I. Constitutional Limits on Jurisdiction – Personal Jurisdiction
a. Introduction
i. Difference between SMJ and PJ
1. SMJ – power of a (federal) court to render a valid, binding judgment on a particular issue or case.
2. PJ – A given court’s power to render a valid, binding judgment against a person
a. Includes natural persons, corporations, and a given piece of property
ii. Two issues with jurisdiction generally
1. Where (geographically) can you bring a lawsuit against a party? (PJ)
2. Assuming you find a place where you can sue, does the court have SMJ over claim?
iii. PJ flows from the due process clause
1. 5th am – No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness without due process of law
2. 14th am – NO state shall deprive a person of LLPH without due process of law.
b. The old approach
i. Pennoyer v Neff
1. Constructive notice
a. Doesn’t mean that notice wasn’t attempted or that it didn’t reach D
b. Means something other than that paradigm of notice, physical service of process.
2. Territorial Jurisdiction (law at the time of Pennoyer)
3. Ideas from the Case
a. “Every state possesses exclusive jurisdiction over persons property within its borders, and no jurisdiction over persons/property without them.”
b. Full faith and credit – Requires each state to respect the judgments of another state.
c. Due process – Power and Notice
4. 3 Kinds of PJ
a. In personam jurisdiction
i. Two Ingredients for analysis – Power and Notice
1. Power – was D in the jurisdiction at the time judgment rendered / Is a domiciliary
a. (Substantive Due Process)
2. Notice – Physical service of process necessary while D is present in the state
a. (Procedural Due Process)
b. If it’s a non-resident, must be served in the state.
c. If it’s a resident, may be served anywhere (because he’s a domiciliary)
d. (Mullane changed this, requiring only “best notice practicable under the circs)
3. The problems of power and notice are merged
a. You get power by providing notice through personal service.
b. The power doesn’t exist until notice is given.
b. In rem jurisdiction
i. Traditional in rem – only possible where the property itself was the subject of the lawsuit
ii. Must attach the property before an in rem action.
iii. Constructive notice acceptable for in rem cases.
1. Seizure acts as notice.
iv. Power and notice are separate questions.
1. They have the power inherently
2. They have to get notice.
c. Quasi in rem jurisdiction
i. Subject of the suit – the person, not the property
ii. Requirements
1. D must have property in the jurisdiction
2. The property must be attached (seized) by the sheriff)
iii. Power/Notice are separate questions.
1. They have the power inherently.
2. They have to get notice.
iv. Constructive service is ok.
1. If you have property in the jur, it’s assumed you’re paying attention to it and any lawsuits involving it.
v. Property value – its effect on jurisdiction
1. Judgment can’t exceed the value of the property
2. If property only worth 5k, you only have 5k worth of jurisdiction.
5. Mullane and notice
a. Looser in some respects – Personal service isn’t always required in in personam situations (service by mail ok in certain circs)
b. Tighter in some circs – must be best practicable service available under circs (which in certain in rem/quasi in rem situations may require more than constructive notice)
6. Comments at the end of Pennoyer- Exceptions to the above scheme
a. Consent
i. Hess v Polaski – D deemed to have impliedly consented to being sued for a traffic accident in the state where he was driving through
ii. A state may require persons and orgs to appoint agents to receive service within the state.
b. Exception for determining status of citizens where there’s a non-resident
state
a. Spectrum – No contact to casual/isolated contacts (a little above no contact) to continuous, systematic contact.
b. Quantity/regularity – the more of each, the better.
d. Refining the Modern Approach
i. McGee Int’l Life Insurance Co
1. Case involved an insurance contract that had substantial connection to forum state
2. High water mark for PJ
a. “It is sufficient for purposes of DP that the suit was based on a contract that had substantial connection w/ the state”
b. Residents would be disadvantaged if they had to sue the Ins. Co in a different state.
3. Other contacts
a. Premiums sent from CA
b. Sold policy to CA
c. Reinsurance to CA
ii. Hanson v Denkcla
1. D must purposely avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state – otherwise the min contacts aren’t enough.
2. The unilateral activity of those who claim relationship to D cannot satisfy the requirement of contact w/ the forum state
iii. Schaffer v Heitner
1. Shareholder derivative suit – quasi in rem action
a. An action against the officers/directors of the corporation through the shares
2. In a quasi in rem action, you still need minimum contacts
3. Ct – When you’re essentially bringing suit against a person (either in personam or quasi in rem, you need to go through MINIMUM CONTACTS. Doesn’t matter if you try to attach the property first or not.
4. Defendant directors/officers won.
5. The usefulness of quasi in rem may be destroyed w/ this case.
6. The presence of property within a state still enters into the analysis of minimum contacts in a state.
iv. Worldwide Volkswagen Corporation v Woodson
1. Refining the question of purposeful availment
a. Foreseeability – did you ever expect it would happen?
b. Knowledge – not in the case here – leave it up in the air
c. Intent (purposeful availment)
2. Foreseeability alone isn’t enough.
v. Asahi Metal Industry Co v Superior Court