Professor Ravenell_ Civil procedures_ Fall 2012
I. Personal Jurisdiction
A. Long Arm Statutes
a. State statute can be the same as federal
b. State statute requirements can be more narrow than federal statute
i. Flint v. Gust (1986): rejected the three step prong of the state statute and resorted to :
1. New York Rule: a tort is deemed to have been committed within the state only if the tortious act or omission itself, and net merely the injury resulting therefrom, occurred therein
2. Illinois Rule: a tort resulting in damage inside the state is deemed to have occurred inside the state regardless of where the tortious act or omission took place
a. Reasoning- The tort is not a tort until an injury has occurred
B. 14th Amendment Due Process
a. Due process is satisfied if the non-resident defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the action does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington)
i. If a state statute is not met, no constitutional analysis is necessary
1. Exceptions to Jurisdiction
a. A party may consent to personal jurisdiction. The consent may be expressed, implied, or by making a voluntary appearance. Plaintiffs are said to have consented to personal jurisdiction by filing the lawsuit.
I. In personam Jurisdicition (can be general or specific)
Defined- Jurisdiction over the person to make a determination regarding D’s personal obligations
1. Residency: Domicile is established when a person with capacity enters a state with the intent to make that state her home. A state can have jurisdiction over a person who is domiciled within the state, even if the person is temporarily absent from the state. (Pennoyer v. Neff)
a. Milliken residency test- “domicile in the state is alone sufficient to bring an absent defendant within the reach of the state’s jurisdiction
b. Shaffer- apply contacts analysis
i. This will always meet contacts analysis
2. Transient Presence: If a defendant is voluntarily present in the forum state and is served with process while there, the state will have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. (Burnham v. Superior Court)
a. Burnham : You can be served in the state and jurisdiction will be upheld if you are visiting a state and are served at that time. In personam jurisdiction is required for a court to award monetary damages such as child support
i. Opinion Scalia: “transient jurisdiction is constitutional because it is a practice that has historically been permitted. The short of the matter is that jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard of “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
ii. Opinion Brennan: rejected Scalia’s historical approach – “a transient defendant actually avails himself of significant benefits provided by the state. His health and safety are guaranteed by the State’s police, fire, and emergency medical services, he is free to travel on the State’s roads and waterways; he likely enjoys the fruits of the state’s economy as well
iii. Other situations:
i. Driving through the state:
a. Hess v. Palowski: non-resident motorists implicitly consent to appointment of in-state agent
ii. Corporation:
a. James-Dickinson Farm Mortgage v. Harry: “Jurisdiction over a corporation of one state cannot be acquired in another state or district in which it has no place of business and is not found, merely by serving process upon an executive officer temporarily therein, even if her is there on business of the company.
b. Gallagher v. Mazda: “if a parent uses a subsidiary to do what it otherwise would have done itself, it has purposely availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the forum
iii. Partnerships:
a. First American Corp. v. Price Waterhouse: one could not sure the partnership, but instead would have to sue the partners individually, and, of course get personal jurisdiction over each partner
3. Contacts Analysis: Does Plaintiff’s claim arise from or relate to the defendant’s contact with the forum state? (Courts choose which test to use)
a. “But For” Test- “but for” the defendant’s contact with the forum state, plaintiff’s claim would not have arisen (broader, less stringent)(Goodyear)
b. Proximate Cause Test- (Narrow view)
i. Substantial Factor- whether the defendant’s contact with the forum state was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s harm. The word “substantial” is used to denote the fact that the defendant’s conduct has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead a reasonable man to regard it as a cause
ii. Foreseeability- whether any ordinary prudent man would have foreseen that damages would probably result from the defendant’s contact with the forum state
c. If suit arises from defendant’s contact Specific Jurisdiction
i. Meets both “Proximate Cause” and “But For”
d. If suit is unrelated to defendant’s contact General Jurisdiction
i. If only meets “But For” the court may be one that uses “proximate cause” and then you would not have an “arises from” contact
4. Specific Jurisdiction: Two part test (International Shoe)
1. Sufficient Minimum Contacts
a. Purposeful Availment:
i. The defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state is such that he should reasonable anticipate to be haled into court there” (WWVW)
b. Ways you can be purposely availed:
i. Singular, continuous personal relationship
1. McGee: “it is sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract which had substantial connection
. Plaintiff’s interest in litigating the matter in the forum state;
a. Domiciled, burden on the plaintiff
4. Interest of the judicial system in the efficient resolution of controversies (Keeton, statute of limitations)
5. Shared interest of the several states in promoting substantive social policies (Keeton)
a. Single Publication Rule: “As to any single publication, (a) only one action for damages can be maintained; (b) all damages suffered in all jurisdictions can be recovered in the one action; and (c) a judgment for or against the plaintiff upon the merits of any action for damages bars any other action for damages between the same parties in all jurisdictions (Keeton v. Hustler)
5. General Jurisdiction
a. A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign corporations to near any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the state are so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum state (Goodyear)
i. When can you get it?
1. Perkins: General jurisdiction was permissible because the forum state was the corporation’s principal, if temporary, place of business
2. This case is the textbook example of general jurisdiction appropriately exercised over a foreign corporation that has not consented to suit in the forum
ii. Stream of commerce (cannot)
1. Goodyear v. Brown: Supreme Court said that the contact was not enough for general jurisdiction, because in order to have GJ the amount needs to be really substantial, as if the corporation was domicile in the State.
iii. Regular purchases (cannot)
1. Helicopteros: “mere purchases made in the forum state, even if occurring at regular intervals are not enough to warrant a State’s assertion of general jurisdiction over a non-resident corporation in a cause of action not related to those purchase transactions.”
b. Presence of Real Property in the State
a. Pennoyer analysis- the defendant or his or her real property must be physically present in the forum state at the time the complaint was filed or when the defendant was served with process
– Territorial/Power Approach: “every state possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory” (Pennoyer v. Neff)
b. Shaffer- apply contacts analysis
– If the claim is not related to the ownership of the property that has been attached, there must be additional minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state in order to establish jurisdiction (Shaffer v. Heitner)
