CivPro Class Notes August 28, 2013 Personal Jurisdiction In personam jurisdiction: wa s to esta!

ta!lis"# satis$ due process presence % service w"ile present consent &non'resident( min contacts % reasona!leness $or speci$ic jurisdiction &international s"oe( non resident ) "as min contacts wit" t"e $orum and engaged wit" t"e $orum in t"e wa t"at allows t"e $orum jurisdiction &long'arm( Note t"at t"e consent and t"e *C % + t"eories will reac" non'resident ),s onl need to tal- a!ut t"is w"en we,re tal-ing a!out speci$ic jurisdiction.general jurisdiction somet"ing else entirel )evelopment o$ long arm statues states responded to t"e e/pansion o$ allowa!le personal jurisdiction a$ter s"oe ! passing long arm statues to serve two $unctions: 1( to declare under w"at circumstances t"e state was willing to assert personal jurisdiction over non resident de$endants 2( to provide $or t"e service o$ process on non'resident de$endants )i$$erent t pes o$ long arm statues Very broad't"e power over non resident ),s e/tends to t"e limits o$ t"e Constitution &as long as t"e assertion does not violate due process( &e/0 Cali$ornia( 1 Cali$ornia not giving ) an guidance on w"at would constitute jurisdiction Mid level.t"e statue tries to descri!e in $airl !road categories t"e t pe o$ conduct t"at will justi$ t"e assertion o$ jurisdiction &e/0 23, N4( Laundry list.narrowl tailored statues t"at attempt to descri!e e/actl w"ic" acts# omissions will allow $or jurisdiction &e/0 NC( 1 pro!lem conceptuall 5 i$ its not in t"ere, ! its terms, ou,re not reac"ed 1 note 2 p1030 6ra v0 American +adiator part t"at matters is it,s interpretation of Illinois long-arm statue long arm 1 statutor argument constitutional argument statues are alwa s su!ordinate to t"e constitution I77897: does t"e long arm reac" t"e ) ! its terms: I$ so, does t"e reac" to ) under t"ese $acts violate t"e due process rig"ts o$ ): P: 6ra ): American +adiator, 2itan ;alve Note t"at American +adiator did not contest jurisdiction !ut t"at 2itan ;alve did0 <" : A+ cross complaint to 2itan ;alve &cross complaint: is alwa s !roug"t against one ) against anot"er )( &co'part (

A+ does not c"allenge personal jurisdiction !ecause t"e sold t"e radiator into Illinois 5 strong argument t"at t"e would "ave jurisdiction 5 wanted to argue t"at it was t"e valve t"at was t"e pro!lem not t"e radiator 2; ma-e 2 arguments: statutory argument/ construction of the long arm does the long arm reach me? 7tatue re=uires ) to commit >a tortious act wit"in t"e state? 2; manu$actured values in o"io, sells t"em to A+ &also outside $orum( w"ic" means t"at an negligence in manu$acture too- place outside Illinois Illinois 70 Ct0 sa s es, w" : Conse=uences occurs in Illinois &cites to t"e Con$licts +estatement( stream of commerce argument plain meaning rule: statutor interpretation &tortious v tort: di$$erent meanings( want to ignore t"e words !ecause it doesn@t "elp t"em 5 go to purpose and e$$ect to claim jurisdiction 7econd issue in Gray: does application o$ t"e long arm under t"ese $acts violate t"e due process rig"ts o$ ): Illinois 70 Ct sa s no, w" : P 101 &$irst $ull para( >000isolated incident000record does not disclose00? court is just ma-ing up $acts wording is narrow !ut we want to -eep t"em so we,re going to stretc" t"em P 101 &last $ull para( >000as a general proposition000? 2; are not intended $or t"e ultimate use !ut to !e put into radiator don,t -now i$ rule $its 2; as muc" as it does A+ does it matter: no0 not "ig"est court Aow to esta!lis" min contacts: McGee v. International Life P: *c6ee ): International Bi$e &23( suing 5was going to in"erent on li$e insurance polic 5 "er son 5 "e dies and t"e don,t pa P sues 5 specialiCed CA long arm wins t"e case# ) does "ave to pa # to get paid "ad to go to 2e/as ''"ave to use $ull $ait" and credit &i$ judgment is valid i$ t"e "ave jurisdiction &personal and su!ject matter(( 23 won,t en$orce !ecause claims t"e don@t "ave personal conduct o$ ) wit" Cali$ornia &$orum state(: !ecause w"en Dran-,s polic in Cali$ornia Dran-,s mailing premiums 5reall t"e insurance contract can one !e enoug": 7upreme Court rules: trend towards jurisdiction !een more e/pansionar 1 Aess &one tort can !e enoug"( 5 !ut Aess was a consent case *c6ee case.can one !e enoug": &not li-e s"oe( : it,s su$$icient0 Contract "ad su!stantial connection state o$ Cali$ornia e$$ective means o$ redress 5 state "as an interest to pursue t"is 5 P would !e at a disadvantage i$ t"e couldn,t pursue cases li-e t"is witnesses in Cali$ornia &li$e insurance claimed "e committed suicide and t"ere$ore s"ouldn,t "ave to pa ( w"ere to get !est source o$ proo$# witnesses

w" does t"e states interest matter: <" does t"e plainti$$s interest matter: 2"ese issues relate not to t"e w"et"er t"e ) "as min contacts wit" t"e $orum !ut w"et"er t"e assertion o$ t"e jurisdiction is reasona!le Aanson v0 )enc-la dispute was !etween !ranc"es o$ a $amil over an estate.part o$ t"e estate was in t"e will o$ )ora )onner, t"e determiner was in a trust )onner "ad esta!lis"ed wit" <ilmington 2rust co0 )onner esta!lis" trust in )elaware and later relocated to $lorida w"ere s"e died leaving "er will and a $inal appointment under t"e trust )ora "ad 3 daug"ters 5 going to leave E to 2 daug"ter in will 5 trust $or t"e grand c"ildren o$ 1 daug"ter 2 daug"ters tr ing to accuse mot"er o$ !eing craC to undo will t"e !ring lawsuit in $lorida sa ing t"at t"e trust was invalid !ecause mom was craC 1 so t"at t"e trust would $all into t"e will and t"e get all t"e mone personal jurisdiction issue o$ "er in $lorida w"en t"e 2 sisters !ring t"e law suit t"e argue t"e trust appointment was invalid.t"e grand'daug"ters sa t"ere is a pro!lem wit" t"eir lawsuit 1 t"e don,t "ave in t"is case t"e !an-0 2rust law sa s t"at until t"e trust is dispersed t"e part t"at "olds t"e trust is t"e !an t"e !an- "as to !e a part to t"e case &indispensa!le part ( Dlorida court didn,t agree 1 t"e le$t t"e !an- out went a"ead on t"e lawsuit 1 2 daug"ters win0 6rand'daug"ters $ile an action in )elaware &race judicata# parallel litigation( delaware goes t"e ot"er wa 5 i$ $lorida got t"is wrong on personal jurisdiction o$ t"e !an-, )elaware doesn,t "ave to agree wit" it0 7upreme court too- t"e cases toget"er 1 issue is w"o is rig"t: Dlorida: don,t "ave to "ave jurisdiction over t"e !an )elaware: do "ave to "ave jurisdiction over t"e !an t"e side wit" )elaware $lorida wrong !ecause ou do need t"e !an-0 FFFwas a !an-, as a proper part o$ t"is case, w"at is t"e connection to t"e !an- to $lorida: ) "as to "ave *in contacts wit" t"e $orum so assertion o$ jurisdiction is not unreasona!le no min contacts !ecause AGB)IN6: &10H0!ottom( >t"e unilateral activit 000cannot satis$ t"e re=uirement o$ contact wit" $orum state? w"at matters is w"at t"e !an- does not w"at ever one else does t"e didnt see a lin- in $lorida >it is essential in eac" case000t"ere must !e some act ! w"ic" t"e000? purpose$ull avails : t"e ) "as to purpose$ull avail purpose$ull put oursel$ into somet"ing not"ing a!out w"at t"e !an- did "ere s"ows an purpose to get involved wit" $lorida only matters the the D purposefully avails: if you cant sho that you haven!t established min contact

<orld <ide ;ol-swagen v0 <oodson P: ro!inson $amil &mem!ers injured ! e/ploding car w"ile driving $rom N4 to AriConaI accident ta-es place in G-la"oma( 5 sued t"e w"ole c"ain !#c don,t reall -now w"ere t"e causation moment is ): audi &german corp(, vol-swagen 87 &national distri!utor(, <orld <ide &distri!utor in N4 conn NJ( and seawa &retailer o$ audi car $rom N4( Audi and ;ol-swagen 87 do not contest personal jurisdiction: !ecause t"e are distri!uting nationall ever w"ere0 Not claiming t"at t"e don@t audi and ;<#87 do $und t"e litigation o$ t"e ot"er two de$endants0 <" : <orld<ide % 7eawa !ot" in N4 5 -noc-ed out on personal jurisdiction issue tr ing to get out o$ state court 1 sue german &audi( and wol-s &del( 1 move it to t"e $ederal court tr ing to -noc- out t"e two N4 parties process in t"e case ) &<< K 7( argue over personal jurisdiction 5 t"e reac" o$ t"e o-la long arm !ut t"e trial court $inds jurisdiction t"e ) t"en see- a writ o$ pro"i!ition &an G-la0 Procedure( t"e 70 Ct o$ G-la"oma a$$irms t"e assertion o$ personal jurisdiction under t"e states long arm0 )oes t"e long arm reac" ! its terms given t"e $acts o$ t"is case one car passing t"roug" t"e state: <"at test does 7C2 appl : 2"e product ! its nature is mo!ile0 Product got itsel$ to $orum0 Could "ave $oreseen t"at t"at could "ave "appened0 )oes t"e de$endant "ave min contacts in t"e $orum: no0 no contacts case0 Cant s"ow an contacts ! t"e de$endant0 Idea o$ $oreseea!ilit $oreseea!ilit 1 -nowledge 1 intent $oreseea!ilit can never !e t"e !asis $or jurisdiction -nowledge can !e t"e !asis intent can !e t"e !asis

FFFFFFFFFFFFA<: 120'1L0 $or wednesda