Civil Procedure Outline – Fall
Personal Jurisdiction Checklist – in Acing Civil Procedure
1. Federal or State Court? If we are in state court, the limits on state court jurisdiction apply. If we are in federal court, Rules 4(k) and 12 must be consulted. Check for waiver under Rule 12.
a. Rule 4(k) – if in federal court, do any of the special provisions of Rule 4(k) apply? If not, use Rule 4(k)(1)(a) and proceed with a state court jurisdiction analysis. – if none of the provisions apply, make sure you address why they don’t and make sure you talk about waiver too. → will lose points if you don’t mention these.
● PROVISIONS
● Rule 4(k)(1)(b): if the parties fall under Rule 14 or Rule 19 (Spencer will say on exam), then the court can exercise jurisdiction over those parties if they are able to be served w/in 100 mile radius of the courthouse — if not w/in 100 miles, then you have to revert to the General Rule
● Rule 4(k)(1)(c): Congress can declare, by statute, jurisdiction to be valid based on nationwide or even worldwide service of process (Commodity Exchange Act; Securities Act; Clayton Act; ERISA)
o PJ is fine under these statutes if the person is served anywhere w/in the US
o Standards of Int’l Shoe have generally been applied here, requiring minimum contacts w/ the US
●-Jurisdiction over Aliens: 4(k)(2) – in federal question cases, where no state has jurisdiction, jurisdiction is authorized to the constitutional limit. Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause governs these cases. – does ∆ have minimum contacts w/ the US
-standards of Int’l Shoe have generally been applied here, requiring minimum contacts w/ the US
*interested in our ability to manipulate this entire rule
2. Long-Arm Statute – does the state’s long-arm statute authorize PJ under these facts (we will have to read a statute and decide)?
a. Type of Long Arm Statute
i. Rhode Island Model (step 3) → goes to constitutional limit → collapsed analysis
ii. Enumerated Act Statute (this will be on exam)
b. Statutory Analysis: for enumerated act statues, do the facts presented fall w/in one of the categories articulated in the long-arm statute? If so, go to step 3. If not, NO JURISDICTION (don’t be afraid to say this) → Spencer mentioned that possibly this will be on exam and it would only be allotted ten minutes to answer!!!!!!!
3. Constitutional Analysis – does the assertion of jurisdiction satisfy the requirements of due process?
a. Traditional “exceptions” to Int’l Shoe
i. In-state service
● Pennoyer v. Neff → original case re a personal judgment against Neff
o -rule arises from limits on state’s territorial authority (domestic omnipotence/extraterritorial impotence)-constructive service wasn’t enough to gain in personam jurisdiction against non-residents
o *** Due process requires in-state service (PRESENCE) → one way to get valid in personam jurisdiction
● Grace v. MacArthur (transient jurisdiction)
o a State can serve process on an individual and obtain personal jurisdiction over him or her even if the person is simply passing through (or over) the state
● Burnham v. Superior Court (reaffirmation of transient jurisdiction)
THIS IS ON A PERSON → FOR REAL PERSONS/INDIVIDUALS
o Burnham is visiting kids living w/ his ex-wife in CA → she serves him while in the state re divorce proceedings in CA
o he argues that jurisdiction should be put to International Shoe test → however IS is about jurisdiction over nonresident/outside state territory
o you can’t read Shaffer so broadly to say that all jurisdiction has to be analyzed under International Shoe
o NO MAJORITY OPINION
o Scalia says tradition of Pennoyer is enough
o Brennan would do his sliding scale approach → since it’s tradition, that should be fair warning to Burnham that he could be served if he makes contact w/ the state
o example of what’s wrong w/ his sliding scale approach: it’s subjective and malleable and allows you to get any result you want, even in extreme cases
-although no majority, the justices agree not to overturn Pennoyer and in-state service is still valid, but → states must authorize this service in a statute
ii. Voluntary Appearance (Pennoyer; waiver in federal system)
● Pennoyer → a valid in personam judgment is effectuated through voluntary appearance to the court seeking jurisdiction (CONSENT)
-consent also required by Due Process
● Waiver in Federal System: “pre-answer motion” and Rule 12
o –Rule 12(b)(2) – this rule provides for a motion challenging PJ; this becomes equivalent of special appearance b/c you’re only challenging PJ
o -Rules 12(g) and (h) –there are certain motions you have to make initially (PJ, venue and service of process in 12(h)(1)) and you have to make them together b/c if you don’t do that, then you waive these defenses (very very important)
o -if someone files a complaint against your client and you file a motion challenging venue – that’s decided – but then you waive a PJ challenge
o -first thing to do for a ∆ is challenge PJ b/c if you ever plan on doing it and you don’t challenge it first, then you waive that right
o -Reason: dilatory tactics prevented — the rule requiring consolidation of certain defenses prevents ∆s from dragging out the case by successively filing such motions
1. Consent – if under the facts, the ∆ agreed to jurisdiction in this forum, for this type of dispute, then PJ is fine and no Int’l Shoe (Carnival Cruise; Helicopteros had a forum sel
consent then look at Int’l Shoe; maybe long-arm statute that gives basis for jurisdiction but still look at constitutional analysis
iii. Nonresident ∏s – look for facts where it turns out to be a ∏s raising PJ challenge at a counter-claim – ∏ has bad challenge b/c they voluntary appeared when they first filed complaint in the Forum
iv. State Citizens (Miliken) –if you have an individual who is a state citizen, means domicile, then they’ll be subject to jurisdiction of court for anything b/c of status as forum State resident – def tested on this
MAKE SURE YOU DESCRIBE THE CONTACTS
b. International Shoe Analysis – does the assertion of jurisdiction satisfy the standard of International Shoe?
i. Is this an in rem action? if so, Shaffer has indicated that these will generally –always – meet the minimum contacts standard; usually a quiet-title action – you can go ahead and conclude that will satisfy Int’l Shoe b/c the case is about this contact and that’s good for PJ
ii. Four-Position Matrix (Int’l Shoe)
1. Continuous and Systematic and Related → PJ is appropriate
● Intl. Shoe v. Oregon:
o ∆ Shoe is a DE corporation based in MO. ∏ is state of Washington.
o -∏ seeking unpaid fund contributions
o minimum contacts are required with is such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
o -the Court applied these standards, and found activities of Shoe in WA were neither irregular or casual – they were systematic and continuous throughout years in question
o ∆ received the benefit and protection of WA laws (right to resort to WA courts for enforcement of its rights)
o *the court found it evident that operations establish sufficient contacts or ties w/ the state to make it REASONABLE and JUST according to our traditional conception of FAIR PLAY and SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE to permit the state to enforce ∆ to pay its tax → CONTACT
o the employment activity in WA is what gives the cause to the lawsuit → RELATED TO CAUSE OF ACTION
● Keeton v. Hustler Magazine
o ∏’s from NY and ∆s from Ohio and CA – NH is the only state w/out statute of limitations on ∏’s claim of libel in the magazine
