A. PERSONAL JURISDICTION
comes from Due Process in 14th Amend
Waived if not raised in pre-answer motion or answer:
Perrsonal jurisdiction; notice, service of process; venue.
– R 12(b)(2) lack of personal jurisdiction – waived under 12(h)(1) if omitted from pre-answer motion/answer
– R 12(b)(3) improper venue – waived under 12(h)(1) if omitted from motion/answer
1. PRESENCE & CONSENT:
Pennoyer v. Neff
Presence:
· Of Person: Service of person within the state (where lawsuit is), even if person resides outside that state (in personam) = jurisdiction see, Milliken=domicile =jurisdcton.
· Full faith and credit given. Art. 4.
Of Property:
· Lawsuit is about property in state (in rem) OR Lawsuit not about property, but defendant has property in state which is attached (mentioned in the complaint–and then some time of posted notice on land, or seized by govt) at time of suit (quasi in rem) = jurisdiction
· Quasi-Rem doesn’t get full faith and credit.
Consent:
· Δ Consented before lawsuit arose to state jurisdiction (e.g. state may appoint agent for service of process) = jurisdiction
· Voluntary appearance after lawsuit filed (and failure to raise “lack of personal jurisdiction” defense at that appearance) = jurisdiction
INTEREST OF PLAINTIFFS V. DEFENDANTS:
what kind of policies should the courts implement to fairly serve those interests?
· If P must follow D to sue, discourages less powerful P’s who may not have means to do so
· If D must show up where P is, less fair to D (must spend $ to get to that state) – also might encourage frivolous suits since plaintiff doesn’t have to leave his own state to file.
PERSONAL JURISDICTION DEFENSE R 12(g) states must join defenses, if not may waive some.
· Waiver of Defense R 12(h) if don’t include in pre-answer motion, or answer (if no pre-answer motion was ever filed) then waive Personal Jurisdiction defense.
2. DOMICILE:
Test for Domicile: residence and intent to stay indefinitely (2 pre-reqs)
Miliken v. Meyer (1940)
Fact: Ӆ miliken sues in Wyoming. Δ meyer was serve in CO. b/c both were residents of Wyoming, PJ=valid.
Held: Domicile in the state alone is sufficient to bring an absent Δ within reach of the State’s jurisdiction for purposes of persona judgment by means of appropriate substituted service.
Substituted service is service other than personal service in the forum state – newspaper, etc. Domicile is subjective standard (case by case)
· Satisfies Due Process because the “substituted service” is reasonably calculated to give him actual notice and an opportunity to be heard
· Meyer sued in Wyoming (he’s resident there), but personally served in Colorado. PJ exists.
Rule v. Standards
Rule (formalism): clear cut; bright line, ridged
Standards: calls fro an analysis: things change and evolve and what might have worked in the 1870 might not work now, meaning changes, since standards are flexible, they can adapt to changes.
3. MINIMUM CONTACTS (SPECIFIC V. GENERAL):
International Shoe v. Washington (1945) U.S.
Delaware corp (principle place of business in Missouri), only affiliation with Washington salesmen employed it there. Salesman personally served in Washington and mailed a copy to the office in Missouri, shoe employed 11-13 full time salesman who show shoes and solict ordr=ers for shoes in the state of Washington and receive commissions for sales.. Question is whether the activities Int’l Shoe conducted in Washington are sufficient to confer jurisdiction, and satisfy Due Process? Activities were systematic and continuous (resulted in large volume of interstate business). Specific Jurisdiction OK.
· HOLDING: if D corp has certain minimum contacts within the State and traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice are satisfied there is personal jurisdiction here.
· Why not General here? such an absence of “substantial” contacts….the contacts that lacked…(Shoe had no office in Washington, no mailing address, salesman had no power to make contracts, no merchandise was stocked in Washington)
General Jurisdiction:
Continuous/substantial contacts (for corporations) or domicile (for people)
· If the contacts are so continuous, substantial, frequent, and strong that they support personal jurisdiction for suits unrelated to the activity in the state.
· Places where a company is incorporated always have jurisdiction, despite the activity that occurs there
· Several States may have General Jurisdiction over a corporation, however only one State can have general jurisdiction over person – wherever that person is domiciled.
Specific Jurisdiction:
Claims are related to or arise out of the activity in state.
· There must be a relationship between the claim and D’s activities within the state.
· D has some contacts with a state, and the suit arises out of these specific contacts.
MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST: Is it there? > Is it fair?
“PJ exists where Δ has certain minimum contacts within the state “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Do the quantity and quality of a defendant’s contacts with the state make requiring the defendant to defend a suit there consistent with “fair play and substantial justice”?
· 1. Is there consent, agent, or domicile? If NO, then…
· 2. Are activities continuous and systematic?
If YES, then general jurisdiction (but ask are these contacts enough for general? i.e. Shoe)
If NO, maybe there is specific jurisdiction…
· 3. Are activities related to the subject of the suit?
If YES, then specific jurisdiction.
If NO, then no personal jurisdiction.
4. IN REM & QUASI IN REM JURISDICTION:
McGee v. Int’l Life Insurance Co. àSingle contact initiated by D enough to for specific jurisdiction.
Texas ins company soliciting business from California residents, to purchase life ins policy. Cali resident (plaintiff) purchases it from Texas company, premiums are mailed from Cali to Texas. Can P file suit against Texas co in California? Yesàspecific jurisdiction.
· States fairness concern: CA residenet would be at severe disadvantage if they were forced to follow the insurance company to a distant state in order to hold it legally liable.
o Protective state interest in preventing out of state insurance companies from soliciting their citizens and then not being subject to insurance claims under CA law.
o Judicial interest: efficiency—all of the evidence is of suicide is in CA.
· HOLDING: Due process clause does not preclude the CA court from having jurisdiction over TX insurance company. The suit was based on a contract that ws with CA resident-therefore contacts were related, therefore there is specific personal jurisdiction. It’s sufficient for purposes of Due Process Clause that the suit was based on a contract which had substantial connection with CA.
Reason why NO General Jurisdiction: Texas has no offices in CA, so doesn’t meet Shoe standard, but Ct says solicitation considered sufficient minimum contact (when considering notions of fairness and justice). Looked at parties and State’s interests
Hanson v. Denckla àPurposeful availment
Mother Donner sets up a t
sons, advertising, or regular sales to OK customers.
Justice white (majority opinion): protects the Δ (what’s fair for the Δ). Limiting states power, making sure that state doesn’t overreach their powers. Minimum contact= Purposeful availment + Foreseeablity.
– Foreseeability: (Justice white’s definition)
o “the Δ’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there..”
o White further stated that No personal jurisdiction was found because the Ӆ’s would have remedy anyway, if not in OK, then they still could go after the Δ’s in federal court.
Purposeful Availment:
· Notion of reciprocity: Only where there is purposeful availment is there some sort of reciprocity b/t the foreign state and the D’s state. D gets something from OK.
· Notion of forseeability: ability to subject yourself or avoid jurisdiction; dealer should be able to have control over what states have control over him. She should be able to forsee jurisdiction and thus structure his primary conduct to avoid jurisdiction in another state.
Disesnt—Brennan
– “If the Ӆ can show that his chosen forum state has a sufficient interest in the litigation…then the Δ who cannot show some real injury to a constitutionally protected interest should have no constitutional exuse to appear.”
– “purposeful availment” defined by Brennan
o “the sale of an automobile does purposefully inject the vehicle into the stream of interstate commerce so that it can travel to distant States.
Note:
Dicta suggest that PJ okay. Due process clause not violated by PJ over a corporation that “delivers its products into the stream of commerce with expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the froum state.”
– Hypo:
– Japan manufacturer that sell all over US= subject to PJ anywhere in the US.
– CA=national distributor = PJ okay.
– Local retailer: No subject to personal jurisdiction b/c they don’t do business in every state.
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court àwhiteàcase decided on fairness
Motorcycle tire explodes, kills and injures. Survivor sues Cheng Shin (tire tube manuf) a Taiwan company. Cheng impleads Asahi (valve manuf) a Japan company. Superior Ct holds that Asahi aware its parts sold to Chen Shing and in US. Asahi says never contemplated that limited sales in Taiwan would subject them to suit in California.
HOLDING: Cts divided about whether stream of commerce = PA or not. D must show he didn’t avail himself of benefits of the jurisdiction AND/OR if did, then must show balance of interests favors defeating jurisdiction.
· Part IIB: everyone except Scalia agrees: No PJ b/c “fairness factors trumps minimum contacts.”
o Fairness is important. Regardless of whether minimum contacts are met, there is no PJ here b/c fairness factor.
o Fairnes factors are evaluated by looking at:
§ The burden on the Δ, the interest of the forum state
§ The Ӆ’s interest in obtaining relief.
