Civil Procedure Note Summary
Fall 2011: Peterson
Chapter 2: Personal Jurisdiction
A. Introduction & Integration
a. Before you sue, you must determine which court has the authority to decide a case
b. Personal jurisdiction- dictates the circumstances under which a court has authority to make decisions binding on the two parties
c. Injunctive relief- plaintiff gets a judgment in which the defendants are ordered by the court to do or refrain from doing something
d. Can attach real estate or other property to make a judgment binding and enforceable
B. Constitutional Limits on Personal Jurisdiction
1. The Fountainhead
a. Types of Personal Jurisdiction
i. In personam- based on person in the state, against a person
1. Jurisdiction based on the power of the court over the individual
2. Defendant must be domiciled in forum state or receive personal service of process when he’s in forum state.
3. Territorial service- came from England from the courts wanting to have the power to enforce their judgments
ii. In rem- based on presence of property in forum state against the whole world
1. Jurisdiction based on the court’s power over property in a case in which the claim arises out of that property (trespass, damage to real property)
iii. Quasi in rem- based on existence of property in state seized in order to effect personal jurisdiction, but property has nothing to do with the case
1. Jurisdiction based on the court’s power over the property based on the case where the property is not involved, but
2. Property is the mechanism by which the court gains the power to render a judgment against an individual
3. Why isn’t it a rule that they can seize the property at some point during the litigation? Why at the beginning?
a. Need to make sure at the beginning of the case that the jurisdiction is guaranteed and that the judgment will be enforceable
b. Court can’t adjudicate it if there’s no PJ at beginning
c. Presence of property gives them jurisdiction- problem is that D can sell the property during the trial, and then would lose the jurisdiction, would be a waste of time and money if there was a loophole that allows them to lose jurisdiction mid-trial: courts need to be efficient
b. Just because a court has jurisdiction over a case doesn’t mean that it can apply their law to the case and vice versa
c. Federal Personal Jurisdiction- Rule 4(k)
a. The District Court will use the same laws as the state statute in which the District Court sits
d. Statutory limits on Personal Jurisdiction
a. New York Rule: A tort is deemed to have been committed within the state only if the tortious act or omission itself, and not merely the injury resulting therefrom, occurred in the state (Feathers)
b. Illinois Rule: A tort resulting in damage or injury within the state is deemed to have occurred inside the state regardless of where the tortious act or omission took place (Gray vs. Am. Radiator)
c.
e. Full Faith and Credit
i. Federal common law- essential for judgment to be valid, the court has to have proper power over the individual (English & American tradition), and is required by the due process clause of the constitution
ii. Reasons: To be able to satisfy 14th amendment, constitution says so, to maintain personal liberty, “full faith and credit” clause of constitution
4. Other states enforce judgments only if they’re valid (adequate personal jurisdiction) If no PJ, then the federal court is required to not give affect to the earlier judgment
5. States will give full faith and credit to other states’ laws (marriage licenses)
6. In order to enforce Mitchell v Neff in Neff v. Pennoyer, there must have been personal jurisdiction in Mitchell v. Neff.
f. Notes on Pennoyer v. Neff
i. Res judicata- already been settled
iii. So need to file a collateral attack in another lawsuit
iv. Can only argue PJ in collateral attack if there was a default in the first case- if it was litigated, you already had the chance to argue personal jurisdiction
g. How to link territorial service to Due Process
i. Harm doesn’t have to be done in the forum state, just served in forum state
1. Procedural due process- someone needs to be able to defend themselves in the forum in person
ii. Justice Field’s rule- if you’re served in California, have to appear, even if north to south California
1. It’s very over inclusive and under-inclusive
2. Rough proxy for convenience and ability to defend
3. Substantive due process standard: theory of social contract
4. State gives you benefits- social contract is that while you’re in the forum state, you get protection, but have to appear in court in return
5. So if you don’t have social contract, you don’t owe any responsibilities
6. Lockean- consent of the governed (quid pro quo with forum state)
7. Deals with limits of substantive due process- limits of absolute power of courts
PENNOYER v. NEFF (guy took his land without his knowing, sued new resident)
Issue: Can a state court exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident who has not been personally served while within the state and whose property within the state was not attached before the onset of litigation?
Rule: No. A court may enter a judgment against a non-resident only if the party 1) is personally served with process while within the state, or 2) has property within the state, and that property is attached before litigation begins.
§ Court doesn’t have jurisdiction unless the D appears, is found within the state, is a resident, or has property there, and in that case, only has jurisdiction when that property is attached to the case in some way.
o In the case, property wasn’t attached to the case, wasn’t under the jurisdiction of the court, only involved by the enforcement of a personal judgment
§ In order for there to be quasi-in-rem jurisdiction, plaintiff has to attach the property at the time that the case arises (guarantees that the court has PJ)
Traditional Bases of Due Process
a. Must have one of four traditional bases to get personal jurisdiction
b. 1) Territorial Service- service on defendant while D was in forum state, good for service regardless of where issue arose
c. 2) Property Within Forum State (rule changes after Shaffer v. Heitner)
a. Pennoyer rule: property must be seized at beginning of legislation in order to confirm court’s jurisdiction, but can also do in personam jurisdiction if D is there
b. Normally jurisdiction limited by value of property in forum state and the value that you’re being sued for
d. 3) Domicile
a. Dependent on the type of entity that you’re suing
b. A natural person (residence, plus an intent to stay indefinitely- objective manifestations of what that subjective intent is {banks, churches, clubs})
c. A corporation (where they are registered- state that provides the law of their corporation- DE is popular)
d. Can only have one domicile- change when leave parents’ home
e. 4) Consent
a. 14th amendment is an individual right not to be deprived of property without due process of law (right belongs to defendant, and D can waive this individual right)
b. Can waive before proceeding begins (via contract specifying where case would be heard) or wave it in a case just by showing up at court
c. Can waive inadvertently by not asserting it properly (Rule 12(b, h, g))
2. Interim Developments
a. Increasing role of corporations in society tested boundaries of in personam jurisdiction
i. Could only be sued in personam while within boundaries of state
ii. OR a state could require a person to designate an agent for service if they want to do business in that state (Privileges and Immunities Clause)
iii. State power was limited by the Commerce Clause
b. Increase in travel and mobility made service more difficult, and forced victims to travel to the defendant’s state for any recourse
i. Could attach some “res” like a debt (property) to the case, and then defendant was subject to a quasi in rem type 2 suit (court has jurisdiction wherever his debtors were located) OR person is subject to in personam jurisdiction at their domicile, whether or not they are physically served there (like in Harris v Balk)
HESS v. PAWLOSKI (PA resident hit plaintiff in MA, then drove home)
Issue: Did the Massachusetts enactment appointing an agent for service for everyone who drives on Mass. highways violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment? (Issue of implied consent)
Rule: No. The state has the power to exclude a nonresident until the formal appointment is made, and the use of the highway can therefore be seen as the appointment of the registrar as an agent of process.
§ This decision came twenty years before Int’l Shoe and used implied consent rather than minimum contacts to establish jurisdiction over D. Should have been specific jurisdiction
§ By choosing to drive in a state, a non-resident demonstrates that the state is not so inaccessible or remote that it would be unfair to subject him to suit in that state.
§ The Massachusetts statute sought to put out-of-state drivers on the same level as resident drivers and did not discriminate against them.
c. Why couldn’t Hess sue in Pennsylvania?
i. Procedural Due Process Perspective
a. Witnesses and plaintiff and accident all happened in Mass.
b. State has an interest in regulating roads, and protecting its citizens
c. But it might be inconvenient for the defendant
ii. Substantive Due Process Perspective
a. Does Hess have a connection with the state? He’s driven there; claim arises out of that connection- defendant got a benefit from being in Mass.
b. What is relationship with forum state? Defendant is voluntarily creating a social harm in the forum state by actions they know will impact forum state
d. “Interlocutory Appeal”
i. Final judgment says that you can’t appeal any part of a case until a final judgment is rendered by the court
3. The Modern Era
a. Jurisdiction and Corporations
i. Dealing with jurisdiction over corporations, courts moved away from terms from Pennoyer like “presence” and “consent,” focused on whether or not they were doing business in the state
a. Courts had juris. if the company was doing business, none if they weren’t
ii. Corporations are fictional entities- can you supply territorial service?
a. Corp’s are present wherever they “do business,” how to decide that?
b. Learned Hand- needs some connection with forum state- principle is that you have “minimal connections” so that the state can exercise its power over you- get rid of formal rule
INT’L SHOE v. WASHINGTON (company HQ’d in DE sued in Wash.)
Issue: Can a Delaware company be responsible for paying state unemployment taxes to the State of Washington based on their “doing business” there?
Rule: Yes. In order to subject a person to in personam judgment, if he’s not present within the territory of the forum, he needs to have “minimum contacts” with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
§ Their activities were continuous and systematic, resulted in a large volume of interstate commerce, appellant received benefits and protection of the laws of the state to enforce the contracts made and therefore have an obligation to the sate
§ Notice to the contacts in the forum state gives “reasonable assurance” that the notice will be actual, and mailing of notice to Missouri was reasonable
§ Appellant has no office in Washington, no contracts for sales/purchases there, and they had 11-13 salesmen there earning $31k in commissions
§ Concurring: Blackwell: State statutes were not intended to prevent a company from following its obligations just because it is headquartered elsewhere
b. Need to Establish Jurisdictional Statute AND Due Process
i. Satisfies WA jurisdictional statute because served in state on an employee of the company and notice sent to HQ in Missouri
ii. Satisfies Due Process because has “minimum contacts” with a state and have systematic and continuous activities with that state & doesn’t offend FP&SJ
iii. State has interest, person got benefit from presence, ok to expect a quid pro quo
c. How to Decide if General or Specific:
Claim Arises out of Contact / Claim Doesn’t Arise out of ContactContinuous & Systematic / Jurisdiction OK (Int’l Shoe) / General Jurisdiction
Isolated & Sporadic / Specific Jurisdiction / No Jurisdiction
d. Test:
i. Do the defendant’s activities constitute “minimum contacts” and is the jurisdiction consistent with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”?
e. Reasoning
i. Legal Formalism: relies on classifications and proper labeling, deduces conclusions from broad principles
ii. Legal Realism: thinks that laws must be understood in functional terms as a means to accomplish social ends
f. Note on McGee, Hanson, and Gray
i. McGee: Judgment was binding because it was based on a contract which had substantial connection with the state in which the judgment was given
a. State had an interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents
b. Practicality of plaintiffs affording to bring suit in another forum
c. Quality and nature of a single act- possibility of being taken to court is directly proportional to what
ii. Hanson: when trust was created, no connection with state that later became her residence
a. There must be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, invoking the benefits and protections of its laws
iii. Gray: the company had benefited from the protection which the Illinois law had given the marketing of hot water heaters, so the Ohio company was bound in Illinois
a. The use of his product in the ordinary course of commerce, and (even though indirect) protection of his product by the state gives Illinois personal jurisdiction
b. Ease in transportation and communication has reduced the inconvenience formerly encountered in defending lawsuits brought in other states