CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE (Moore_CivPro 1_Summer_2016)
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Defined—the power of a court to issue a judgment against the Ä personally. Ð can take judgment into any state and get enforcement under full faith and credit clause.
—court has power to hear any controversy b/c Ä’s contacts w/ state are so extensive.
—court can hear controversy concerning Ä only where it relates to or arises under his contacts w/ the forum state.
Transient (tag)—court has power to hear any controversy concerning a Ä who is served in the forum state.
Traditional Approach
Traditional Bases for PJ
—confers general jurisdiction, even if only temporary. Certain types of presence will be immune for underlying policy reasons.
—current dwelling with intent to remain there. A person is a domiciliary of only one state at a time. Usually dispositive of jurisdiction under modern tests as well.
—where you vote, have a license. A person is a citizen of only one state at a time. Not dispositive of jurisdiction under modern tests, only a factor.
—where a person maintains a living place. A person maybe a resident of more than one state at a time. Not dispositive of jurisdiction under modern tests, only a factor.
Pennoyer v. Neff: in order for a court to adjudicate a dispute, it must be able to assert power over the person or thing which is the subject of the dispute. There must be a basis for power (statute, presence) and that power must be asserted in a formal way (service of process).
Is there a long-arm statute that grants the court power over the non-resident?
Is the statute constitutional under the 14th amendment?
Is the application of the statute to the facts of the case constitutional?
On what bases may a state assert its power?
serve a citizen
service nonresident w/in the state
property in the state, and it is attached at the beginning of the suit.
Territorial theory of personal jurisdiction
every state has absolute sovereignty over the persons and property within its borders.
every state has exclusive control over the persons and property within its borders.
Exceptions to strict territoriality theory
—court is not exercising PJ over one party, but in rem jurisdiction over the status (e.g., marriage)
extraterritorial effects of judgments—full faith and credit requires states to recognize, respect, and enforce the adjudicatory authority of other states.
continuing jurisdiction—jurisdiction of the forum state continues even after Ä who has been properly served leaves the state. US is too mobile a territory to tolerate the obstruction of justice through evasion.
—legally constructed entities that cannot be physically present. Must designate agents for service of process.
—may or may not be considered an exception. May not be considered appropriate under strict territoriality theory, but consistent w/ idea the idea of sovereignty that motivates territoriality. State should be able to control its residents even if they are not present in the state at time in question.
Territoriality theory made sense as a way of solving conflicts b/wstates that functioned as independent nations.But it does not make as much sense under a federalist scheme, where the 50 states have common interests and commerce may be adversely affected.
Grace v. MacArthur—A person flying in the regular navigable airspace above the state is within the territorial limits of the state and is amenable to service.
Kadic v. Karadzic—Presence provides a basis for jurisdiction even if it is only temporary (transient jurisdiction).
Certain types of presence are immune from PJ
Cooper v. Wyman—service cannot be effected on a person who comes into the state for the sole purpose of making an unrelated appearance in court.
Wyman v. Newhouse—service cannot be effected on a person who has been fraudulently led into the state for the sole purpose of service of process.
—Harkness v. Hyde
A Ä does not conceded to the jurisdiction of the court when he makes a special appearance, i.e., appears for the sole purpose of contesting the court’s exercise of power over him.
—Milliken v. Meyer
Exception taken to territoriality theory. Authority of state over its citizens is not terminated by mere fact of his absence from the state. If guidelines for extraterritorial service are followed, court may use substituted service in order to extend jurisdiction over a resident who happens to be outside the state boundaries at the commencement of an action.
Local Acts and Consequences
Hess v. Palowski—A person who travels on a state highway gives his implied consent (legal fiction) to participation in proceedings arising from the travel. He accepts service on a designated state official, provided that he receives notice of such service. Statute gives rise to jurisdiction in limited cases that arise from the nonresidents activities within the state.
Wuchter v. Pizzutti—A law that seeks to extend jurisdiction over a nonresident w/o personal service of process must incorporate a provision which makes it reasonably probable that notice of the substituted service will be communicated to the nonresident who is being sued.
Developing the Modern Alternative
Minimum Contacts and the Place of Statutes
International Shoe—In order to subject a Ä to PJ, he must have cer
e = Nature of Ä contacts must be such that it is foreseeable that those contacts might lead to litigation in the forum state. Foreseeability is not mere likelihood that products will end up in the forum state. Worried not only about protecting Ä from litigating in distant forum, but ensuring that states do not exceed the limit imposed by status of equal sovereigns. In event that contacts demonstrate that has purposefully availed himself of the forum, the reasonableness of jurisdiction should be evaluated in light of the following 5 factors:
convenience to Ä
interest in obtaining relief
state interest
interstate judicial systems’ interests in resolution (competing interests of the states)
shared interest of the state in furthering social policy
Burger King v. Rudewicz—
Choice of law provision is does not automatically confer PJ, but is one factor that goes to the showing of purposeful availment.
Purposeful availment = fair warning to allow nonresident Ä opportunity to change primary conduct.
Brennan’s sliding scale = a high showing of reasonableness (in light of the World-wide factors) can support jurisdiction with a lesser showing of minimum contacts than is usually required.
Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court of CA—
Plurality (O’Conner)—mere awareness that goods will reach forum through stream of commerce is insufficient basis for PJ.Foreseeability alone is not enough.Need foreseeability + intent to benefit from the forum.
Majority (Brennan)—Foreseeability alone may be sufficient for PJ, as it creates a strong presumption of purposeful availment.But this is a rebuttable presumption that is to be determined in light of reasonableness.Even when due process is satisfied, it may not be reasonable to assert jurisdiction where the interest in adjudication is weak and burden to Ä is strong.
Concurring (Scalia)—Questions of purposeful availment and reasonableness should be treated hierarchically and not combined.If there is no purposeful availment, if due process is not satisfied, then there is no reason to examine whether the forum is reasonable.Reasonableness cannot replace the requirements of due process.
