Rousseau’s Civil Procedure I Outline (Summer 2015)
Overview
Valid Judgment (must answer these 3 things before even getting to the court)
1. What State? Personal Jurisdiction à must have jurisdiction over the parties. (give proper notice (due process) to exercise PJ.
2. What Court? Subject Matter Jurisdiction à State or Federal court (State court judges may favor their own citizens so a citizen so if there is a law suit from citizens from different states, they would want to file in a federal court)
3. What District? Venue à this is governed by statute (based mostly on convenience). This takes you to the court house steps.
Personal Jurisdiction (What state?)
Definition of PJ: Personal Jurisdiction (PJ) The power of a given court to issue a judgment that is binding on a person or affects his property. If a court does not have PJ over a party, any order or judgment that the court may render will not be binding on that party.
In Personam: power over the D.
In Rem: power over a person’s property. This is limited to the value of the property. The P cannot use the judgment to seize other property owned by the D.
Quasi In Rem: power over D via his property-but only up to value of property located in state. You have to attach the property to the suit before filing.
· Ex. You, MI resident, own a pig in all 50 states worth $100 each. You are presumed to be in possession of the property even if you are not in the state, you are presumed to be present in the state to the value of $100. If a person sued you for $1 million in CA, the other person can only get $100, because that is the extent of your presence in that state. The dispute had nothing to do with the property. The condition precedent to proceed in quasi in rem jurisdiction is you must attach the property to the suit (a writ of attachment) to notify the owner.
ü Differences: In personam jurisdiction is obtained by serving the D personally with process. Jurisdiction in rem is obtained by seizing the property. Although notice to the D was not historically required in in rem actions, more recent decisions require the P to notify the D directly if the D can be found.
Service of process: proper service of process is also necessary before a court may exercise PJ over a D. Any judgment rendered without reasonable notice violates the D’s due process rights and therefore is invalid. Statutes and rules provide various means of serving process.
1. For in personam actions, must be personal service made within the forum state.
2. For in rem actions, service by publication is sufficient.
Establishing PJ over an In-State Defendant (Is it there?)
Court has PJ over a party when:
1. Domicile- Party resides in state-domicile or
2. Tag/Transient Jurisdiction- Party is served with process in state-transient/tag jurisdiction or
3. Consent- Party consents to jurisdiction or
4. Waiver- Party appears in court or fails to properly object to the assertion of personal jurisdiction
5. Quasi in rem- Party has property in the state (but only to extent that property is attached pre-suit and up to value of property) à later overruled by Shafer!!
Examples:
(1) Domicile
· Pennoyer v. Neff: “Is it there? If Yesà We have power”. This case was the first decision to treat PJ as a constitutional issue. It set out a test for when a court might constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over a person or that person’s property.
(2) Tag/Transient
· Ex. Burnham: Burnham (P) and his wife were living in NJ when they decided to separate. Mrs. Burnham moved with the children to CA, filed for divorce in that state and served Burnham in CA while he was visiting. Answer: Jurisdiction based on physical presence in forum state alone is enough. No need for minimum contacts analysis.
o Transient Jurisdiction – Exists when a nonresident D is found and served within the forum state voluntarily, but his presence there is (1) intended to be only brief, and (2) may be unrelated to the controversy raised by P’s claim
a. No jurisdiction where presence in state is a result of coercion or fraud
b. Some courts find no jurisdiction where presence in state was required by court in another action
o Tag Jurisdiction is general jurisdiction
o Tag Jurisdiction does not apply to corporations
(3) Quasi in rem
· Shaffer v. Heitner: You can no longer substitute a person’s property for that person (ie. pig example)
(4) Consent
Ex. Carnival Cruise Lines: Shute (P), an injured cruise ship passenger, filed suit in her home state despite a stipulation in her passenger ticket requiring all suits to be filed in FL. Answer: A contract clause which specifies where a suit can be heard in a particular court is enforceable only to contracts involving ships.
(5) Waiver
P can ask D to waiver formal service.
Establishing PJ Over an Out-of-State Defend
ad advertised in CA.) That would then be mere awareness plus something else.
b.Calder’s Test: Minimum contacts sufficient to support specific jurisdiction can be established by intentional conduct taken outside the state where actor knows and intends that the effects of the conduct will be felt in the state. à only applies to intentional torts.
· Ex. Shooting a gun at someone across state lines…that state will feel the effects.
c. Internet Cases: The Internet allows parties to interact even though neither may know where the other is located. The typical Internet case involves the issue of whether someone who views a website may sue the person who operates the site in the viewer’s home state.
1. Mere Posting (Passive site): jurisdiction rarely exists in the case of a passive site. A passive web site is one in which does little more than make information available to those who are interested. NO PJ based on residents’ ability to log onto Web site. The main exception is when the site contains material clearly directed at another state, such as information that defames a specific person in another state.
2. Interactive site: Where D, an Internet corp, contracts with residents of state through Web site that involves knowing transmission of computer files. Courts look to all of the circumstances, including level of activity and whether the site is commercial in nature.
· Ex. Cashbackrealty.com v Ameritrade Holding
o D.C. Circuit held that interactive website enabling residents of forum to engage in trading of securities or electronic transactions 24 hours a day constituted continuous and systematic contact with forum sufficient to support exercise of personal jurisdiction over foreign website operator
· Ex. ALS Scan v Digital Service Consultants:
o Merely providing internet service constitutes passive activity and is insufficient to support exercise of personal jurisdiction over non-resident internet service provider
