Interstate judicial system’s interest in resolving controversies
v. Shared state interest in furthering social policies
d. RULE: If min contacts established, D must prove factors are against PJ
i. Used in Burger King v. Rudzewicz, Asahi
e. ISSUE: no longer defendant-focused!
3. Other issues
a. All contacts related to suit do not need to arise within the physical boundaries of the state
i. RULE: (Keeton v. Hustler): specific jurisdiction findable where ordinary course of business w/in forum gives rise to conduct related to suit. (Hustler faced libel damages arising from contacts with all states!)
ii. RULE: (Calder v. Jones – the Enquirer suit): specific jurisdiction findable when conduct was directed at the state and damage was done within the state
1. XCPN: conduct should relate to forum (Revell v. Lidov)
b. Stream of commerce
i. NOTE: Asahi is unclear what contacts are required.
1. RULE?: The substantial connection must come about by some action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state.
2. RULE?: Brennan: If D’s product is regularly sold in the state then in the SoC and enough for PJ.
3. RULE?: Stevens: Courts should focus on facto such as the volume of D’s sale in the state and the hazardous nature of the product at issue.
c. Contracts as Contacts
i. RULE: Contract will be a specific contact as it is foreseeable that the defendant will be haled into court for breaching that K. (Burger King).
ii. RULE: K does not necessarily confer PJ. Factors to weigh
1. Whether negotiations were directed to the forum state.
2. Whether the K required fulfillment of K obligations in the forum state.
3. The duration of the relation.
iii. POLICY: Using State’s K laws avails D to that forum.
d. Choice of Law v. Choice of Forum
i. Rule:
1. Choice of law cluases do not automatically confer jurisdiction. They just establish which laws will govern the K.
2. Forum selections clauses convfer PJ. They are enforced.
e. Corporations and subsidiaries
i. NOTE: Subsidiaries are legally separate entities from parent
ii. RULE: PJ must apply to parent to sue parent for subsidiary’s actions
1. XCPN: if parent uses subsidiary to do what it would normally do itself (Gallagher v. Mazda Motor of America)
2. XCPN: if parent completely dominates subsidiary – “alter ego” argument
f. Partnerships
i. NOTE: Partnerships are deemed collective legal entities
ii. RULE: Service on a partner in a forum (“presence”) on partnership business sufficient to confer PJ over entire partnership (First American Corp. v. Price Waterhouse LLP)
USC §1331)
i. RULE: Fed judiciary has jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States
1. Constitutional interpretation of “arising under” is very broad – presumed to mean any claim that relates to federal law
2. Statutory interpretation of what “arising under” means is narrower than constitutional interpretation
ii. RULE: Federal Question Jurisdiction must be established only on the basis of P’s “well-pleaded” complaint, rather than D’s answer (Mottley).
a. The plaintiff must raise a federal issue in the complaint. Courts look only at the complaint. Courts do not looka t anticipated defenses.
i. POLICY: establish jurisdictional issues at outset, rather than make them dependent on answer.
ii. NOTE: Courts can and will raise this issue Sua Sponte.
b. Cannot be based on a Counterclaim. (The Holmes Group, Inc. .v. Vornad Air Circulation Systems, Inc.).
i. POLICY: Defendant’s answer may not bring the case into federal law. D should not be allowed to defeat P’s choice of forum by dragging the case into federal court.
c. Statutory interpretation of “arising under” is determined by the Holmes Test.
i. A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.
ii. Mottley arose under K law. K law is state law; thus it is not within the fed’s jurisdiction.
iii. RULE: Cases that assert Novel Claims to relief under federal law will be within Fed’s jurisdiction.
1. These will not be dismissed if the right does not exist; instead they will lose on the merits. (Bell v. Hood). But it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
iv. RULE: declaratory judgment, although allowed by federal statute, does not affect a finding of subject matter jurisdiction
1. POLICY: declaratory judgment is merely another remedy, not a right to be enforced or a grant of right to sue
III. Supplemental Jurisdiction (USC §1367) and Joinder
a. Major themes
i. Once one party has directly claimed against another for the same transaction claim, then Rule 18 allows for “open season” – permissive joinder of non same-transaction claims. You can add anything.
ii. Transaction or Occurrence, the test
1. Are the issues of fact and law raised in the claim and CC largely the same?
2. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on the party’s Cc, absent the compulsory CC rule?
3. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute the claim as well as the CC?
4. Is ther ea logical relationship between the Claim and the CC?
b. Court-ordered joinder (Rule 42)
i. RULE: Court has discretion to join claims or consolidate and try together similar issues. If joined, they will probably let them be litigated together, but they will be split up at trial time.
