Personal Jurisdiction o Overview Limitations on Personal Jurisdiction Statutory limits - States have the power to decide over whom

om their courts may exercise jurisdiction. This is the first place to look in determining whether the court has properly exercised personal jurisdiction Constitutional Limits - The Due Process Clause places two restrictions on PJ: (1) D must have such contacts with the forum state so the jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable; (2) D must be given appropriate notice of the action and an opportunity to be heard. PJ in Federal Courts - Rule 4k provides each federal court must act as if it were a part of the state in which it was located. Three Type of Personal Jurisdiction In Personam Jurisdiction - Exists when the forum has the power of the D. Subject to full faith in credit in all other states. In Rem Jurisdiction - Exists where the court has the right to adjudicate the rights of all the persons in the world with respect to a particular item of property located within the borders of the state. Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction - Exists when the court has power to determine whether particular individuals own specific property under the court's control. o Defendant isn't personally bound and cannot be enforced against any other property belonging to the defendant. o Statutory Limits on In Personam Jurisdiction (1) Where the D is present in the forum state and is personally served with process; SCOTUS has upheld this type of jurisdiction (Burnham v. Superior Ct.) o Not applicable when a P brings a D into the jurisdiction by forced fraud or service. o Not applicable when in the state for judicial proceeding or passing through state to other state's judicial proceedings (2) Where the defendant is domiciled in the forum state; Applies even if domiciliary isn't within the state at the time served. (3) Where the defendant consents to jurisdiction and; May be express or implied through the making of an appearance. Express o By contract o By appointment of agent to accept service of process Implied consent o When the state has a substantial reason to regulate the in-state activity of a nonresident of the state. he may have an in-state official designated as his agent for service of process. (Hess v. Pawloski) Voluntary Appearance o Contesting the case without contesting personal jurisdiction. May states allow "special appearances" where D can object to PJ specifically. (4) Where the defendant has committed acts bringing him within the forum state's long arm statute Unlimited Long Arm Statutes - A few states (CA) have long arm statutes that give their courts constitutionally broad power Limited (Specific) Long Arm Statutes - Most states have statutes that specify the details of which situations their courts can exercise jurisdiction. o Limitations in tort cases Some statutes permit when a "a tort occurs within the state" and others when "tortious" acts are in the state. There is a stream of commerce problem here. o Constitutional Limits on In Personam Jurisdiction Sufficient contacts with the Forum Traditional Rule: Physical Power - This power was based on the ability to arrest the person physically. Pennoyer v. Neff Modern Rule: Contact and Fairness - International Shoe expanded the basis for PJ to sufficient minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum such that maintenance of a suit does not "offend traditional notion of fair play and substantial justice." o Minimum Contact: International Shoe requires that D have "such minimum contacts" with the forum that the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable. The court will look to two factors: purposeful availment and foreseeability. Purposeful Availment The court must find that through these contacts the D purposefully availed herself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state and thus invoking the benefit of its laws. (e.g., Burger King; International Shoe; WWVW v. Woodson)

Stream of Commerce Cases: Asahi case where four justices said that placing the item in the stream of commerce with the knowledge that it would end up in a forum, constituted purposeful availment. Four other justices said there would have to be some other step taken in addition to the placing of the product in the stream to constitute purposeful availment.

Foreseeability D must know or reasonably anticipate that the activities in the forum render it foreseeable that D may be "haled into court there." o Fairness: Exercise of jurisdiction must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Several factor test. Relatedness of Claim to Contact: does the claim arise of out of D's contact with the forum? Claim arising from Activity in the State: If D's in-state activity is less than systematic or continuous, specific in personam over the D will only be proper for causes of action arising from that in-state activity. Systematic and Continuous Activity: If D engages in systematic and continuous activity in the state, there is sufficient basis to exert personal jurisdiction for any cause of action whether the action arose from in-state or out of state activity. o Some statutes grant in personam jurisdiction on mere domicile, residence or doing business in the state and these are valid. o The Helicoperos case falls short of general in personam Convenience: The forum is acceptable unless it is "so gravely difficult and inconvenient that a party is unfairly put at a severe disadvantage in comparison to his opponent." Very hard to make an argument for a forum being inconvenient and it basically needs to offend due process. Forum State's interest: Forum may have a legitimate interest in providing redress for its citizens. McGee v. International Insurance Co: California resident purchased life insurance policy by mail from a Texas insurer. The Texas company had no other contacts with Ca but the court noted they reached in with minimum contacts and Ca had an interest in protecting it citizens from companies. Asahi: Even though Asahi placed things into the stream of commerce, Ca had very little interest in having an alien corporation defend a lawsuit there. Other factors: P's interest in obtaining efficient resolution; interstate judicial systems being efficient; shared interest of states in furthering social policy. Notice: Due process requires that a reasonable method be used to notify D of a pending lawsuit. Notice must be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Traditional methods of personal service: personal delivery; leaving papers with a responsible person at D's residence or place of business; delivery to an agent appointed to accept service or; delivered by registered mail, return receipt requested. Requirement that Agent Notify D: When agent is appointed by contract, agent must notify D (non-resident motorist statute). Not true when D choses agent. Requirements for cases involving multiple or unknown parties: Constitution does not require personal service if it is prohibitively expensive to do so. It requires only that each D be notified by the best practical means available. (Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank) Knowledge that notice by mail was not received: Further steps must be taken if P knows D didn't receive notice by mail. In Rem Jurisdiction: Does not bind the person but binding to property. Statutory limitations: Most states have statutes providing for in rem jurisdiction. Constitutional limitations: Nexus: the basis of jurisdiction is the property in the state. The state has interest in adjudicating the rights of all the world regarding this property. o No jurisdiction if property is not located in the state: A court has no jurisdiction over property in other states o No jurisdiction if property is brought in by fraud or force Notice: Early view was publication in newspaper or posting on property was sufficient, but that is no longer so. Service by means for PJ are sufficient. Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction: Permits a court within in personam jurisdiction to determine disputes between a P and D regarding property when it is located within the state.

Statutory limitations: Most states provide for two types of quasi in rem jurisdiction. Type I involves disputes between parties over their rights to property within the state. Type II involves disputes unrelated to the in-state property and has been limited by SCOTUS. Any judgment against D can only be satisfied out of the attached in-state property. Constitutional limitations Nexus: State clearly had power over all persons and property located within its borders. In 1977 SCOTUS ruled that the minimum contacts standard is applicable in every exercise of jurisdiction. Procedural Requirements: P must bring asset before the court by attachment at the beginning of the action. Notice: Requires the same standard as PJ. Diversity Jurisdiction o Section 1332: Diversity of Citizenship and Amount in Controversy (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603 (a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States. For the purposes of this section, section 1335, and section 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled. (b) ... (c) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title (1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business, except that in any direct action against the insurer of a policy or contract of liability insurance, whether incorporated or unincorporated, to which action the insured is not joined as a party-defendant, such insurer shall be deemed a citizen of the State of which the insured is a citizen, as well as of any State by which the insurer has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business; and (2) the legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent, and the legal representative of an infant or incompetent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the infant or incompetent.

Diversity Among the Parties Complete diversity when action is commenced Multiple parties - Complete Diversity Rule: Every P must be of diverse citizenship from every D. o Note that complete diversity doesn't require every P to be diverse from each P, just P->D o Interpleader excpetion Federal Interpleader Statute: 28 USC 1335 requires only that there be "two or more adverse claimants of diverse citizenship" and thus minimal diversity is sufficient. Interpleader under the federal rules - Complete diversity: Pursuant to rule 22, complete diversity is required. Alienage Jurisdiction: See 20 USC 1332(a)(2) Questions of Citizenship Individual - Domicile: A new domicile may be established by (i) physical presence in a new place and; (ii) the intent to remain there (i.e., no present intent to go elsewhere). Corporation: A corporation is a citizen of every state where it is incorporated and the one state where it has its principal place of business. o Nerve center test: where the home office and executives are. Partnerships and LLCs: Citizens of every state in which their Partner's or members are citizens. Suits brought by legal representatives: citizen of the same state as the infant, incompetent of decedent. Class Action: Based on the named members of the class who are suing

Supplemental Jurisdiction: A claim may be joined that could not, by itself, invoke either federal question or diversity jurisdiction and the court may entertain said claim if they arise from a common nucleus of operative fact as the claim that allowed jurisdiction in the first place. Subsequent Addition of Parties (28 USC 1367): A claim by or against an additional party must satisfy some basis of federal SMJ (e.g., diversity or federal question). If the claim does not and it arises from a common nucleus of operative fact, the party might invoke supplemental jurisdiction. For cases based solely on diversity of citizenship, supplemental jurisdiction may not be used to support: o Claims by Ps against persons made parties under Rules 14 (impleader), 19 (compulsory joinder), 20 (permissive joinder) or 24 (intervention). o Claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19; o Claims by persons seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24. Third-Party Practice - Impleader: A third-party claim (Rule 14) is the joinder by the D in the original action of another person not originally a party to the action. The impleader asserts the third-party defendant is or may be liable to D. Under Rule 14, after the third-party is impleaded, he may assert a claim against P in the pending case if the claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the underlying suit. Also, after the third-party D is impleaded, P may assert a claim against him if it arrises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the underlying suit. o Subject Matter Jurisdiction is required Cross-Claims: Rule 13(g) allows a party to assert a claim in a pending suit against a co-party but only if the claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the underlying dispute. o Subject matter jurisdiction is required but not necessarily diversity or federal question, could be supplemental jurisdiction. Jurisdictional Amount in excess of $75,000

Nonresident US citizens: US citizens domiciled abroad is not a citizen of any state and is also not an alien Aliens admitted for permanent residence: Deemed to be a citizen of the state in which the alien is domiciled.

Federal Question Jurisdiction Venue Removal Jurisdiction Federal Rules of Civil Procedure o Commencement of the Action o Service of Process o Extension of Time Periods o Interlocutory Injunctions o Pleadings o Joinder o Duty of Disclosure; Discovery o Trial o Claim Preclusion