Civil Procedure I Outline

Civil Procedure Outline
Shaughnessy- Fall 2012
 
 
Part One: Forum Selection
 
I. Personal Jurisdiction
-In what states can P sue D? Answer is the same depending on federal court or state court. The court must have power over something: The D or D’s property.
 
Three types of J
1. In personam- court has power over D due to contact with forum
            2. In Rem- court has power over D’s property
            3. QIR
 
Federal Long Arm Provisions
-FRCP 4(k)(1)(C) allows federal courts to exercise personal jurisdiction when authorized -by a federal statute. 
-One important statute is federal interpleader, which enables a person who is unsure which of several claimants is entitled to a fund or a piece of property to sue all of the claimants in one action.
-FRCP 4(k)(2) allows federal courts to exercise jurisdiction if the defendant is not subject to the jurisdiction of any state, and the exercise of jurisdiction is constitutional.  (This is a law of last resort.)
 
In seeking to assert J over an out of state D, states create long arm statutes of two varieties.
1.      California Long Arm- “We have J to the full extent of the Constitution”
2.      Laundry list Long Arm- lists various things a D can do to subject herself to J
a.       Language varies, but courts interpret the same language in different ways
           
-The Fourteenth Amendment DP clause sets constitutional limits to personal J exercise.
-First step in determining if personal j exists is determining if traditional bases apply
-Second step is determining if the state has a statute that permits personal J in a case.
-Third step is to analyze constitutionality of exercise of J under DP
           
A) In personam J
            -General or specific jurisdiction
            GENERAL: D can be sued within forum on a claim that arose anywhere in the world
            SPECIFIC: D can be sued for a claim that arises within the forum
           
Pennoyer v. Neff- The traditional bases of in personam J
                        1. D is served w/ process in the forum (General J)
                        2. D’s agent served in the forum
                        3. D domiciled in forum (General J)
                        4. Consent
 
Hess v. Pulosky- PA citizen driving to MA and is involved in wreck, P wants to sue in Mass but cannot based on Pennoyer bases. Jurisdiction upheld under non-resident motorist act. By driving in state, D “consented” (impliedly) to J for auto wrecks by appointing a state official as agent for service.
 
International Shoe- New formula for determining jurisdiction. J exists if D has such minimum contacts with the forum so that J does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
            -By this time, can serve process outside the forum
            -Test seems to have two parts: contact, fairness
-International Shoe does not overrule Pennoyer, but gives minimum contacts as an alternative to bases established in Pennoyer.
-Min contacts test determined on contacts at time of incident, not lawsuit
 
Activity Volume
High
High
Low
Low
Suit
Related
Unrelated
Related
Unrelated
Jurisdiction?
Yes
Sometimes
Sometimes
No
 
 
McGee v. Int’l Insurance Co.- Minimum contacts in a state established by only one contract due to solicitation of business in another state. Mentioned state’s interest in supporting exercise of J.
 
Hanson v. Denkla- Under Int’l Shoe, the contact must result from D’s purposeful availment (D’s voluntary act).
 
Calder v. Jones- If the actions are directed towards a state, then that state can exercise jurisdiction.  The “Effects Test.”
            1.  The defendant committed an intentional act.
            2.  The effects of that act were felt in the forum state.
3.  The defendant expressly directed its conduct at the forum state, so the forum state is the focal point for the act.
 
World Wide VW- NY family moved NY to Arizona and buy a car in NY and are driving toward AZ when they have a car wreck in OK. Sue in OK. No J over NY retailer or distributer because neither party purposefully availed themselves in OK. The fact that it is foreseeable that the product could end up in a forum, but must be foreseeable that the D’s placement in stream of commerce would lead them to find that they could be sued in a particular forum.
 
Burger King- Contract case in FL. Burger King sues two Michigan franchisees in Miami. The court holds that Florida has J over franchisees.
            -court makes it clear that there are two parts to Int’l Shoe: Contact and f