Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Civil Procedure Outline

Traditional Bases for Jurisdiction

Pennoyer v. Neff



Personal Jurisdiction is acquired by personal service

inside

the

territorial limits

of the forum state or by thevoluntary appearance of the defendant there to contest the suit on its merits.



Plaintiffs are not free to bring suit wherever they chose. The 14

Amendment to the U.S. constitution forbids thestates from “depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States



No state can exercise jurisdiction over persons or property outside its territory



In Personam

jurisdiction State exercises jurisdiction over the person because:i) the person is

present

in the State;ii) the person

consent

s to (or waives objection to) the exercise of jurisdiction, agreeing to be present in the State.iii) the person is a citizen of the state;iv) the person's status is being determined based on a relationship to a citizen of the state.

[2] Consent

A defendant may consent to the court’s personal jurisdiction in advance of suit, and such consent, if expressly made, functions to cureany jurisdictional defects that might otherwise exist. Examples of express consent include:(1) forum-selection clauses in contracts [

see Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute,

499 U.S. 585(1991), in which the Court upheld aclause printed on the back of the

plaintiff’s steamship ticket]; and(2) consent documents filed by foreign corporations with state authorities as a condition for doing business in the forum.

[3] Waiver

When a nonresident defendant objects to a state’s personal jurisdiction over him/her on due process grounds, he/she must preservesuch objection or risk waiving it. Waiver need not be express. It is enough that a party act in a way which is incompatible with the party’s argument that the forum lacks a basis for asserting personal jurisdiction over him/her. Defendant will waive his/her challengeto personal jurisdiction if he/she either fails toinclude it in a motion to dismiss made on other grounds, or fails to otherwise raise the matter by motion or pleading. Today, moststates, as well as the federal system, no longer require a defendant to make aspecial appearance for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction, separate and apart from any other grounds on the merits of the case.Defendant does not prejudice his/her motion to dismiss by joining with it other grounds for dismissal.

Blackmer v. United States:

Personal jurisdiction authority can be based on upon U.S. citizen ship (served outside the U.S.was a U.S. citizen)

Miliken v. Meyer:

Personal Jurisdiction may be based upon the defendant’s domicile within the forum (domicile in WYlived in CO).



In Rem jurisdiction:

State exercises jurisdiction over property based on the

property's presence

in the State.



quasi in rem jurisdiction:

State exercises jurisdiction over a person based on his/her ownership of

propertypresent

in the State. Jurisdiction limited to disposition of the property, or judgment in an amount no greater than thevalue of the property



To satisfy the Constitutional requirement of due process, personal jurisdiction requires the presence or consent (actualor implied) of the defendant or his property.Could Mitchell serve Neff by mail based on:

1) Neff's close relationship to Oregon,

2) his having engaged Mitchell to do legal work there,3) his ownership of property there,4) his having lived there when the debt was incurred,5) his use of Oregon law and courts to file his claim for his land, and6) his intent to return there to live?



1877 -> 1945

Under Pennoyer, a state could not exercise jurisdiction in an action in personam over an absent, non-consenting, non-residentdefendant. But if the defendant was “doing business” in the state, it was sometimes construed to have consented or be present in the state, and therefore subject to jurisdiction under Pennoyer.

B.Expanding the Bases of Personal Jurisdiction

Hess v. Pawloski



Personal Jurisdiction may be acquired by enactment of a nonresident motorist statute. The decision rests upon the state police power.



Massachusetts has a statute that states by driving in the state you appoint the registrar (now the secretary of state) as your agent for service process



Limited the proceedings to accidents in the state no hostile discrimination of non-residents but tends to put them to the samestandards of their residents.

A new theory of Jurisdiction

International Shoe Co. v. Washington



Implies that the

minimum contacts jurisdiction

is limited to claims arising out of or related to the defendants contacts withthe forum state (i.e. claims arising out of shoes sold in Washington).



In an action in personam

, a State MAY exercise Personal Jurisdiction over persons found outside its borders if they have such minimum (read substantial) contacts, ties or relations with the forum state that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Contacts cannot be casual or isolated.



The Supreme Court

extends jurisdiction in actions in personam to certain absent, non-consenting, non-resident defendants,as long as their contacts, ties and relations with the state are sufficiently substantial that the exercise of jurisdiction does notviolate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.



What criteria do we look for

Undue Burden -- substantial inconvenience to Defendant.

Whether Defendant had systematic & continuous activities in the state which gave rise to the claim.

Whether Defendant has exercised the benefits and protections of the state’s laws.

D.Specific Jurisdiction and State Long Arm Laws



Specific Jurisdiction

is properly asserted when the defendant’s activities

in the state

gave rise to the claim. (arise from or related to) A nexus exists between the defendant, the state, and the claim

The development of the Long Arm Laws: reach out of the state to call a nonresident defendant back into the stateto defend lawsuits. If they base personal jurisdiction on specific acts they require that the claim arises out of thoseacts.



Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.

In this case the court assumes that the valve is going to be sold in interstate commerce (other places than Ohio). The Graycourt concluded the that Ohio valve maker (which had done nothing in Illinois) had “committed a tortious act” in the state,since the explosion that caused P’s injury took place in Illinois. Expansive interpretation (criticized but not overruled)



“As a general proposition, if a corporation elects to sell its products for ultimate use in another State, it is not unjust to hold itanswerable there for any damage caused by defects in those products.”

McGee v. International life Insurance Co

.Although the defendant has only single or isolated contact with the forum sate, there is personal jurisdiction on a cause of action related to that forum activity (specific jurisdiction)



In the due process test they focus on California’s interest in litigating this claim and the convenience factors. Balance theinterests of the plaintiff, defendant, and the forum to determine if exercising jurisdiction is desirable.



Note that in note 2 on p. 90 the authors ask if the case should be seen as:1) illustrating a two-part test. First, are there enough contacts to satisfy the requirement of due process. Second, if yes, dothe interests of the plaintiff, defendant and forum, on balance, favor jurisdiction; or 2) illustrating a relaxed requirement of contacts when the interests of the forum state and the plaintiff strongly favor jurisdiction

Hanson v. Denckla



It is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum sate, thus involving the benefits and protections of its laws.



Choice of law: A claim with multistate contacts or a claim of federal or state, we have to decide what law to use. Separatefrom choice of jurisdiction.



Unilateral activity cannot satisfy the requirement of contact. . . .



"It is essential in every case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws". (p.92)



Minimum contacts may be based on systematic and continuous relationship, or on single substantial contact, but there must be a

purposeful relationship

with the forum state,

an intentional affiliation

2. Due Process and Long-Arm Statutes

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson



Supreme Court held that Oklahoma had no jurisdiction because foreseeablity is not enough. Quantity as well as quality of thecontacts, only one car it is too much of a stretch to get jurisdiction.



Forseeabilty question is not whether product will forseeably reach forum state, but whether Defendant’s contacts with theState are such that it should "

reasonably anticipate being haled into court there

" (foresee itself being sued there). (p. 98).