Civil Procedure I Outline

CIVIL PROCEDURE I OUTLINE
PROFESSOR MACDONALD SPRING 2008
TEXTBOOK: YEAZELL 6TH EDITION
THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL
 
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction = power of a state to declare the law
 
PJ = power of a state to render a judgment binding someone who may have never set foot in the state; judicial power over person or property involved in lawsuit
Comes from 14th amendment
“power over persons”
 
Two types of PJ = (1) in personam jurisdiction and (2) quasi in rem and in rem jurisdiction
 
In personam jurisdiction = judicial power over a natural person, corporation, unincorporated association
Notice = all Ds, whether residents or not, must be served with process personally (to give D a chance to respond)
All nonresident Ds must be physically present within forum state when service made (this is respect the borders of sister states – a state has power over persons/things within its territory & no power beyond)
Minimum contacts rule = D must have some sort of minimum contact with the forum state in order to be subject to jurisdiction there
 
Quasi in rem & in rem jurisdiction = judicial power concerning property
Quasi in rem = “attachment jurisdiction” = P attaches or seizes D’s property in order to satisfy a prior personal claim that P has against D
Example of quasi in rem = D owes P $100, P attaches D’s property to obtain payment of $100
In rem = P seizes D’s property in order to satisfy interest in property (ex. title or possession) that P claims in the property
Seizure or attachment of property is prerequisite for these jurisdictions
 
Different categories enable the court to take PJ over an individual =
Presence (within forum state)
Domicile or residence within forum state
Consent to be sued within forum state
Driving a car within forum state
Committing a tortious act within the state (or perhaps committing an out of state act with in state tortious consequences)
Ownership of property in the forum state
Conducting business in the forum state
Being married in, or living while married in, the forum state
 
Different ways a court can take PJ over a corporation =
Domestic corporations = any action may be brought against a domestic corporation (ex. one which is incorporated in the forum state)
Foreign corporations generally = a state is much more limited in its ability to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign corporation:
                        1. Minimum contacts = the forum state may exercise PJ over the corp. only if the corp.                                     has “min. contacts” with the forum state, “such that the maintenance of the suit does not                                          offend traditional notions of fair play & substantial justice” (Int’l Shoe)
 
                        2. Dealings with residents of forum state = usu. a corp. will be found to have the requisite                                 “min. contacts” with the forum state only if the corp. has somehow voluntarily sought to                                    do business in, or with the residents of the forum state
Agent = if corp. has an agent in the forum state and that agent does a significant amount of business on the foreign company’s behalf, the corp. can be sued in the forum state
Web sites that reaches in-staters = question is whether the site accessed by in-staters constitutes min. contacts with the forum state and did the website owner intend that to happen; if yes, then probably min. contacts but if no, then no
Product liability cases = the fact that a product manufactured or sold by D outside of forum state finds it ways into the forum state and causes injury, is not enough to subject D to PJ; can only be subject to PJ if D made effort to market in forum state BUT if the out of state manufacturer makes or sells a product that it knows will eventually be sold in the forum state = may be enough to establish min. contacts. HOWEVER, even if min. contacts exists, it may be “unreasonable” to make D defend there and thus violate due process
 
Constitutional test of minimum contacts = “fair play & substantial justice”
14th amendment due process clause gives court authority to exercise in personam only if minimum contacts, ties or relations exist between D & forum state
Such min. contacts exist when D’s in state activities are systematic & continuous throughout the years in question; “doing business” in that state; state’s in personam jurisdiction would be fair & won’t offend the traditional notions of fair play & substantial justice as required by the due process clause
Substantial justice = qualifications of D’s in state activities
PJ is important to the parties in a lawsuit b/c it determines which party will be inconvenienced by having to travel to what may be a far place to litigate the merits of the law suit
 
Two provisions of the Constitution restrict authority of court to exercise power over person/property =
14th amendment due process clause
Full faith & credit clause in Article IV & U.S.C. Section 1738 of Constitution (state court decisions)
 
Requirements of due process clause must be met =
Presence in state territory
Minimum contacts with state
Subjecting D to court’s jurisdiction wouldn’t be unfair
 
Pennoyer is the 1st important case on PJ = it constitutionalized the requirement of PJ. SC ruled that 2 provisions of the Constitution (14th amendment due process & full faith & credit clause in Article IV) restrict authority of court to exercise power of person or property
 
(1) In personam = judicial power over a natural person, corporation or unincorporated association. The D has to be served in state unless there is consent
Creates personal obligation
 
(2)(a) Pure in rem = judgment in that suit will determine the rights of that person in the “whole world”
In rem = power over property
P seizes D’s property to satisfy an interest in the property (ex. title or possession) that P claims in the property
Conflict over a piece of land – land is central to the conflict – if the land is within the state, the state has jurisdiction over it; for example, if you have people that own land & lived out of state & say the neighbors of those lands say it’s hazardous, then that state has authority over it without giving the true owners notice
Hypo = should the state of WA do anything with OR’s land? Should WA be able to say X owns the land and not Y? NO! There would be chaos – it would imply that other states can do the same. With respect to in rem jurisdiction, the land has to be within the jurisdiction of the state of OR
 
(2)(b) Quasi in rem = power over property
Quasi in rem = “attachment jurisdiction” = the P seizes or attaches the D’s property in order to satisfy a prior personal claim that P has against D (ex. D owes P $100, P attaches D’s property to obtain payment of the $100)
 
Attachment = legal term for officially sanctioned seizure of property (ex. real estate, cars, etc.) – sometimes means a literal seizure or posting notices on property/records of title so that future buyers know it can’t be sold
Gives notice of action
The problem in Pennoyer was that the attachment of the land was AFTER judgment & there was no constructive notice b/c nothing was posted on the land before the law suit but it doesn’t make a difference whether Neff knew about it – the rationale in seizing the land before litigating is you have to have jurisdiction before an action – if not, the action is invalid
 
There are 2 types = quasi type 1 & quasi type 2
Quasi type 1 = similar to pure in rem; difference is type 1 only determines the rights of the property between the 2 parties
Quasi type 2 = property involuntarily has nothing to do with suit; suit to enforce a personal obligation & you’re using property to acquire jurisdiction in that state = property is incidental to the lawsuit; judgment rendered is only to be enforced against that property; is ONLY a judgment regarding that property; Shaffer
 
NOTE: a state has power over everything within its borders, so if it’s in personam jurisdiction, the person has to be served process within the borders of the state; if it’s in rem jurisdiction, you attach the land so we lay claim to something within its borders
 
Example of difference between in personam & in rem =
In personam = A sues $500,000 and A gets judgment for that. If B says he doesn’t have the money, A can find his property & execute on it
In rem = claim for $500,000 & property is seized and is worth half that – the power of the court is limited to the value of the property even though the claim is worth more. A could sue D again somewhere else for the rest but in personam is the very best judgment to get b/c you are not limited in any fashion – you can get a judgment for X dollars and if D didn’t have that money, you can find his property and execute on it. In rem jurisdiction is where the court has jurisdiction only to the limits of the value of whatever is