PERSONAL JURISDICTION – state court or federal court in that state must have power to render judgment against defendant
“Is it fair for the plaintiff to force the defendant to come to <state> and defend the lawsuit there?”
If you get a final judgment in one state, any other state you go to has to give judgment full faith and credit (Art. IV of Constitution)
Historical Roots: Pennoyer v. Neff: States possess exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over the people and property within its borders, but have no jurisdiction over people outside its borders.
– Relies on physical presence as a basis of power
Types of PJ (at the time of Pennoyer)
In personam – jurisdiction over a person
Proper service for NON-residents:
– personal service in state, OR
– voluntary appearance
In rem: jurisdiction over property related to lawsuit
Proper service for NON-residents:
– land attached at the beginning of the suit
– constructive service
quasi in rem: jurisdiction over property unrelated to lawsuit
The largest judgment available is the value of the attached property.
Proper service for NON-residents:
– land attached at the beginning of the lawsuit
– constructive service
Modern Approach
International Shoe’s main point is: “Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he “have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Minimum Contacts
Shoe’s minimum contacts in WA:
– sales force of 11-13 people
– renting office and living space
– earning significant commission
Basically, the courts of a state may exercise PJ over a D if he has such minimum contacts with the state that it would be fair to require him to return and defend a lawsuit in that state.
– no longer in personam, in rem, quasi in rem jurisdiction. All assertions must be evaluated by minimum contacts- attachment doesn’t give jurisdiction
Shaffer v Heitner – P sues D, acquiring jurisdiction by attaching stock they own in DE (based on Pennoyer).
General v. Specific Jurisdiction
To challenge jurisdiction in federal court, 12(b)(2). In CA state court, it’s a motion to quash service of process under CCP 418.10.
1. General jurisdiction allows a party to be sued on any clai
ing activities in state
3. Mere unilateral activity of someone else is not enough
WWV: Robinsons bought car in NY. Drove car through OK where there was an accident. Robinsons sue WWV et. al.
a. OK Sup. Ct. – OK has jurisdiction b/c it is reasonable to assume that cars could go to another state and suit be brought there “foreseeability”
b. US Sup. Ct. – “foreseeability” that is critical is if D’s conduct and connection w/ state are such that he could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in that state.
Asahi: Sup. Ct. divided in the issue of D puts goods into stream of commerce, is minimum contacts established? (Asahi’s Japanese company sold valves to Cheng’s Taiwanese company who sold tires to CA; does CA have jurisdiction over Asahi?)
a. O’Connor says no – more substantial contacts needed (advertising in the state, channels of communication in the state, designed for that state, or marketing that state)
Five justices disagree w/ O’Connor.
