Civil Procedure Exam Outline Personal Jurisdiction: The power of a court to require a defendant outside the state to defend

a lawsuit inside the state. Important Cases! International Shoe Minimum Contacts. 1. In Personam Jurisdiction established when presence in state is continuous and systematic. 2. No In Personam Jurisdiction when presence is casual or isolated. 3. Specific In Personam jurisdiction may result from a single act of a particular quality and nature. This jurisdiction is limited to claims arising out of the specific act. (McGee v. International Ins.) 4. Continuous but limited activity will result in specific jurisdiction which is jurisdiction over claims arising out of that continuous activity. (Burger King v. Rudzwicz) 5. Substantial contact with forum state will result in General In Personam jurisdiction. The defendant may be sued in the state for any claim even those unrelated to in-state activities. 6. Minimum Contacts is limited to claims arising from/ related to the defendants contacts with the forum state. 7. A states power to adjudicate In Personam is governed by traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
< A corporation that enjoys the benefits and protection of law of a forum state is also subject to any obligations that arise from the corporation activities in the forum state.>

Gavil Says:

Shaffer v. Heitner In Rem/Quasi In Rem must now apply International Shoe as not to violate due process.

1. Quasi In Rem based on attachment or seizure of property present in the jurisdiction, not on contacts btw defendant & state. 2. In Rem or Quasi In Rem judgment is limited to the property that supports jurisdiction and imposes no personal liability on the property owner since they are not before the court. 3. Since the state in which property is located is considered to have exclusive sovereignty over that property, In Rem actions could proceed regardless of owners location. (Pennoyer v. Neff) 4. Full Faith and Credit Clause makes the valid In Personam judgment of one State enforceable in all other States. 5. Concludes that all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny. Fair play and substantial justice now apply to In Rem jurisdiction.
< The fiction that an assertion of jurisdiction over property is anything but an assertion of jurisdiction over the owner of the property supports an ancient form (Pennoyer) without substantial modern justification. Its continued acceptance would serve only to allow state-court jurisdiction that is fundamentally unfair to the defendant.>

Gavil Says:

Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson - How to define quality and nature that makes a contact sufficient to support jurisdiction. (Purposeful Availment) 1. Compares McGee (relaxed limits on state jurisdiction) to Hanson (Due process ensures fairness & orderly administration of the law) 2. The burden of the defendant, while always a primary concern, will in an appropriate case be considered in light of other relevant factors modern transportation and communication have made it less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself in a state where he engages in economic activity (McGee) 3. The requirements for personal jurisdiction over nonresidents have evolved from the rigid rule of Pennoyer to the flexible standard of International Shoeit is a mistake to assume this is the demise of restrictions on personal jurisdiction of state courts. Those restrictions guarantee immunity from inconvenient distant litigation and are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States Mere unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. (Hanson) 4. Foreseeability alone is not a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under Due Process. 5. Foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis the defendants conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he can reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
<Financial benefits accruing to the defendant from a collateral relation to the forum State will not support jurisdiction if they do not stem from a constitutionally cognizable contact with that state>

Gavil Says:

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court The Application of Purposeful Availment. 1. OConnor mere awareness that the stream of commerce may sweep goods into the state the state after leaving defendants hands is not enough to establish purposeful availment. The substantial connection between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state. (Stream and intent to serve - protective of defendant) 2. Brennan As long as a participant in the process is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise. Nor will the litigation present a burden for which there is no corresponding benefit. A defendant indirectly benefits from the sale of the final product in the forum State.
< The strictures of Due Process forbid a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction under circumstances that would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. A court must consider the burden of the defendant, the interests of the forum State, and the plaintiffs interest in obtaining relief.>

Gavil Says:

Statutory Limits on Personal Jurisdiction: Long Arm Statutes authorize a states court to exercise jurisdiction over defendants based on specific types of contact with the forum state. (Reach out of the state to call nonresident defendants back into the state to defend lawsuits). Reasons a state would choose enumerated act long-arm statutes instead of the constitutional scope are: 1) Historically done that way , reluctant to change 2) Provides guidance to nonresidents about the jurisdictional consequences of their choice to conduct particular activities in the state. 3) Legislators may not want to authorize jurisdiction in every case that barely satisfies the scope of the constitution. All long-arm statutes that base personal jurisdiction on specific enumerated acts require that the claim arise out of that act. (International Shoe held that limited in-state contacts only support jurisdiction over claims that arise from those contacts). Challenging Jurisdiction (rendering court): Special Appearance defendant is allowed to appear before the court at the beginning of the action for the sole purpose of challenging the courts power to exercise personal jurisdiction over her. Any defense on the merits will allow the court to conclude that she has waived her jurisdictional objection. A lot of states have done away with the special appearance approach and have adopted the Federal Rule 12 (b)(2) which allows defendant to appear before answering to the merits of the complaint and object to personal jurisdiction. The defendant may also raise other objections at the same time, without waving the objection to personal jurisdiction. Under the either approach, the objection to jurisdiction must be raised immediately. In most states a defendant who challenges jurisdiction at the beginning of the suit and loses may defend the merits of the suit without waving her objection to the courts jurisdictional ruling. Challenging Jurisdiction (enforcing court) Domesticating the judgment when a party seeks to enforce a default judgment they can file a new action on the judgment in the enforcing state (judgment on the judgment). The second method would be to simply file a certified copy of the rendering states judgment. Full Faith and Credit Clause U.S. Constitution (Article IV 1) requires the courts of each state to honor the judgments of other states by entering judgments upon them and allowing out of state creditors to use court process to collect them. The enforcing court may always inquire as to whether the rendering state had jurisdiction in the original action and refuse enforcement if they did not. Collateral Attack on the judgment allows the defendant to challenge the original courts jurisdiction in the enforcement action rather than directly in the original suit.

Although the Collateral attack strategy allows for the jurisdictional issue to be tried close to home the defendant will not be able to reopen the merits of the underlying libel action. If defendant loses the jurisdictional challenge the default judgment will be valid and enforceable under Full Faith and Credit. A defendant may not challenge personal jurisdiction in the enforcement action if she has already done so in the original action. Collateral Estoppel provides that a party who has fully litigated an issue in one action may not relitigate it in another. Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Federal Questions and Federal Cases): Federal Court hears very limited types of cases. State Courts will hear any case that does not fall within Article III 2 of the Constitution. It makes sense that federal courts should be able to hear cases that involve the application and interpretation of federal law; both to protect it from unsympathetic construction by state courts and to allow definitive interpretation of federal law.
<A power not granted to the federal government by the constitution remains with the state.>

The two most common types of civil cases filed in federal court are cases that arise under federal law and cases between citizens of different states. Arising-under jurisdiction Osborn v. Bank of the United States- Marshalls opinion established a broad federal ingredient test for determining whether a case arose under federal law. The phrase arising under is probably satisfied in any case in which a party seeks to rely on or establish a proposition of federal law in order to prove either a claim or a defense in the case. When seeking to file a lawsuit in Federal Govt to questions must be asked: 1. Is this a case which constitutionally may be granted to the federal courts? 2. Has congress actually conveyed jurisdiction over this type of case in a federal statute? 28 U.S.C. 1331 authorizes jurisdiction to federal district courts over cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 1331 only applies if the plaintiffs claim requires proof of federal law; a much narrower reach than the arising under jurisdiction granted by the Constitution. Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley Arising under distinction btw Art. III and 1331. 1. Mottleys argued congressional statute was prospective and did not apply to them. Secondly, they argued that if the statute barred their passes, it would be unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as they would be deprived of property without due process of law. 2. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower federal court had lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court reasoned that because the Mottleys sued for breach of contract, a state law claim, then they were not required to prove any proposition of federal law.

3. Under the Art. III the outcome would probably be different as the federal statute was clearly an ingredient of the case. 4. The federal issues pleaded by the Mottleys were deemed unnecessary by the court and that she could have simply alleged a contract breach, and a demand for specific performance. 5. Mottleys well pleaded complaint rule asks whether the plaintiff would have to raise the federal issue in a complaint which includes the elements she needs to prove to establish her claim and only those elements. No anticipation of defenses from the defendant will satisfy the 1331 requirements.
<The Mottley rule allows the courts to determine their jurisdiction from the outset, based on the plaintiffs case. Without the rule plaintiffs would be able to invoke federal jurisdiction by referring or speculating in their complaints to defenses they expect the defendant to raise simply to create SMJ>

Holmes Creation Test a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action. At times the court has upheld arising-under jurisdiction even when federal law did not create the right to sue, the condition being that a plaintiff in order to establish her state claim must prove a proposition of federal law. Smith v. Kansas City Title and Trust Company (Exception to the Holmes Creation Test) Smith exception Federal issue imbedded in state law claim. The Supreme Court held that the controversy concerns the constitutional validity of an act of Congress which is directly drawn in the question. The decision depended on the determination of that issue and was thus essential to its resolution. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson (Distinguishes the Smith exception) Allowing Merrell Dow plaintiffs to turn their negligence claim into one arising under federal law, simply by alleging that the defendant was negligent for failure to provide the warnings required by the statute would fly in the face of Congresss decision not to create a federal right to sue for damages for FDCA violations. It would effectively create a federal remedy where Congress has not decided to do so. The Courts decision in Grable & Son put to bed any speculation that they were overruling the Smith exception. Grable & Son Metal Products Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing (Federal issue must be sufficiently substantial). The plaintiffs in Grable could only establish its right to reclaim property by proving a proposition of Federal law. The Court held unequivocally that a federal court ought to be able hear claims recognized under state law that nonetheless turn on substantial questions of federal law. The court qualified this decision by making clear the need to resolve a federal question to decide a state law claim will not always support arising-under jurisdiction.
<The embedded federal issue must be substantial to support jurisdiction, and delicate judgments will have to be made about the importance of the federal issue and danger of opening the federal court to an excessive number of claims.>

Gavil Says:

Diversity Jurisdiction