Outline - Civil Procedure - II - Personal Jurisdiction

Civil Procedure (2005-2006)

II. PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction over the person (body and all property); court can only seize defendant’s property over which the court has jurisdiction, but in personam judgment is valid in jurisdiction where the property is located, and enforceable through Full Faith and Credit Clause.

1. Waiver
   1. Procedural
      1. Direct attack - Raise lack of jurisdiction at the outset to prevent court from proceeding to judgment.
         1. Federal - Rule 12(b) (denial of motion can appealed after trial with certification)
         2. California - Motion to quash (immediate appeal available through writ of mandamus)
      2. Collateral attack - Raise lack of jurisdiction after case is tried on merits; risky because no way to re-try merits.
   2. Contractual - forum selection
      1. Burger King - Defendant who negotiated contract with choice of law clause has purposefully availed himself of the forum’s laws.
      2. Carnival Cruise - Forum selection clause on cruise ticket enforceable.
      3. Szukhent - Prompt acceptance and transmittal of summons to purchaser, pursuant to contract, sufficient to validate agency in stranger.
   3. If PJ not waived, apply Rule 4(k) for federal court, long-arm statute for state court.
2. Rule 4(k) - Territorial Limits (federal court only)
   1. Defendants over which PJ can be established:
      1. Those subject to state court jurisdiction
      2. Third parties within 100 miles of court (bulge rule)
      3. Those under federal interpleader
      4. By federal statute
   2. Federal question cases have PJ over:
      1. Those not subject to PJ in any state court (aliens)
      2. Those with minimum contacts with entire US
   3. Analysis
      1. If (1)(B), (C), (D), or (2), apply constitutional analysis
      2. If (1)(A), apply statutory analysis
   4. Aerogroup v. Marlboro - Plaintiff claimed that under Rule 4(k), defendant not subject to jurisdiction of any one state but with contact with entire US subject to federal jurisdiction; court ruled minimum contacts too weak.
3. Long-Arm Statute
   1. McGee - PJ exists over insurance company with no other contact with state besides beneficiary due to knowledge.
   2. Gray - PJ exists over seller of defective valves to maker of heaters due to stream of commerce.
   3. Asahi - California’s long-arm statute is so expansive, may skip to constitutional analysis.
4. Constitution
   1. General PJ
      1. Service - If defendant not served in forum, apply nature of contacts test. [Burnham – Defendant tagged out of state while visiting children and ex-wife]
      2. Nature of contacts - If contacts with forum are substantial or systematic and continuous, and purposeful, apply reasonableness test; otherwise, apply specific PJ test.
         1. International Shoe - Employment of salesmen in forum state sufficient for minimum contacts.
         2. Aerogroup v. Marlboro - Foreign manufacturer distributing through US group has minimum contacts with entire US.
         3. Kulko - Father who let child move to California with ex-wife had no purposeful availment.
   2. Specific PJ - If cause of action arises from contacts with forum, apply purposeful contacts test.
      1. In rem - Case arises from property; jurisdiction over property to determine ownership and control rights.
      2. Quasi in rem - Case unrelated to property; jurisdiction only to determine right to property; outdated legal concept.
         1. Harris v. Balk - Harris owed Balk who owed Epstein. Harris paid Epstein. Debt is intangible property. Epstein arrested Harris’ debt to Balk when Harris paid Epstein.
         2. Shaffer - Even if court attaches stock of foreign defendant, no PJ over defendant.
      3. Relatedness - “But for” or “proximate cause” test
         1. Nowak v. Tak How - Defendant’s solicitation of forum state customers increased likelihood one would respond favorably.
         2. Carnival Cruise - Customer would not have been hurt but for Carnival Cruise doing business in forum state.
         3. Cornelison v. Chaney - Accident with forum state resident would not have occurred but for defendant being en route to forum state.
   3. Purposeful contacts - If minimum contacts, apply reasonableness test.
   4. Reasonableness
      1. Burden on defendant
      2. Forum State’s interest
      3. Plaintiff’s interest in convenience and effective relief
      4. Interstate interest in efficiency
      5. Interstate interest in substantive social policies

   Stream of commerce alone and reasonableness alone aren’t enough; they must both exist.

5. Another View [Wikipedia]
   1. Presence
      1. Territorial formalism (outdated) - Pennoyer
      2. Minimum contacts sufficient - International Shoe
      3. Modern interpretation - Burnham
         1. Scalia - Tradition upholds PJ over tagged defendant
         2. Brennan - Purpose availment upholds PJ over defendant tagged out-of-state
   2. Commercial Activities
      1. Placing products in “stream of commerce” helps establish minimum contacts [Gray]
      2. No PJ where extent of stream of commerce unforeseeable [World-Wide Volkswagen]
      3. Mere awareness of “stream of commerce” not enough without more [Asahi]
   3. Internet Activities
      1. Passive sites not subject to PJ unless a source of slander or defamation aimed at forum.
      2. Interactive sites may be subject to PJ depending on amount of contacts established as result of presence.
      3. Commercial sites subject to PJ.
   4. Property
      1. Ownership of property alone not sufficient minimum contacts for PJ in cases unrelated to property. [Shaffer]
      2. Property is sufficient contact for court having geographic jurisdiction to adjudicate case related to ownership of property, or arising from events occurring there. [Pennoyer]