CIV PRO B OUTLINE – FINAL EXAM
Professor Carlson – Winter 2016
Adjudicatory Power over Persons, Places, and Things
Purpose of this unit: get basic understanding of personal jurisdiction
Inquiry here: whether a particular court has the “power” to compel a putative defendant either to defend a lawsuit in that forum or to suffer the consequences
We will trace the development of the concept of jurisdiction from its territorial roots in Pennoyer to International Shoe, which represents our modern understanding of the limitations on state power
3 most important ways Constitution shapes litigation in U.S.:
(1) Personal Jurisdiction
(2) Subject Matter Jurisdiction
(3) Choice of Law
Constitutional Basis for Civil Litigation in the U.S.
What courts have jurisdiction when:
Personal jurisdiction – Due Process Clause and Full Faith and Credit Clause
Full Faith and Credit Clause ()
§1 requires Full Faith and Credit be given in each State to judicial proceedings of every other State
Requires that one state recognize and enforce judgments of another state
Important unstated condition: such judgments are entitled to full faith and credit only if the court rendering them had jurisdiction to do so
Due Process Clauses (& )
14th Amend. §1 provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law”
Derives its relation to jurisdiction from Pennoyer v. Neff which made the question of personal jurisdiction part of the Constitution
Subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts – Article III
Article III authorizes the establishment of system of federal courts
§2 sets the limits of federal judicial authority:
Federal courts cannot exceed those jurisdictional boundaries, and
Congress has the power in many instances to restrict the scope of federal judicial authority more narrowly than Constitution does (thru legislation implementing the constraints imposed by Art. 3)
What law applies in federal court:
Choice of law: which set of laws a court must apply to a dispute (dictated by constitution)
Supremacy Clause (Article 4)
Provides that the Constitution and federal laws “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”
If Congress has validly enacted a statute dealing with a particular subject, both federal and state courts are required to enforce the federal statute, regardless of whether there is a contrary state statute or state common law rule
In the absence of a controlling federal statute, the federal court system is required to respect both the statutory and common law rules of the several states (the Erie problem)
3 Court Systems in the U.S.:
(1) Federal
(2) State
(3) Tribal
Each court system has different jurisdictional rules!
Jurisdiction: power to declare the law
Legislative jd: a state or territory whose government has the power to make law within its bounds
Judicial (adjudicatory) jd: power of a court to render a judgment other courts and gov’t agencies will recognize and enforce
Personal Jurisdiction: Power of this court over this D
*Does this court have authority over the parties?
State courts have more limits on their PJ
Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Power of this court over this kind of case/ subject matter
*Does the court have the authority to hear this issue?
Can be limited or general
Limits power of courts
State courts are courts of general jurisdiction, with some limits
*PJ + SMJ = Judicial jurisdiction
A court must have BOTH PJ and SMJ to hear a legal dispute and render a valid judgment, even if have a valid claim
Job as lawyer to determine if client has valid claim and if a court has jurisdiction over the claim
Personal Jurisdiction
PJ is always asserted over D not P (P consents to jd by filing complaint in a particular court)
Focus on cases from state courts b/c PJ in federal court usually follows PJ of state court in which the federal court sits – i.e. if state would have PJ over a D then the federal court sitting in that state will usually also have PJ over that D
Rule 4(k)(1)(A): PJ of a federal court shall be the same as the court of a state in which the federal court is sitting, unless a federal statute provides otherwise
Tribal courts generally follow same rules
PERSONAL JURISDICTION: Does this court have authority over the parties? 2 Part Inquiry:
(1) Does the state assert PJ over the D in this case?
Generally easy to answer, assume they do b/c state courts are courts of general jurisdiction
Later talk about instances in which states don't assert jurisdiction
(2) Does the U.S. Constitution allow the state to exercise jd? *Starting here (SEE Pennoyer v. Neff)
The Traditional View
Pennoyer v. Neff (1877): In personam vs. in rem. Territorial Approach to PJ & Establishes PJ as a Constitutional Question
Neff (P) attacked the validity of a sheriff's sale of his property to satisfy a personal judgment obtained against him where service was by publication.
Mitchell v. Neff:
Issue: Legal fees Neff owed Mitchell
Outcome: Default judgment against Neff (has no defense and didn't appear so loses)
Remedy: Mitchell has Neff's land seized and sold; sheriff's sale to Pennoyer
Here: ejectment action against Pennoyer
Neff finds out sheriff sold land to Pennoyer and files suit against Pennoyer claiming the judgment was ineffective b/c the court didn't have PJ (i.e. lacked power to hear case and render this decision b/c notice was only by publication. Allowed by OR law but Neff was an absent, non-resident D – b/c no longer in Oregon) – concern about fraud here!
Rule: Where the object of an action is to determine the personal rights and obligations of the parties, service by publication against a nonresident is ineffective to confer jurisdiction upon the court.
Substituted service of process in actions against nonresidents of a state is effective only in proceedings in rem.
Mitchell could not obtain a personal judgment against Neff (P) w/o first obtaining in personam jurisdiction.
The sale was therefore void.
No state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property outside of its boundaries.
The validity of every judgment depends upon the jurisdiction of the court rendering judgment.
Substituted service by publication is ineffective to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident.
A different result could have been reached if Mitchell had first obtained in rem jurisdiction by seizing the property at the time suit was commenced.
Although no state can exercise direct jd and authority over people or property outside the state, the state may exercise jd over persons and property inside the state in ways that will affect persons and property outside the state
This case established every state had power to regulate way property w/in state is acquired, enjoyed, and transferred
But a state cannot bring a person or property outside the state into its jd simply by using substituted service
Notes:
What if he did receive notice? Would it change anything?
No, court cares about notice for Due Process reasons, but lack of notice is NOT the basis of S.C.'s decision here
Court cares about power of state court and whether it extends to a particular D in this case
In personam — even if he received notice wouldn’t have mattered – still no power b/c not in OR anymore and not a land owner (by OR law)
What is wrong with exercise of jd in this case?
Violates Due Process Clause b/c deprivation of life, liberty, or property
Rendered judgment against a person (D) they didn’t have power or jurisdiction over
Fair process = placing appropriate limits on where a D can be required to defend a lawsuit
Ex: a P cannot pick anywhere in U.S. to sue a D (that is not fair under Due Process Clause)
So, w/ Pennoyer. the Court is starting to give us idea about fairness and what kind of decisions we have to make
Pennoyer assumes jd is about power, and that power can be divided into 2 distinct categories:
Jurisdiction in personam: power over the person
To obtain jurisdiction over a nonresident D the P must arrange to have the D personally served w/ process w/in the borders of the state in question
Jurisdiction in rem: power over the thing/ property
Procedure by which a court located in the same state as the property owned by D, which is in a different state than D's usual personal residence, could enter a judgment disposing of that property by seizing it at the outset of the lawsuit
*3 types of jurisdiction in Pennoyer
In personam: court exercises its power over a person by virtue of her presence in the state
In rem (proceeding in rem): court power over property w/in that state's territory (often when you attach property)
Quasi in-rem: court exercises power over a person based on property w/in state but recovery limited to the property
PJ here: based on idea that states have power over people or property throughout/within their territory (territorial approach)
One way to exercise this: attachment of property (attachment like a lien, makes person w/in territory)
Other way: serve the D while in the state
Also: appointment of an agent, voluntary appearance, consent, or through a K (establish jd if an issue arises)
Doctrine of collateral attack: rather than appealing lawsuit based on lack of jd, a D may under some circumstances attack in a second – collateral – lawsuit a judgment rendered w/o jurisdiction (like Neff did in the lawsuit giving rise to the opinion)
At a minimum it is possible to attack collaterally a judgment entered w/o PJ if the challenging party didn’t appear at all in the proceedings that led to the invalid judgment
Risky b/c the only defense have is jd defense, so if lose in 2nd lawsuit can’t raise any other issues on the merits
If Neff knew about the lawsuit, he also could have resisted jd through:
Special appearance: appear for sole purpose of arguing against jd
Only available in states that statutorily allow for special appearances
Important b/c if make a regular appearance à then jd
File a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss in pre-answer motion or answer:
Have to raise issue first time raise any issue
Any pre-answer motion w/o raising issue of personal jurisdiction = waiver
AND also then have to litigate the merits properly
Pennoyer says holding rests on Constitution (Due Process & Full Faith and Credit Clauses), 2 entailments:
(1) b/c DP Clause restricts power of state gov’ts, the boundaries of PJ proclaimed by SCOTUS bind state courts
Also bind federal courts: Rule 4(k)(1)(A): PJ of a federal court shall be the same as the court of a state in which the federal court is sitting, unless a federal
(2) decision links full faith and credit to PJ – the courts of State Y need not enforce a judgment against a D entered by the courts of State X if X lacked PJ over the D (doctrine of collateral attack)
Other implications:
A state has jurisdiction over “the status of one of its citizens towards a non-resident” — marriage and divorce
Allows abandoned spouses to obtain divorces
Ex: A man can abandon his wife in OR, and she can obtain an OR divorce even if she could not locate or serve her husband in OR
BUT does not allow abandoning spouses to move to another state and obtain a divorce w/o satisfying their obligations of support
States can requires someone doing business there “to appoint an agent or representative in the State to receive service of process and notice in legal proceedings instituted with respect to such” business
Mechanics of Jurisdiction: Challenge &
nd it contemplates such continuances as may be found necessary to give reasonable time and opportunity for defense. It makes no discrimination against non-residents, but tends to put them on the same footing as residents.
The Court notes that Pennoyer v. Neff holds that notice sent outside the state does not satisfy jurisdiction requirements, but they distinguish this case because a non-resident’s use of a state road acts as an implied consent to suit.
Notes:
Part of the reason the Court allows for this extension is b/c very narrowly drafted
Also builds off of state police powers (state has power to exclude – could build a fence and keep people out – so can also make this a basis for the implied consent by driving through the state)
Court has NOT met requirements in Pennoyer b/c no service of process on D personally w/in state and no property belonging to D in the state to which has been attached
Mass. statute here = early example of state asserting jd through a statute part 1 of 2-part inquiry
Statute creates a legal fiction – no one really believes registrar is the appointed agent of D OR that D is even aware of this statute
If can’t get around Pennoyer the state has no way to assert jd, and it IS in state’s interest to protect their citizens and to hold people responsible for their actions (and involvement in accidents w/in their states) à
Hess Takeaways:
Territorial approach begins to break down here b/c limits ability as a state to exercise PJ (all of a sudden a bunch of D's can't exercise jurisdiction over b/c non-resident D's)
Demonstrates some of the tensions that start to erode Pennoyer
Foreshadows end of a strict territorial approach to PJ (death knell: Shoe)
Milliken v. Meyer (1940, U.S.): State authority over absent D whose domicile is in that state
Facts:
2 partners in an oil well sue each other
Meyer (D) resident of WY but at time of suit served personally in CO
D didn’t appear in WY where court rendered judgment against him
D attacked the judgment collaterally.
Is domiciliary status alone sufficient to establish PJ over an absentee defendant who is served out-of-state?
Rule: The authority of a state over one of its citizens is not terminated by the mere fact of his absence from the state.
The state which accords him privileges and affords protection to him and his property by virtue of his domicile may also exact reciprocal duties.
Yes, WY judgment valid.
Domicile in the state is alone sufficient to bring an absent D w/in the reach of the state's jd for purposes of a personal judgment by means of appropriate substituted service (service other than personal service in forum state)
Substituted service has been uniformly upheld where the absent D was served at his usual place of abode in the state as well as where he was personally served w/o the state.
Substituted service is adequate so far as due process is concerned if it is reasonably calculated to give the defendant actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945): In personam jd. Minimum Contacts + FPSJ.
Facts: A state statute authorized the mailing of notice of assessment of delinquent contributions for unemployment compensation to non-resident employers. International Shoe Co. (D) was a non-resident corp. Notice of assessment was served on one of its salespersons w/in the state and was mailed to the company’s office.
WA statute set up a scheme of unemployment compensation, which required contributions by employers.
Mass. statute:
The state authorized the commissioner, WA (P), to issue an order and notice of assessment of delinquent contributions by mailing the notice to non-resident employers.
International Shoe Co. (D) was a DE corporation having its principal place of business in MO. D employed 11 to 13 salespersons under the supervision of managers in MO. These salespeople resided in WA, did most of their work there, and had no authority to enter into contracts or make collections. D didn’t have an office in WA and made no contracts there.
Notice of assessment was served upon one of D's WA salespersons and a copy of the notice was sent by registered mail to D's MO address.
Shoe makes special appearance to argue no violates Due Process by asserting PJ b/c not present in state and no property there/ doesn’t raise to level of Pennoyer.
Strong argument for Int'l Shoe: not a WA corp., all transactions took place in MO not WA, and sales people not authorized to make contracts there. So effectively no agent w/in the state (these are just independent contractors), and no intrastate deliveries – all shoes being sent from manuf. plants outside of the state.
