CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE 2007
Personal Jurisdiction
I. Does State law or FRCP 4 authorize this exercise of jurisdiction? (look at the state’s long arm statute)
A) If no, then you’re done
B) If yes, go to II
II. Does due process allow this exercise of jurisdiction?
A) Constitutional standard: “Minimum contacts with the forum state such that exercise of jurisdiction does not interfere with the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (International Shoe v. Washington)
1. In personam jurisdiction (2 types: Specific and General)
i. Specific Jurisdiction: the suit arises out of or is related to the ∆’s contacts with the forum. Assess this using: Same for individuals and corporations
a) Purposeful Availment: the defendant purposefully availed himself on the forum, and can reasonably expect to be hailed before that state’s courts. The Quid Pro Quo idea. If the defendant has purposefully directed activities to the forum state, jurisdiction is presumptively reasonable, and he will have to make a compelling that other considerations make the jurisdiction of the state unreasonable. (Burger King, WWV)
· Def of Purposeful Availment: WorldWide Volkswagen –a corporation must purposefully avail itself to the privileges of doing business in the state –
o Forseeability – Can reasonably be expected to be haled into court there. Burger King
o Control is important: In Hanson v. Denckla (trust case) –control over actions of 3rd party wasn’t there –
· Stream of Commerce: 2 separate standards:
o Gray v. American Radiator (affirmed by ½ the justices in Asahi, led by Brennan)): If you can reasonably foresee that your product may wind up in a foreign state, when it enters the stream of commerce, you have purposefully availed yourself on that state. Shoe doesn’t overrule b/c litigation could be expected in Gray.
o According to O’Connor in Asahi: Purposeful direction—a corp must to something to purposefully direct its goods into a certain state to justify jurisdiction. WWV
b) State Interest (Keaton v. Hustler—slander was committed by out of state corporation, to a out of state resident, but because New Hampshire residents read the magazine, jurisdiction was present — Court found that aggregate of ∆’s contacts with state was sufficient given the state interest.)
c) Convenience: It’s not too inconvenient (Rudzewicz v. Burger King—other factors were strong enough, and it wasn’t so inconvenient. In Asahi v. Superior Court the Brennan group found enough inconvenience to make jurisdiction unconstitutional….the greater the state interest, the more inconvenient the forum could be. The less, the more convenient it needs to be.
d) Quality and Nature: Kulko v. Sup Ct – father goes to CA to visit kids. Contacts were related but the quality and nature of his contacts were insuff for jurisdiction.
e) Balance test. – McGee — once minimum contacts are established, the interests of the ∏’s, ∆’s, and the forum state must be balanced Burden on ∆ must be of constitutional proportions to overtake state interest. (3rd party creates contact with the foreign state_Life insurance case —dealing with Forseeability as well).
· Side case: Empire Abrasive: State interest must be a palpable interest, rationally connected with public policy. Can’t reach outside of state b/c of unrelated policy issues.
f) Other “fairness factors”: Plaintiff’s interest in the forum, judicial interest, policy implications
g) Factors b to d all play into the “fair play and substantial justice” aspect of the test. You must have purposeful availment. Even if you have state interest, convenience, and other fairness factors, you can’t have jurisdiction w/o purposeful availment. Balance b/t state interest and convenience after that.
ii. General Jurisdiction (for Individuals): any case involving that ∆, even cases unrelated to the defendant’s activity in the state, or if conduct took place outside the state.
a) In state service: (Burnham v. Superior Court –3 justices: tradition says that if you’re in the state, you’re subject to jurisdiction—it’s all about Pennoyer. 3 other justices: when you visit a state you purposefully avail yourself on that state, and should expect to be served w/in its borders..wanted to use specific jurisdiction.)
b) State of domicile (presence plus the intent to remain indefinitely, you don’t lose a domicile until you gain a new one)
iii. General Jurisdiction (for corporations)
a) Corporations: State
s can be mentioned.
G) In general – reach of Fed District Courts is same as state the ct sits in. Includes State’s long arm statutes – Rule 4(k).
Notice
I. Purpose of notice: to make judgments final and binding, to facilitate adversarial system. Required by Due Process.
a. In the Pennoyer era, notice also helped to establish jurisdiction. Post Pennoyer, notice and jurisdiction became two separate issues. Notice is to provide protection of property rights.
II. Two steps of Notice – state/fed rule and Mullane
a. Make sure you’ve complied with the state rule or statute, or Rule 4 if the case is federal.
b. Has the constitutional standard for notice under due process been met —Test is still Mullane.
i. Test for constitutionality: The Mullane Test: Service must be “reasonably calculated” to inform and to succeed. Does the manner of notice violate due process?
1. Therefore, notice by publication and posting is usually not sufficient. They are appropriate only if you cannot locate any other contact information. Ex. Creditors’ addresses, look on mortgages, etc.
2. The balance between justice and efficiency: usually the best method of service is the most expensive—somewhere the line has to be drawn.
3. If there is a superior way that is more likely to reach ∆ –must take that way. IF there is an existence of better alternatives, must use those (Greene v. Lindsay –posting notice of eviction on door). BUT – still not best notice, but reasonably calculated notice.
4. Doesn’t matter if actual notice is achieved. Must be concentrated direct effort to give notice. Efficiency argument t- can’t investigate procedure of notice every time.
III. Service under rule 4:
