Civil Procedure
Introduction
-Civil Procedure=Identifying proper court in which to bring lawsuit and how proceed once get to that court
1. CP has pre-trial focus
2. Role of case law
3. Historical approach
-Legal analysis
-Must acquire legal analytical skills
-Case analysis
-FACTS of case (procedural facts: where case filed, who were parties, etc.)
-ISSUES presented in case (procedural issues: personal jurisdiction, etc.)
-Legal Analysis of issue by court
-Rules-“the law,” precedents, rules, and standards (including rationale for adopting/developing particular rule)
-Application to facts; reasoning of court (ratio decidendi)
-Analysis of hypotheticals (IRAC)
-Issues-Identify main legal issues or questions
-Rules-Recall relevant legal propositions or rules
-Analysis-Evaluate how relevant legal principles interact with facts
-Conclusion-Use legal propositions to arrive at resolution of issues
-Overview of Civil Action
-Selecting court
-State v. Federal
-Personal Jurisdiction-Does court have power over defendant
-Subject Matter Jurisdiction
-Venue
-Applicable law-(State v. Federal) (Erie Doctrine)
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Pennoyer v. Neff
Case #1
-Parties- Mitchell v. Neff
-Cause of Action- Recovery of legal fees
-Outcome-Default judgment; sheriff’s sale to Pennoyer
Case #2
-Parties- Neff v. Pennoyer
-Cause of Action- Ejectment
-Outcome-
Steps in Court’s analysis
-Law of nations- states are all powerful within territory; powerless beyond borders
-Jurisdictional Limitation- states can exercise in personam jurisdiction over people within territory and in rem or quasi-in rem jurisdiction over property within territory. Cannot exercise jurisdiction over people or property outside of state
-Constructive Service- Good for in rem and quasi-in rem actions; no good for in personam actions against non-residents
-Exception to Full Faith and Credit Recognition- a judgment obtained when jurisdiction is lacking is not entitled to FF&C. Thus, a collateral attack is permissible
-Due Process Clause- ***Judgments rendered by courts lacking jurisdiction violate due process. Due process further requires in-state service or voluntary appearance for a court to obtain in personam jurisdiction over defendant***
Facts:
-In personam suit against an out-of-state defendant
-No in-state service
-No attachment of property
Issue:
-Did the Oregon state court have jurisdiction over Neff so that it could render a valid judgment against him?
Legal Analysis:
Rule: Under the Due Process Clause a valid in personam judgment requires in-state service on the defendant (presence) or voluntary appearance (consent)
Rationale: The rule arises from limits on state’s territorial authority (domestic omnipotence/extraterritorial impotence)
Application: Neff was not served with process in the state nor did he voluntarily appear. Neither was his property attached at the commencement of the action to permit quasi-in rem jurisdiction.
Holding: Neff Wins. Service by publication against a non-resident defendant does not satisfy the rule articulated by the court for in personam jurisdiction.
Corporations?
-States can require corporations to appoint an agent in the state who is authorized to accept service of process
Transient Presence?
-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 (Grace v. MacArthur)
Exceptions to in-state service rule
-In Rem and quasi in rem actions
-Consent
-Counterclaims
-Family status-Divorce and child custody
-State citizens-Those residing within the state with intent to remain for an indefinite period of time (“domiciliaries”) (Can’t be domiciled in two states simultaneously)
Hypo #1
-Yes (consent)
Hypo#2
-Yes (state citizen)
Hypo#3
-Yes (in-state service) ((aka “Tag” Jurisdiction))
REVIEW
-Key lessons
-Federal Court System-understand basic structure of federal courts
11 Regional circuits + DC + US Court of appeals for Federal Circuit
-RULE OF PENNOYER-Personal jurisdiction against a non-resident required in- state service on defendant (presence) or voluntary appearance (consent)
-Due Process Clause-s
is not undue (quid pro quo)
-Future cases will provide further info on how to analyze these fact patterns
-Bottom Line
-Four-position matrix
-Evaluate state contacts first by asking if they are systematic or isolated and then by asking if they are related or unrelated to cause of action
-Where contacts are isolated but related, reasonableness of jurisdiction depends on “nature and quality” of contacts. Consider defendants’ receipt of benefit and protection of state laws
-Bonus Hypo #1
-Yes-General jurisdiction
-Bonus Hypo #2
-Yes-General jurisdiction
Long-Arm Statutes
-Two-step analysis
-Statutory
-Does state’s jurisdiction statute allow jurisdiction under circumstances?
-Constitutional
-If so, would assertion of personal jurisdiction comport with Due Process as articulated in Int’l Shoe?
-Collapsed analysis
-Where a state’s long-arm statute states it extends to the limits of the US constitution, no first step is necessary (however, analysis should note this fact)
REVIEW
Key lessons
-Hess seized upon the consent exception to permit personal jurisdiction over absentee non-resident motorists. Implied consent was significant departure from Pennoyer’s presence requirement.
-Int’l Shoe took us from Pennoyer’s rule of presence and consent to a test of contacts and fairness.
-Standard-Core standard is minimum contacts equaling fair play and substantial justice
-The four-position matrix-That standard is applied with reference to the four position matrix (continuous v. isolated, related v. unrelated)
-Specific Jurisdiction Cases-Fact pattern involving isolated but related contacts are analyzed by evaluating the “nature and quality” of the
