Select Page

Civil Procedure I
Wayne State University Law School
Peters, Christopher J.

Civil Procedure B Outline
Personal Jurisdiction
-PJ is the power of the court to render a valid, binding judgment against someone
-persons in the context of personal jurisdiction (PJ) can include more than a “person” per se, but rather can include a corporation or even property
-if a court tries to apply a judgment against a person which that court does not have personal jurisdiction it would be a violation of their due process right according to the constitution
-The Old Approach (Pennoyer) pg 57-75
            Pennoyer v. Neff
-to satisfy a default judgment against N, attorney had sheriff seize property N obtained after the judgment was reached. That property was sold to P; P received sheriff’s deed as title. N then returned and sued P to recover possession of that property.
Rule: Code of Oregon provides… no natural person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of the State, “unless he appear in the court, or be found w/in the state, or be a resident thereof, or have property therein; and, in the last case, only to the extent of such property at the time the jurisdiction attached.”
Hold: personal jurisdiction had not been obtained over Neff and because the property had not been attached at the time of judgment it could not be used to obtain personal jurisdiction
-to acquire jurisdiction by attachment, Oregon would have had to attach the property before the lawsuit; doing so afterward did not suffice to establish jurisdiction
-conceptual scheme involves three elements: power, consent and notice
                        1) power: has two categories; in personam and in rem
2) consent: court indicated that nonresidents who had no property in the state were nevertheless subject to its jurisdiction if they had consented to its exercise
3) notice: in in-personam actions must do so by personal service but in in-rem actions (and quasi-in rem) the court was willing to permit notice by publication
            -in personam: personal service while w/in the state required
-if based on residency then personal service anywhere (even not w/in the state)
            -in rem and quasi-in rem, the requirement is different
-constructive service is okay because if have property w/in the state then you are assumed to be paying attention to that property and will be put on notice
-Mullane says personal service isn’t always required because if it is impractical but another way to give notice then that is okay
-in another way Mullane tightens requirement by saying must give the best notice that is practical given the circumstances (changes notice aspect)
                                    -notice part also depends on the type of lawsuit you bring
-Ct states 2 well established principles of public law respecting the jurisdiction of an independent state over persons and property (principle of territorial jurisdiction)
1) Every state possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property w/in its territory
-This forgets that federal government also has power of jurisdiction over persons and property in every state- but is true in respect to other states
2) No state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons outside its territory
-In Personam Jurisdiction
-in personam jurisdiction is jurisdiction over the person 2 Ways:
-served while present in state;
-if are a resident of the state (domicile)
-In Rem Jurisdiction
-in rem jurisdiction was traditionally very strict: only applies where property is the “subject” of the lawsuit- then court can adjudicate based on presence of property in the state but not enough that person that is part of lawsuit owns property w/in that state or territory (would name property as the defendant)
-in rem jurisdiction (traditional) was deemed not enough over time
-courts over the years developed third category called quasi-in rem jurisdiction
-Quasi-in Rem Jurisdiction
-if own property w/in a state (w/in power of that state), someone who wants to sue you w/in that state ought to be able to get to you through the property even if the lawsuit is not about the property itself
-then the property needs to be seized/secured and attached when lawsuit is brought
-when get a judgment in lawsuit, the judgment can go up to value of property but no higher
-the court doesn’t have any greater jurisdiction over the defendant than the property is worth because the property is where the court gets its jurisdiction over the person
-possession of the property before the lawsuit begins is also required for in rem jurisdiction
-The Modern Approach (International Shoe) pg 76-86
-domicile in the state is alone sufficient to bring an absent Δ w/in the reach of the state’s jurisdiction for purposes of a personal judgment by means of appropriate substituted service
-Its adequacy so far as due process is concerned is dependent on whether or not the form of substituted service provided for such cases and employed is reasonably calculated to give him actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard
            International Shoe Co. v. Washington
-IS is a Delaware corporation, having its principal place of business in Missouri, and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of shoes. Washington is seeking recovery of unpaid contributions to the state unemployment compensation fund. IS says its activities w/in the state were not sufficient to allow for the state to have personal jurisdiction over them and that it is a denial of due process to tax them.
-replacing concept of physical presence as touchstone of personal jurisdiction with this idea of contacts w/in the state/territory
Rule (pg 78): due process requires only that in order to subject a Δ to a judgment they must have minimum contacts w/ that jurisdiction so that it does not upset “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
                        -contacts into 2 different components
                                    1) Minimum contacts
-Some minimum level of contact that is necessary (quantity)
-from no contact at all, to casual and isolated contact, to continued contact (quality)
-the more of both the better for establishing jurisdiction- both quantity and quality (or regularity) of contact is important to look at
                                    2) Fair play and substantial justice (fpsj)
-in order to determine what level of contacts are sufficient, going to have to ask in essence, “would it be fair and just to say that this level of contact is substantial enough to allow the court to claim jurisdiction over the Δ?”
Hold: Ct says there is enough contact and closely enough related so focusing on minimum contacts, it would be fair and just to say that there are sufficient contacts w/ the state of Washington by IS Co. to subject the Co. to the jurisdiction of courts w/in that state.
-to the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities w/in a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state
-that privilege may give rise to obligations, and, so far as those obligation arise out of or are connected w/ the activities w/in the state, a procedure which requires the corp. to respond to a suit brought to enforce them is fair
-General Jurisdiction: such substantial contacts w/ the forum state to make it fair to assert jurisdiction even over claims unrelated to those contacts
-some cases if have enough activity w/in the state, even if unrelated to the lawsuit, a ct would say that have sufficient contact to give way to jurisdiction (ex. Live in state of MI and hit someone in another state, can probably still be sued in MI)
-Specific Jurisdiction: Defendant’s activities falls short of general jurisdiction, the minimum contacts analysis of international shoe becomes important
-must worry about both the extent of those contacts and the relation between those contacts and the claim on which plaintiff is suing
-jurisdiction exists for the specific claim in question but not necessarily for other claims
-some cases where little contact between Δ and forum state, the nature of that is still such that courts are going to hold the personal

w/ the subject matter of the case and the contacts w/ the state
-if you can establish that there is purposeful, even if there is only one contact, if that contact gives rise to the lawsuit, usually that will be enough for personal jurisdiction: specific jurisdiction
            World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
-Can an Oklahoma court exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident automobile retailer and its wholesale distributor in a products-liability action when the Δs only connection w/ Oklahoma is the fact that an automobile sold in NY to NY residents became involved in an accident in Oklahoma?
-Δs say it is a unilateral act of a third party (just like deceased Hansen who moved to Fl) that causes them to have a contact w/ Ok.
-might argue that it is more foreseeable that a car would end up in another state based on the very nature of the item (car = mobility)
-court is trying to draw a line and this avoids the slippery slope; mere foreseeability is not enough but don’t yet know whether knowledge would be sufficient or not
Rule: jurisdiction can be exercised as long as minimum contacts exist between the Δ and the forum state; forseeability alone is not sufficient for personal jurisdiction under the due process clause
-Purposeful contact: knowledge or notice might not be enough but rather reaching out or attempting to reach that state
-Hold: No Jurisdiction
-no activity in Oklahoma; close no sales and perform no services there; allow themselves none of the privileges and benefits of Oklahoma law; solicit no business either through sales or advertising calculated to reach the state; no showing that they regularly sell cars to Oklahoma customers or residents
-what if car had ended up in Vermont instead of Ok.?
-might have a stronger argument for jurisdiction because it is so close that it is very likely that car might end up there
-probably a lot more contact w/ Vermont than Ok. (advertising, more cars etc) and more might help make a strong case for purposeful availment
-maybe proximity would be helpful also
-Foreseeability (no) àKnowledge (maybe) àIntent (yes)
            Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court
-Can only awareness of Δ manufacturer that parts it manufacture, sold and delivered, outside the U.S., would reach the State of Ca. be enough to constitute “minimum contacts” required for the forum state, Ca., to exercise personal jurisdiction over Δ?
-Hold: No Jurisdiction
-Foreseeability (might happen)àKnowledge (will happen)à Intent
-here seems to be knowledge, based on constant trickle to Ca. and a signed affidavit that says that Asahi had knowledge of the sales to Ca., at least some of them were ending up in the state
-may even be some level of intent given that they continue to sell valves after they knew that a certain number every year were going to be sent to Ca.
-Majority of the ct thought that there was purposeful availment here; thought something like knowledge or between knowledge and Intent was the line and money made from selling to Ca. was enough to constitute purposeful availment
Rule: not just knowledge but intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum state; targeting of product at the forum state
-Five Factors for Fair Play and Substantial Justice: