Jurisdiction Intro
Personal Jurisdiction
Personal juris (PJ) – territorial reach of a court to issue a binding judgment over a D.
1. In personam – authority of the court over persons, to render a personally binding judgment against a D. typically to obtain monetary or compensatory relief
2. In rem – an interest in a specific thing (a res), usually a piece of property.
· seek to determine and affect the interests of persons in the property.
· Invoking in rem – attachment prior to proceedings.
3. Quasi in rem
· over a piece of property, in order to adjudicate personal rights related to the property
· actions to recover monetary damages totally unrelated to the property and where the court has no PJ over the D, but does have J over an intangible asset such as a debt.
· outcome:
i. If a nonresident D appears, defends against the P’s claims and loses, then the D is liable to the full extent of the P’s claim.
ii. If the nonresident D chooses not to appear and defend against the P’s claims, then the court may enter a validly binding default judgment against the nonresident D. In such quasi in rem actions where the D defaults, however, a P may recover damages only to the extent of the value of the attached property, which may be used to satisfy the claim.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Subject matter juris. (SMJ) – ability of a court to adjudicate a particular claim. State and federal courts determine subject by constitutional provision or by statute.
State SMJ – determined by legislative enactment in their state codes
Fed SMJ – constitutionally authorized in Article III § 2 of the United States Constitution.
Jurisdictional facts
· information a court must have before to make a determination whether it can render a binding judgment.
· citizenship or residency of the parties to the dispute,
· location and nature of the D’s property,
· the D’s affiliating circumstances with the forum,
· whether and how the D was served with process or notice of the action,
Challenges to J:
1. amount in controversy
2. motions to quash service of process, (state equiv. of M2D)
3. motions to dismiss (under Rules 12(b)(1) and (2) or
4. direct appeal to a superior court.
Other forms of jurisdiction
1. Original juris. – where the claim is to be first tried or heard.
2. Appellate juris. – ability of state or federal court superior tribunals to hear appeals have mandatory jurisdiction over certain types of appeals discretionary jurisdiction (sometimes referred to as certiorari jurisdiction) over other appeals
3. Exclusive juris. – jurisdiction over certain types of federal claims or actions
4. Removal juris. – ability of a federal court to assume federal court jurisdiction over a lawsuit originally filed in state court. (28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq.)
5. Ancillary juris. – ability of a court to adjudicate additional party claims that are logically related to the P’s claims. codified in federal court as part of the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C § 1367.
6. Concurrent juris. – ability of two different courts to adjudicate a dispute at the same time, usually within the same territory.
1.often referred to as a parallel, reactive lawsuit.
2.generally is viewed as wasteful.
7. Pendent claim juris. – In federal court, pendent claim jurisdiction refers to the competency of courts to adjudicate additional claims that lack an independent federal subject matter jurisdictional basis-such as a claim based on state law. (28 U.S.C. § 1367)
8. Pendent party juris. – Pendent party jurisdiction similarly refers to the ability of the court to render a judgment against an additional party for whom there is no independent federal jurisdictional basis. (28 U.S.C. § 1367)
9. Supplemental juris. – In federal court, supplemental jurisdiction permits the federal court to adjudicate additional claims and render judgments over additional parties, when the court lacks an independent federal subject matter jurisdictional basis over those claims or parties. (28 U.S.C. § 1367)
Extent of Jurisdiction
· State: General Jurisdiction
· The refusal of a state court to hear a claim arising under federal law may violate the Supremacy Clause.
· Federal: Limited Jurisdiction
· Exclusive
1. Federal patent, copyright, and trademark jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1338.
2. Federal antitrust jurisdiction.
3. Federal securities jurisdiction, 15 U.S.C. § 78a.
Choice of Forum
Choosing a Forum in a dual-court system
Full Faith and Credit – Article IV § 1 and its enabling statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738)
Forum Shopping
Strategic Considerations
1. Docket congestion
2. Jury pools
3. Judges
4. Procedural rules
5. Location/convenience
Legal Considerations
PJ & V – D may consent to the P’s choice of forum and waive PJ and V
SMJ – cannot waive, state may apply another state’s law..
Personal Jurisdiction
· Jurisdiction over residents: Doctrine of State Sov. – power over persons and property within their limits Pennoyer v. Neff, (1877)
· Jurisdiction over absent citizens: domicile = suff b/c not terminated by absence
Bases for Jurisdiction
1. Property: presence of property within the state = valid basis for in rem juris. Has to be attached prior. Pennoyer v. Neff, (1877)
2. Consent [if consent, no min contacts analysis]
· Express – Pennoyer; Burnham 1990(Tag): (1) Appointment of an in-state agent, (2) Contractual forum selection clauses (biz & consumer) – MIS Bremen (1972); Carnival (1991), (3)Cognovit clauses – sometimes included in loan agreements.
· Implied
1. Nonresident motorist statutes – inherently dangerous activity – Hess v. Pawloski, (1927)
2. Sale of securities – inherently dangerous business activity
3. Waiver or Failure to object – Rule 12(h)(1)
4. Waiver or Failure to comply with discovery requests re: juris facts – Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Compa Des Bauxites de Guinee
5. General appearance – appear to argue merits of case
6. Nonresident Ps and counterclaims – P’s availing itself of forum in first instance. Adam v. Saenger, (1938).
3. State long-arm statutes
· “Illinois-style” – first state to enact a long-arm statute, textually detailed long-arm statutes.
· Met: tort action b/c place of wrong = last place where even to take place (explosion) Gray v. American Radiator
· OK long-arm statute is IL style but was interpreted like CA style in World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, (1985).
· “California-style” – simple one line statute permits juris over NonR Ds on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution.
· Other limitations: Some state long-arms apply only to corporations and do not apply to individuals. e.g. must act in state.
Notice
· In personam. only personal service on the resident or nonresident D w/i state’s borders = suff notice Pennoyer
· In rem/quasi in rem actions: notice by publication is sufficient to provide adequate notice.
· Attachment of property prior to the institution of proceedings is deemed to provide this notice
Two Step Process – WW Volks (1980)
1. Ct must examine long-arm to determine whether a D’s conduct or activities brings D w/i enum bases for juris
2. If Yes, then Ct looks at Due Process considerations
· 1st Prong = Minimum Contacts: mod DP std: maint of suit d/n offend “trad notions of fair play and subst justice.” Intl Shoe 1945
1. Quality and nature of contacts
· Met: Systematic and continuous business activities within state
· Not Met: No contacts
· Not Met: Single acts or contacts “causal presence of corporate agent or even his conduct of single or isolated items of activities in a state in corporation’s behalf not enough to subject it to suit on CoA unconnected with activities there.”
· Exception: McGee (1957), 1 Contract, 1 Contact; (2) BK v. Rudzewicz, (85), FL choice of law clause for MI biz.
· No Obligation: State not compelled to assume if they don’t want Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., (1952).
· Purposeful availment- no DP viol if in conducting bus activ w/i state, benefits from activities and protection of state Denckla 58
· Qualifications to Purposeful Availment
· Unilateral Activ
Federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over Ds in a federal action wherever they may be located, if authorized by federal statute. Rule 4(k)(1)(D).
2. In federal actions brought against federal officials and United States agencies, 28 U.S.C. § 139l(e) authorizes service by registered mail anywhere in the country.
3. Similarly, the Federal Interpleader Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2361, also authorizes nationwide service of process. The federal court’s personal jurisdictional reach, then, extends fully and the Ds need only have minimum contacts with the United States.
4. Federal question cases involving foreign Ds not subject to any state’s law. Federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over Ds if the action involves a federal question and the D is not otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of general jurisdiction of any state. Rule 4(k)(2).
a. Import of Rule 4(k)(2).
The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules added this particular provision as part of its 1993 amendment of Rule 4 which is intended to solve the problem identified by the Supreme Court in Omni Capital International Ltd. v. Wolff & Co., (1987). In that case an American P sued in Louisiana under the federal Commodities Exchange Act and attempted to implead two English Ds. The Commodities Act does not contain a provision for nationwide service of process. The Ds had minimum contacts with the United States, but not with Louisiana. The Supreme Court invalidated personal jurisdiction over the foreign Ds because the Court would not authorize nationwide jurisdiction where Congress had not done so by statute, and the state’s jurisdictional reach would not subject the Ds to state court jurisdiction.
Limitations of new Rule 4(k)(2). This provision applies only to claims in the federal court’s federal question jurisdiction, not to cases in the courts’ diversity jurisdiction. The D also must have minimum contacts with the United States as a whole, but insufficient minimum contacts to support a state’s assertion of personal jurisdiction. In general, Rule 4(k)(2) is most likely to apply to foreign Ds.
Actions in personam
Ds located within the federal judicial district. Ds who are located within the federal judicial district are subject to the federal court’s personal jurisdiction by reference to the state’s jurisdiction statutes and interpretations of those statutes. Rule 4(k)(1)(A) provides that the federal court may establish jurisdiction over a D who could be subjected to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state in which the district court is located.
Additional authority. Rule 4(e) provides that service may be effected in any judicial district pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located … for the service of a summons upon the D in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of the state.
The 100-mile bulge rule – Federal courts may exert personal jurisdiction over certain Ds who may be located within 100 miles of the federal courthouse, but are in another state. Rule 4(k)(1)(B). Applies only to third parties who are impleaded in an action under Rule 14, or parties who are needed for a just adjudication under Rule 19.
Federal interpleader actions. Federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over any parties who are joined in a federal interpleader action under 28 U.S.C. § 1335. Rule 4(k)(1)(C).
Actions in rem. Federal courts may assert jurisdiction in actions in rem in two different manners:
o By seizure of property as provided by federal statute. Rule 4(n)(1).
By seizure of a D’s assets found within the district under the circumstances and manner as provided by the law of the state in which the district court is located
