Civil Procedure Outline
Personal Jurisdiction week 1-4
What is the constitutional heart of each case?
· Each case we have read asks whether it is constitutional for a forum state to assert jurisdiction in light of the 14th Amendment’s guaranty of due process of law.
Personal Jurisdiction:
· The power of a given court over a person or his property
· In order to preserve the defense of personal jurisdiction you have to raise it:
Pleading (answer):
pleading is the document in which a party makes a claim, raises defenses to a claim, or both. Acts like a blueprint, something you can refer to.
Motion:
A request for an order, a motion asks the court to do something now or soon.
When can you raise a personal jurisdiction defense?
Rule 12 and Waiver:
– Objection to Personal Jurisdiction may be made:
§ in the Answer [FRCivP 12(a)] or
§ by pre-Answer motion [FRCivP 12(b)]
– Multiple defenses may be consolidated in a single motion [12(g)]
– BUT Personal Jurisdiction will be waived if not raised in time [12(h)]
Areas where State power cannot be challenged for personal jurisdiction:
State created status for:
1. Marriage
2. Incorporation
Penoyer v. Neff:
What we learn:
· Power over an individual comes from Contact with the state
· Applies “Due Process” requirement of a brand new 14th Amendment
Also we pull the three pillars of civil procedure:
1) POWER: There are territorial limits on each state’s exercise of power
2) CONSENT: Parties may waive their objection to personal jurisdiction or act in a way that constitutes consent to jurisdiction
3) NOTICE: The opinion equates notice with power, but adopts rules that ensure either actual notice (personal service) or “constructive” notice
International Shoe:
· Creates the “minimum contacts” test
· Establishes three areas of analysis:
1) GENERAL vs. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION: The fewer contacts, the more specifically the contacts must relate to the subject matter of the suit.
2) PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT: Contact will support jurisdiction if it is specifically directed toward the forum state
3) FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS: Maintenance of suit “does not offend traditional notions of fair play….”
The “Bookends” Cases: Help show how “Purposeful” Requirement has been analyzed
· McGee v. Int’l Life (1957): Insurer’s mailing offer to California and accepting premiums by mail sufficient to support jurisdiction
· Hansen v. Denckla (1958): “There must be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum.”
Shaffer v. Heitner
· “The mere presence of property unrelated to the subject matter of the suit is an insufficient basis for personal jurisdiction. ( at least when there is an alternate forum available)
· All issues of Personal Jurisdiction of State Courts will be resolved by the “Minimum Contacts” test of International Shoe.
World-Wide Volkswagen
Reconfirms “minimum contacts” standard of Shoe
a) Simply no contacts (except car)
Introduces a couple new concepts:
a) “Foreseeability”
b) “Stream of Commerce” theory
Revisits “Fundamental Fairness” concept from Shoe
Balancing of fundamental fairness
Balance test of fairness used in det
What will make jurisdiction swing one way or another with stream of commerce?
· Contacts, volume of good, or if goods are dangerous
Specific Jurisdiction Overview:
“Certain” Contacts:
1. Purposeful
a. Bookends (Set limits of how far courts will go)
b. “Fair Warning” (You did biz there or took benefit from state so your warned.
c. “Effects test” (Intentional Torts)
d. Zippo Sliding scale (Internet fact patterns)
· These are all just different ways to get to the same point of purposeful availment, these give you different ways of thinking to fit different set of facts.
2. Related to Claim:
· Such that jurisdiction is consistent with fair play (reasonable)
“Effects Test” from Calder (Intentional Torts Fact Pattern):
· Minimum contacts sufficient to support specific jurisdiction can be established by conduct outside the state where actor knows and intends that the effects of the conduct will be felt in the state.
Ex. Shooting a gun at someone across state lines
Zippo Sliding scale for(Internet fact patterns):
· Where Web site is merely passive, no PJ based on residents’ ability to log onto Web site.
· Where Web site is interactive, PJ is determined by examining level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site.
