Civil Procedure Ii Weeks 1-3

Front 1

3 Things Needed for Suit

Back 1

Personal Jurisdiction (necessary for any judgment in lawsuit to be const. valid)
SMJ (necessary for any judgm. to be const. valid)
Venue (-Statutory requirements govern, not constitution

Front 2

With Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 12(b)(1) can

Back 2

Dismiss a case at anytime for no SMJ

Front 3

PJ is the power______ and power comes from _____

Back 3

Power of this court over Defendant and the power comes from Article IV Full Faith and Credit (FFC), 14th amendment Due Process

Front 4

Pennoyer v Neff Takeaways

Back 4

Neff wants to attack PJ, never served. It is a collaterall attack, attacking judgment validity only.Only constructive notice used, not actual. Pennoyer and presence conferring power over defendant. Pennoyer said if no personal jurisdiction at time of judgment, you cant come back and revisit.

Front 5

Pennoyer case and property

Back 5

Decided here that REAL property was in the state but publication alone is not enough because property not attached at outset of case. Back then, real property was considered putting you on notice bc you should know what is happening with your property.

Front 6

A collateral attack is

Back 6

not an appeal of case 1, it is only attacking validity of jidgment

Front 7

Two questions you always ask about jurisdiction over a defendant-

Back 7

1. Is there a long arm statute that allows? (if state has decided it dones not take certain cases/def's, we don bother with constition question, like FL and NY dont want too many
2. Is it constitutional? Specif Juris=Min. Contacts test, 1) const. cognizable contacts?

Front 8

Miliken v Meyer case

Back 8

He tried a collateral attack but it did not work.

Front 9

International Shoe case takeaways

Back 9

Differen here bc sides argued pennoyer "presence" stuff and court came w/ min contacts test. This test is for def that are not found in the forum state ONLY

Front 10

Min Contacts test

Back 10

How UNREASONABLE would it be to drag corp into the state? look at quality and nature of contacts, came from SHOE case.

Front 11

Min contacts test questions

Back 11

1. How much contact? Look at, is it continous and systematic?
2. Does the claim arise out of contacts?
3. Generally, how fair or inconvenient is it to ask them to this forum? (hinted at is shoe, became bigger later)

Front 12

in SHOE

Back 12

In shoe, the contacts were up to 13 employees selling shoes in state. Some lived there, some exhibited shoes there, some made up to 31,000 dollars in commission. The shoes were going DIRECTLY into Washington after sales.

Front 13

World wide Volkswagen case type and analysis

Back 13

This is specific jurisdiction case bc not enough going on for WWV or seaway How to look for PJ= Here we do not have consent, we do not have waiver, they are incorporated in NY not OK. So now we look to see if claim arose out of contact, it did.

Front 14

WW Volkswagen, test used

Back 14

Min contacts here ct says is to protect def agains burden of litigating in distant forum AND it esnsures that states do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.

Front 15

WW Volkswagen, court says

Back 15

Forseeability alone not enough, the critical part of DP here is that the def's conduct and connection with the forum state are sucha that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. IT is critical that the def injected into the forum state, purposeful connection with the forum state.

Front 16

WW volkswagen new part to min contacts test

Back 16

But mere unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a non resident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with forum state (DEF’s activity here is not the UNILATERAL ACTIVITY, IT’S THE OTHERS)

Front 17

Purposeful availment is

Back 17

knowing that you are going to be there, directing there, benefiting etc.

Front 18

Burger King Takeaways

Back 18

The "choice of law provision" in contract made it so ALL disputes had to use FL law, so he purposely availed himself to the benefits and protections of FL law. It was forseeable that he could be haled.

Front 19

Burger King and 3 Part Test

Back 19

1) cognizable contacts?- yes, contract is contact, florida law would govern. 2) claim arose out of contacts? – yes. 3) yes, he has money to travel

Front 20

Burger King Dissent

Back 20

DISSENT says that with a different franchisee (not sophisticated franchisee), maybe a different outcome. He limited his activities to Michigan, bought local, dealt with local headquarters etc. This case could have gone other way with different facts.

Front 21

Factors that show purposeful availment

Back 21

Designing in forum state, advertising in forum state and making channels to provide regular advice to customers in forum state.

Front 22

If you go from Specific Juris to General, you have to have

Back 22

Continous and Systematic.

Front 23

Specific Jurisdiction

Back 23

Relationship of contacts to the Claim, arises out of?