Jurisdiction over the Person

• The legal power of the court to render a

Jurisdiction over personal judgement against a party to an
action or proceeding
the Person • Jurisdiction in personam is the power
which a court has over the defendant’s
person and which is required before a curt
can enter an in personam judgement
• This is not a prerequisite over actions in
rem or quasi in rem
• Service of summons as
requirement of procedural due
process
• Jurisdictional issues under
conflicts of law cases as a question
of due process
International • Due process was satisfied by
Shoe Co. v. personal service on the salesman
and mailing the registered letter to
Washington, the corporate headquarters.

326 US 310 • Articulated the standard of

"minimum contacts" that gave rise to
(1945) much modern jurisprudence in the
area of personal jurisdiction.
• A forum is proper if establishing
jurisdiction over the defendant there
would not offend traditional notions
of fair play and substantial justice.
Jurisdiction Over the Res
 Res

A Thing or Object

Everything which may form an object of rights

• Object
• Subject matter
• Status
 • Refers to the court’s jurisdiction
over the thing, status or property
that is the subject matter of
litigation
• Even if a person is not within the
jurisdiction of a state, if he has
property in there, the court may
Jurisdiction exercise jurisdiction.

Over the Res • results from:

Seizure of the property under a

legal process

Statutory authority conferring

upon it the power to adjudicate
 • Plaintiff Lazaro Rayray seeks the
Lazaro B. annulment of his marriage to defendant
Chae Kyung Lee. Inasmuch as, the
Rayray v. Chae latter's whereabouts is unknown, and
she was formerly a resident of Pusan,
Kyung Lee, G.R. Korea, summons was served by
publication, as provided in the Rules of
No. L-18176, 26 Court.

October 1966 • In due course, thereafter, decision was

rendered dismissing plaintiff's
complaint, without costs, upon the
ground:
• (1) that the court could not nullify a
marriage contracted abroad;
• (2) that the facts proven do not warrant
the relief prayed for.
 Lazaro B.
Rayray v. Chae • This is an action in rem, for it concerns
the status of the parties herein, and
Kyung Lee, G.R. status affects or binds the whole word.
The res in the present case is the
No. L-18176, 26 relation between said parties, or their
marriage tie.
October 1966 • Jurisdiction over the same depends
upon the nationality or domicile of the
parties, not the place of celebration of
marriage, or the locus celebrationis.
 Neff, a California resident, owned land in
Oregon which was sold under a Sheriff’s
Pennoyer vs. deed to satisfy a money judgment against
him. The service of summons was made
Neff (1878) by publication. He is suing for recovery
of said land, alleging that the sale was
invalid for lack of Jurisdiction of the
Oregon court over him.
Pennoyer vs. • Substituted services by publication, or
Neff in any other authorized form, may be
sufficient to inform parties of the object
(1878) of the proceedings taken where
property is once brought under the
control of the court by seizure or some
equivalent act to any proceedings
authorized by law upon such seizure
for its condemnation and sale.
 • Central Hanover Bank consolidated
113 small trusts into a single
common fund, and it notified all
Mullane vs. interested parties of the fund and the
law that gave rise to its actions. It
Central Hanover used a local New York newspaper to
provide notice. Mullane, who was the
Bank & Trust Co. appointed guardian for all parties
with an interest in the trust's income,
(1950) objected on the grounds that this
type of notice was insufficient to
meet due process requirements. He
pointed out that out-of-state
beneficiaries and other interested
parties would not be likely to be
informed through publication of the
impact on their rights.
 • When notice is a person’s due, process
Mullane vs. which is a mere gesture is NOT due
process. The means employed must be
Central Hanover such as one desirous of actually
informing the absentee might reasonably
Bank & Trust Co. adopt to accomplish it. Within the limits
of practicability, notice must be such as is
(1950) reasonably calculated to reach interested
parties.

• Reasonable steps must be taken to

give potentially interested parties
notice of an action and an opportunity
to respond, and notice by publication
may be insufficient if the names and
addresses of non-resident parties are
available.
 • Plaintiff, Herbert G. Schmidt, a minor,
instituted this action by his mother and
Schmidt v. natural guardian, Matie T. Schmidt,
against the Driscoll Hotel, Inc., doing
Driscoll, 249 business as The Hook-Em-Cow Bar and
Cafe in South St. Paul, for damages
Minn 376 / 82 alleged to have resulted from
defendant's illegal sale of intoxicants to
NW 2d 365, 12 one John Sorrenson.
• Alleged that defendant illegally sold
April 1957 intoxicating liquors to Sorrenson to the
extent of causing him to become
intoxicated in defendant's
establishment in South St. Paul so that
shortly thereafter, as a proximate
result thereof, plaintiff sustained
injuries when an automobile driven by
Sorrenson, in which plaintiff was a
passenger, was caused to turn over
near Prescott, Wisconsin.
 • Here all parties involved were
residents of Minnesota. Defendant
Schmidt v. was licensed under its laws and
required to operate its establishment
Driscoll, 249 in compliance therewith. Its violation
of the Minnesota statutes occurred
Minn 376 / 82 here, and its wrongful conduct was
complete within Minnesota when, as
NW 2d 365, 12 a result thereof, Sorrenson became
intoxicated before leaving its
April 1957 establishment. The *381
consequential harm to plaintiff, a
Minnesota citizen, accordingly should
be compensated for under M.S.A.
340.95 which furnishes him a remedy
against defendant for its wrongful
acts. By this construction, no greater
burden is placed upon defendant
than was intended by § 340.95.
Travelers Health • The State Corporation Commission ordered
an Association, located in Nebraska and
Association v. engaged in the mail order health insurance
business, and its treasurer (appellants here)
to cease and desist from further offerings
Virginia, 339 US or sales of certificates of insurance to
Virginia residents until the Association had
643, 05 June complied with the Act by furnishing
information as to its financial condition,
1950; consenting to suit against it by service of
process on the Secretary of the
Commonwealth, and obtaining a permit.
• the Association for many years had been
issuing insurance certificates to residents of
Virginia, and it had approximately 800
members there. It had caused claims for
losses to be investigated, and the Virginia
courts were open to it for the enforcement
of obligations of certificate holders.
 Travelers
Health
Association v.
Virginia, 339 • Virginia's subjection of the
US 643, 05 Association to the jurisdiction of the
State Commission in a § 6 proceeding
June 1950 is consistent with fair play and
substantial justice, and is not
offensive to the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 • A resident of Virginia brought an action
in a federal district court in New York
Gulf Oil City against a Pennsylvania corporation
qualified to do business in both Virginia
Corporation v. and New York (where it had designated
agents to receive service of process) to
Gilbert, 330 US recover damages for destruction of
plaintiff's public warehouse and its
501, 10 March contents in Virginia by fire resulting
from defendant's negligence.
1947 • The court had jurisdiction (based solely
on diversity of citizenship), and the
venue was correct, but all events in
litigation had taken place in Virginia,
most of the witnesses resided there,
and both state and federal courts in
Virginia were available to plaintiff and
were able to obtain jurisdiction of
defendant.
Jurisdiction over the
Subject Matter
Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

• Conferred by Law
• Determined by the allegations in the complaint and character of the relief sought
• Cannot be conferred by the parties upon the Court
Act of State Doctrine

• A principle in English and United States law which states that

every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other
sovereign state, and the courts will not sit in judgment of another government's
acts or act of any sovereign national done within its own territory.
• the rationales for the doctrine include respect for other nations' sovereignty and
protection of the U.S. President's prerogative in foreign affairs, both of which may
be frustrated by a decision issuing from U.S. courts.
Act of State Doctrine

• Underhill vs Hernendez
• Started the Doctrine
• Underhill lived and ran a waterworks system for the city, Ciudad Bolívar. Underhill,
an American citizen, repeatedly applied to Hernández for an exit passport, but his
requests were refused, and he was forced to stay in Ciudad Bolívar and run the
waterworks.
• Sued Hernandez in a NY court
• Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other
sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of
the government of another, done within its own territory.
 In Re: Philippine
National Bank, • The Philippine National Bank petitions this court for
Philippine National
Bank v. United a writ of mandamus to prevent the district court
States District Court from pursuing contempt and discovery proceedings
for the District of against the Bank because of the Bank's transfer of
Hawaii, No. 04- funds to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to
71843 / 397 F.3d
768, 04 February a judgment of the Philippine Supreme Court.
2005;
• a class of plaintiffs who obtained a large judgment
in the federal district court in Hawaii against the
Marcos estate for human rights violations by the
Marcos regime. The judgment included an
injunction restraining the estate and its agents or
aiders and abettors from transferring any of the
estate's assets
 • The class plaintiffs in the district court argue that
In Re: Philippine the act of state doctrine is directed at the executive
National Bank, and legislative branches of foreign governments,
Philippine National
Bank v. United and does not apply to judicial decisions. Although
States District Court the act of state doctrine is normally inapplicable to
for the District of court judgments arising from private litigation,
Hawaii, No. 04- there is no inflexible rule preventing a judgment
71843 / 397 F.3d
768, 04 February sought by a foreign government from qualifying as
2005; an act of state.
• There is no question that the judgment of the
Philippine Supreme Court gave effect to the public
interest of the Philippine government. The
forfeiture action was not a mere dispute between
private parties; it was an action initiated by the
Philippine government pursuant to its "statutory
mandate to recover property allegedly stolen from
the treasury."
 Republic of
the • A class action by and for human rights victims (Pimentel class) of
Ferdinand Marcos, while he was President of the Republic of the
Philippines (Republic), led to a nearly $2 billion judgment in a
Philippines, et United States District Court.

al v. Pimentel • The Pimentel class then sought to attach the assets of Arelma, S. A.
(Arelma), a company incorporated by Marcos, held by a New York
broker (Merrill Lynch).
et al., No. 06- • The Republic and a Philippine commission (Commission) established

1204, 12
to recover property wrongfully taken by Marcos are also attempting
to recover this and other Marcos property.

June 2008 • The Philippine National Banc (PNB) holds some of the disputed
assets in escrow, awaiting the outcome of pending litigation in the
Sandiganbayan, a Philippine court determining whether Marcos’
property should be forfeited to the Republic.
• Merrill Lynch filed this interpleader action against the defendants,
the Republic, the Commission, Arelma, PNB (all petitioners here),
and the Pimentel class (respondents here).
• The Republic and the Commission asserted sovereign immunity
under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, and moved to
dismiss
 Republic of
the
• Giving full effect to sovereign immunity
Philippines, et promotes the comity and dignity interests that
al v. Pimentel contributed to the development of the
immunity doctrine.
et al., No. 06- • The entities’ claims arise from historically and
1204, 12 politically significant events for the Republic
and its people, and the entities have a unique
June 2008 interest in resolving matters related to Arelma’s
assets.
• A foreign state has a comity interest in using its
courts for a dispute if it has a right to do so. Its
dignity is not enhanced if other nations bypass
its courts without right or good cause.
 • Two gunmen acting on orders of Admiral Wong Hsi-ling (Wong),
Helen Liu v. Director of the Defense Intelligence Bureau (DIB) of the
Republic of China (ROC), shot and killed Henry Liu in Daly City,
The Republic of California.
China, No. 87- • Helen Liu (Liu), his widow, appeals the district court's dismissal
of her complaint for damages against the ROC.
2976 / 892 • Liu asserted claims against the ROC and various individuals for
F.2d 1419, 29 wrongful death under California law, violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§
December 1961-1964, and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986 of the
Civil Rights Acts.
1989 • The district court's concern with the act of state doctrine, it
ordered Liu to file a motion for partial summary judgment relying
solely on the findings of the ROC tribunals in criminal cases
arising out of the murder.
• The district court held that the ROC could not be held
vicariously liable under California law because Wong's act of
ordering Henry Liu's assassination was outside the scope of his
employment, and that the act of state doctrine precluded Liu
from piercing the findings of the ROC tribunals
 Helen Liu v.
The Republic of • The act of state doctrine is not a jurisdictional limit on
China, No. 87- courts, but rather is "a prudential doctrine designed to
2976 / 892 avoid judicial action in sensitive areas".
• The doctrine has "constitutional underpinnings" related
F.2d 1419, 29 to separation of powers concerns and judicial
December recognition of "the primary role of the President and
Congress in [the] resolution of political conflict and the
1989 adoption of foreign policy.
• The doctrine, today, is a flexible one designed to
prevent judicial pronouncements on the legality of the
acts of foreign states which could embarrass the
Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.
 Helen Liu v.
The Republic of
China, No. 87-
2976 / 892
F.2d 1419, 29 • the act of state doctrine does not automatically bar a
December suit against a foreign nation when it is alleged that the
nation ordered the assassination of an American
1989 citizen within the United States.
 • The doctrine of forum non conveniens (an
inconvenient forum) means a court that has accepted
a foreign-related case believes that a court in another
forum non conveniens jurisdiction is more convenient to adjudicate the case,
and thus waives its jurisdiction over the case.
 Gulf Oil • A federal district court has power to dismiss an
action at law pursuant to the doctrine of forum non
Corporation conveniens -- at least where its jurisdiction is based
on diversity of citizenship and the state courts have
v. Gilbert, such power.

330 US • Important considerations in the application of the

doctrine of forum non conveniens, from the
501, 10 standpoint of litigants, are
• relative ease of access to sources of proof,
March 1947 • availability of compulsory process for attendance of
unwilling witnesses,
• cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses,
• possibility of view of the premises if that be
appropriate, and
• all other practical problems that make trial of a case
easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.
 Gulf Oil
Corporation
v. Gilbert, • Considerations of public interest in applying the
doctrine include:
330 US • Undesirability of piling up litigation in congested
centers,
501, 10 • the burden of jury duty on people of a community
March 1947 having no relation to the litigation,
• the local interest in having localized controversies
decided at home,
• the unnecessary injection of problems in conflict of
laws.
Hassan El-Fadl • El–Fadl is a Lebanese national who has lived in
v. Central Jordan since 1982. In his complaint, he alleges that
he was employed by PIBC, a subsidiary in the District
Bank of of Columbia of Petra Bank, a privately owned bank in
Jordan, et. al., Jordan. From 1982 to 1989 he was employed by
PIBC in Jordan as manager of a regional office for
No. 94-7212, 6 Middle Eastern clients. He had signed a contract
February 1996 under which he “would be permanently employed for
life as a senior manager of Petra International Banking
Corporation.” The defendants maintain that El–Fadl
was employed by Petra Bank (not PIBC) as a senior
manager with responsibility for currency and precious
metals trading.
 • In August 1989, the Central Bank of Jordan announced that it
had uncovered widespread financial improprieties at Petra Bank
and placed Petra Bank in receivership.
Hassan El-Fadl • Since then, Petra Bank has been run by a Liquidation Committee
v. Central appointed by the Jordanian government. The Deputy Governor
of the Central Bank, Michel Marto, was appointed to administer
Bank of the liquidation of PIBC, and Marto came to the District of
Columbia for that purpose.
Jordan, et. al., • On September 14, 1989, Marto sent El–Fadl a letter in which
No. 94-7212, 6 PIBC terminated El–Fadl's employment as senior manager of
the PIBC office in Amman. As part of the Jordanian
February 1996 authorities' investigation of the Petra Bank scandal, El–Fadl was
arrested on October 29, 1989.
• El–Fadl alleges that the military police detained him for five
days and tortured him, until he was released on bail. El–Fadl
was prosecuted first in the Military Courts under Martial Law
and then in the State Security Court, where he was “declared
innocent” on April 9, 1992, which finding was affirmed by the
Prime Minister on August 2, 1992. While the charges were
pending, El–Fadl alleges that he was forbidden to leave Jordan.
On July 30, 1993, El–Fadl filed suit in the District of Columbia.
 • The district court dismissed El–Fadl's claims against all
Hassan El-Fadl defendants on the ground of forum non conveniens. In light of
the affirmance of the dismissal of the claims against the
v. Central sovereign defendants on other grounds, El–Fadl's objections to
the dismissal on forum non conveniens relate to the remaining
Bank of defendants, Petra Bank and PIBC.

Jordan, et. al., • In deciding a forum non conveniens motion, the district court
must first establish that there is an adequate alternative forum:
No. 94-7212, 6 • At the outset of any forum non conveniens inquiry, the court
February 1996 must determine whether there exists an alternative forum.
Ordinarily, this requirement will be satisfied when the defendant
is “amenable to process” in the other jurisdiction. In rare
circumstances, however, where the remedy offered by the other
forum is clearly unsatisfactory, the other forum may not be an
adequate alternative, and the initial requirement may not be
satisfied. Thus, for example, dismissal would not be
appropriate where the alternative forum does not permit
litigation of the subject matter of the dispute.
 • If a non-resident has a substantial and continuing
relationship with a forum state, it may have personal
Burger King jurisdiction over the non-resident if fair notice is provided
that the non-resident may be subject to suit there and the
Corp. v. process is otherwise fair.

Rudzewicz, • The standard to apply in these situations is whether the non-

resident purposefully availed himself of the benefits and
No. 83-2097 / privileges of transacting business within the forum state.
• This is comprised of a minimum contacts inquiry as well as
471 US 462, an evaluation of whether asserting jurisdiction meets notions
of fundamental fairness and substantial justice.
20 May 1985 • The existence of the contract itself is not enough to find
jurisdiction, the defendants had regular and long-lasting
interactions with the plaintiff within the forum state during
the negotiations over the contract and the ensuing business
relationship.
• The defendants' actions caused foreseeable harm to the
plaintiff, a resident of the forum state, and there was no
evidence that the defendants were under duress or lacked
experience in business matters.
Thank you for your
attention!