Linda Mullenix
Civil Procedure I
Fall 2012
PERSONAL JURISDICTION FRCP 12(b) 2 .
Pennoyer v. Neff Personal Jurisdiction by process of person or property (attach prior to
(1877 Oregon state proceedings)
àU.S.) FRCP 55 (a): Default Judgment- when party fails to defend or Plead
In order to have a valid and binding judgment = court must have good personal jurisdiction.
Six ways to ASSERT personal jurisdiction over a (D)”
1) Personal service of procees/ summons
2) Substituted service by publication –newspaper
3) Voluntary Appearance = consent -> Explicit or Expressed
4) Physical presence
5) Attachment of property within the state
6) Designating an agent in the state
Article IV section 1- “Full Faith and Credit”
Article XIV Section 1- “Due Process”
Hess V. Powlaski (P) from Penn driving car in Mass gets into accident.
(1927 MassàUS) Implied Consent due to “inherently dangerous activities”
Using the highway gives implied consent and process maybe served on a
designated agent in the state
International Shoe v. Establish “Presence” of a corporation
State of Washington Shift from STATE sovereignty to “Due Process” (14th Amend. –Fairness)
(1945 WAà US) Sufficient Minimum Contacts “traditional notions of fairplay and substantial
justice”
1)”systematic and continuous” business
2) Deriving benefits and protections from the state
3) Quality and nature vs. quantitative
4) Inconveniences and burdens on (D)
GENERAL JURISDICTION- contacts of (D) with state enough
SPECIFIC JURISDICTION- comes out of contact related to case at hand (not
endorsed)
JUSTICE BLACK- concerned about ambiguity of fair play and substantial
justice and open to too much interpretation
McGee v. Int’l (P) tries to collect on life insurance policy in CA and enforce verdit in
Life Insurance (1957 (TX)- full faith and credit
CA /TX à US) “One Contact One Contract” enough to assert personal jurisdiction
Case is example of Specific Jurisdiction
Justice Black’s concerns come true.
Hanson v. Denkla King leer case about trusts.
(1958 FL/ Delaware “Purposeful availment” test: non-res must purposefully avail himself to
benefits and protections of state to be subject to personal jurisdiction
“Unilateral activity” – non-res. (D) has to have sufficient contacts with STATE
“Center of Gravity”- DISSENT no personal jurisdiction for being center of gravity or being the most convenient location for litigation (Justice Black was prediction too much interpretation came true)
Indispensible Parties- any party’s who’s rights are directly affected by the disposition of the case must be JOINED FRCP 19
Issue of personal jurisdiction, not choice of law
Gray v. American LONG ARM STATUTE CASE (CA- style or Illinois- style)
Radiator (Illinois Case in Chief and second case (Indemnification cross claim)
State court 1961) Special Appearance- making a narrow appearance to challenge jurisdiction
General Appearance- accepting jurisdiction by appearing
Motion to Quash- FRCP 12 (B) 2 motion to Dismiss
Crossclaims/ Couterclaims –FRCP 13
3 things you can file
1) Pleading FRCP 7: Complaint, Answer, Reply
2) Motions
3) Papers
“Stream of Commerce” Case- company placing a product upstream and floats down state line causing injury. (VALID)
Reaction to Pennoyer and show how laws need to change and develop with times.
Kulko v, Sup. Ct. Child custody case where father puts daughter on plane to mother in CA.
of CA (US 1978) “Effects Test” (tort law test) was rejected (bullet across state line v. sending
daughter across state lines) as a matter of personal jurisdiction
Shaffer v. Heitner Stock holders upset with Greyhound for anti-trust lawsuit and crim. penalties
(Property revised) Type of CLASS ACTION –FRCP 23.1- dealing with shareholder derivative action
(1977 Delawareà and 23.2
US) Marshall Majority- All assertions of personal jurisdiction based on
INTERNATIONAL SHOE
In Personam (over the person) – Int’l Shoe- due process 14th amend.
Quasi in Rem: intangible property (as debt) Harris v. Bulk NOT VALID (Seider Roth Doctrine on Insurance was invalid due to quasi in rem no longer valid)
In Rem: over real property Pennoyer v. Neff –survives in narrow sense (admiralty law by seizing ship) over property claim
Concurrence POWELL: (7 to 1) – wants to keep in rem
Dissent Brennan- unhappy b/c court offering an advisory opinion (looking at issues not debated in lower courts) should have been remanded to lower courts
WWVW (1980 (P) upset when car catches fire (product liability) after crash in OK when en route
OK stateà US) from NY to AZ- driving car to OK is unilateral activity (Hanson v Denkla)
Chain of Manufacture and Distribution – sue manufacturer, importer, distributor, retailer
Majority- applying Int’l Shoe
– 5 Factor test incorporating “affiliating circumstances”: Minimum Contacts
1) Connections b/w (D) and forum state are reasonable- burden on (D)
2) The forum state’s interest
3) The (P) interest in convenience and effectiveness obtaining relief
4) Judicial interest in efficient and effective resolution of controversies
5) Interest of Sister states on social policy
Court looking at “FORESEEABILITY” in stream of commerce (gray) and how the product got into the state- has to be by the manufacturer not consumer (P).
– (D) conduct with forum state must be such that he “Reasonably Anticipate” being hauled into court there
Dissent: Marshall Blackman- disagree in application of facts and believe being hailed into court was foreseeable because of nature of car being mobile
Dissent: Brennan not want to forseeability
Helicopteros Helicopter carrying TX residents crashes in Peru while contrasting a pipeline.
Nationales (1984 Times challenge personal jurisdiction- Matter of First Instance- on appeal or as
TX state àUS) a Collateral Attack- when trying to enforce Full Faith and credit
Majority: General Jurisdiction- Int’l shoe systemic and continuous
Dissent (Brennan) talks about Specific Jurisdiction- sufficiently related/ sufficiently important- “arise out of” “related to” “substantially related to”
The court did not decide the issue of specific jurisdiction
Keeton v Hustler (P) unhappy b/c she was liable by magazine- using 1st Amendment
(1984 NHà US) FRCP 8C- Defenseà Statute of Limitation
Majority Rejected “forum shopping” argument, (P) contacts with state, “chilling effect”- 1st Amendment arguments
Applied forseeablitity (WWVW) and minimum contacts (Int’l Shoe)
Keton v. Hustlter—(P) contacts with state does not matter.
Calder v Jones (P) is unhappy and suing for libel, invasion of privacy , IIED
(1984 CAà US) states 1st amendment concerns should never enter into jurisdictional analysis
Passed the effects test (Kulko rejected effects test) because threw words across state lines and reasonably foresee being hauled into court there (WWVW)
Burger King v. Burger King is unhappy that (D) defaulted on contract, infringement of trademark
Rudzewicz (1985 FRCP 4(K)2 in determining personal jurisdiction in federal court you look at STATE
FL FEDERAL à US) Law (long arm statute and case law interpreting statute)
Majority Brennan : minimum contacts Foreseeability –WWVW and looking at SPECIFIC JURISDICTION
Overrules McGEE
“Contract Plus + Case”- look at surrounding circumstances, underlying negotiations, choice of law provision
Choice of Law Provision- if dispute arises, specifies which states law governs
Choice of Forum – selects actual court to adjudicate (not seen in case)
“K of Adhesion/ Unconscionable K” (Take it or leave it)
Dissent- applies minimum contacts and not +
Asahi Metal v. Motorcyclist gets injured, wife killed and case in chief settles out. Cross claim
Sup. Ct. CA b/w Asahi (Japan) and chen sin (Taiwanese) left to determine jurisdiction.
(1987 CAà US) All agree on 2 things: facts and improper assertion of personal jurisdiction
Fragmented opinion
IIA- O’Conner (Scalia, Powell, Rehnquist)- Stream of commerce not enough/ trying to link with Foreseeablitity- must purposefully direct product to state
IIB- all but Scalia – Five Factor Test –not meet standards
III- conclusion of court
Concurrence A: Brennan (white, Marshall, Blackman) – agree with IIB, endorsing forseeability standard (gray wwvw) and rejecting purposeful availment
Concurrence B: Stevens, White, Blackman- agree in judgment (disagree with how minimum contacts was applied)
J. McIntyre v. Product liability suit where (P) is upset when 4 fingers severed while using metal
Nicas
ction- applies certain statues that only federal jurisdiction applies (Bankrupcy/ Admiralty)
Concurrent Federal / State jurisdiction- if the statute does not specify jurisdiction then you have concurrent à and nothing that prevents federal and state courts from hearing an action concurrently = PARALLEL DUPLICATIVE LITIGATION
Dissent: wanted a plain text meaning; doesn’t like “magic phrase” and thought the language in the provision only conferred capacity not jurisdiction
T.B. Harms v. Race to Judgment case where both (P) and (D) brought two separate suits to
Eliscu who get renewal rights (royalties) for copyrighted songs- K case
(Fed. Ct . NYà One party brought suit in State court, One party brought suit in federal court
2d Cir. 1964) In federal court, did the court have good jurisdiction under 28 USC 1338
Bottom line: court found this is a case of contracts not Copyright infringement
Take away from case: Cautionary taleà important lesson to take away from caseà just because you plead in your complaint that the case is about copy right or violate your constitutional rights does not mean the court will take it at face value and confer jurisdiction
Garden Variety Contract claim can get in federal court under diversity jurisdiction
Case involving DECLATORY JUDGEMENT- resolve controversy
Louisville/ Motley’s unhappy b/c RR Co refused to uphold contract of free passage after
Nashville RR v. Congress passed a law against RR giving free passes- at heart breach of K case
Motley Well Pleaded Complaint RULE
(district KYà Part (1)- (P) on the face of his or her COMPLAINT has to plead an alleged
US 1908) violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties
Part (2)- (P) cannot assert the grounds of federal question jurisdiction by asserting that the question will arise when defending (cannot look to the defense side of the case)
Merrell Dow Families upset that drug caused deformities in children born
Pharm. V. USC 1331 “arising under” Constitution, laws, treaties
Thompson (ohio – if under Laws (treaties) à look at treaty for:
è US1986) 1) Express Private Right of Action: the language includes provision which
Says any citizen may sue in federal court for violation of statute
2) Implied Right of Action (Court v Ash US 1975) p. 244
a) are the (P) part of the class for whose special benefit the statute was passed
b) does the statute reveal congressional intent to provide a private cause of action
c) would federal cause of action enhance the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme
d) is the cause of action traditionally relegated to state law?
Multiple Claims: 1) Negligence, 2) Breach of Contract, 3) strict liability, 4) fraud, 5) gross negligence, and 6) violation of federal act- FFDC act
FRCP 42- Motion to Consolidate (the cases)
Forum Non-Convenience
Majority: (Moore/ Franchise Tax board v. Construction laborer vacation trust)- adopt the HOLMES test “suit arises under the law that creates the action” Answered 3 argument: 1) uniformity- will see that anyway in appeals process; 2) Majority backs away from setting novel precedent of getting into fed. Court by saying it’s a new issue 3) can decide case without fed. Question- fed. Juris. Not found.
Dissent: (Smith v. Kansas City title & trust Co.) Brennan- “application and interpretation of state law depends on federal law” looks at how the claims will be tried in court… and says under Smith it is sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. 1441 (b)– cannot remove a case if the (D) is of the same state as the federal court.
