Laurens Civil Procedure

Front 1

What is Personal Jurisdiction

Back 1

which states can a defendant be sued

Front 2

Constitutional Limitations on Personal Jurisdiction

Back 2

Jurisdiction is constitutional when sufficient mimimum contacts exist b/n the defendant and the forum such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. This standard requires two hurdles to be cleared: minimum contacts and reasonableness.

Front 3

Why do you need minimum contacts?

Back 3

Does the Δ have such minimum contacts w/the forum state so that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?

Front 4

What are the traditional bases of PJ? (3 things)

Back 4

state of domicile, consent, being served in the forum state (if not tricked or forced into the forum).

Front 5

Factors indicating Δ’s contact with the forum state

Back 5

My Parents Frequently Forgot to Read Children's Stories

Minimum Contacts (Systematic and Continuous); Purposeful Availment; Foreseeability; Fairness; Relatedness; Convenince; States Interest

Front 6

Systematic and Continuous

Back 6

Court will weigh the quantity and nature of the d’s contacts w/ the forum.

Front 7

What is Purposeful availment

Back 7

Whehter the d. purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the forum state. Δ’s voluntary acts; Δ must reach out to the forum; contact can’t be accidental

Front 8

What is Foreseeability

Back 8

was it foreseeable that Δ would be sued in the forum state

Front 9

Fairness (fair play and substantial justice): list 3

Back 9

i. Relatedness
ii. Convenience
iii. State’s Interests

Front 10

Relatedness

Back 10

b/t the contact and the claim. Does Π’s claim arise from Δ’s contact w/the forum

(not necessary if d. has substantial ties - general jurisdiction BUT more important w/ less contact)

Front 11

Conveninece

Back 11

Δ may complain that the forum makes it tough for him to litigate b/c it is far from home.
1. Forum OK unless it puts Δ at a severe disadvantage in the litigation

Front 12

State's Interest

Back 12

State’s Interests: such as providing a forum for its citizens

Front 13

What is a Summary Judgment?

Back 13

Moving party must show:
1) there's no genuine dispute as to material issue of fact; AND
2) that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Court generally views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

The motion can be for 'partial' summary judgment, e.g., as to one of several claims.

**CA**
Burden shifting, if D shows that Ps claim lacks merit, burden moves to P to demonstrate (produce evidence) that a triable issue of fact exists.
Procedure:
1) Moving party submits a statement listing each material fact that she claims is undisputed with evidence.
2) Nonmoving party may respond to each claim

Front 14

How do In rem and quasi in jurisdiction work?

Back 14

Jurisdictional basis is property and Statutory basis is an attachment statute

Constitutional if:
Suit relates to property; OR
Meets Minimum Contacts/Fairness Test

Front 15

My Parents Frequently Forget to Read Children's' Stories

Back 15

M inimum Contacts
P urposeful availment
F oreseeability
F air play & substantial justice
R elatedness of contact and claim
C onvenience
S tate's interest

Front 16

What is the fairness analysis of In personam jurisdiction?

Back 16

Fair play and Substantial Justice

1. RELATEDNESS: between the contact and the claim, does claim arise from contact

-Substantial ties (domiciled, continuous business, served)- lead to general jurisdiction

2. CONVENIENCE (severe disadvantage in the litigation - Hard to meet this standard)

3. STATE'S INTEREST (provide forum for its citizens)

Front 17

What is the contacts analysis of In personam jurisdiction?

Back 17

Some tie between D and the forum.

Two Factors to consider:
The contact MUST result from PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT (D's voluntary act, must reach out or direct activities in some way)
i.e.. ship goods, use road, cause an effect

FORESEEABILITY that D would get sued in this forum

Front 18

What is the basic Constitutional Analysis of In personam jurisdiction?

Back 18

Does the D have 'such minimum contacts with the forum so that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?'

My Parents Frequently Forgot to Read Children's Stories

Easy Cases (domiciled, presence, consent)

Front 19

What is the Statutory Analysis of In personam jurisdiction?

Back 19

Some long arm statutes simply say they reach the constitutional limit. Such as **CA**

Front 20

What is the basic Personal Jurisdiction question?

And How can you establish it?

Back 20

Burden of Production – Summary Judgment motions Party responding to a motion for summary judgment must only produce enough evidence to convince the judge that the case should go forward, that there exists a genuine issue of material fact
Main Question: Can P sue D in THIS state.

Must BOTH:
1. Satisfy a statute (state long arm); AND
2. Satisfy the Constitution (Due Process)
All have domicile, presence and consent

Front 21

Burdens of Persuasion in Summary Judgment

Back 21

-Burden of persuasion – plaintiff bears burden of persuading the trier of fact that her allegations are true
-Preponderance of evidence standard
-Movant must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact

Front 22

U.S. Supreme Court decision in Shaffer:

Back 22

-Jurisdiction based solely on seizure of property in the state violates due process
-Distinction among in personam, in rem, and quasi in rem jurisdiction is artificial
-International Shoe’s minimum contacts test is applied to all three types of jurisdiction

Front 23

Three types of jurisdiction

Back 23

-In personam
-In rem
-Quasi in rem

Front 24

Corporations are residents of

Back 24

State where they are incorporated and state where their principal place of business is

Front 25

Specific v. General Jurisdiction

Back 25

-Specific jurisdiction: Defendant’s forum contacts are sporadic, but the cause of action arises out of these contacts.
-General jurisdiction: cause of action does not arise from defendant’s forum-related activities but defendant has minimum contacts and state’s jurisdiction is reasonable. Harder standard to meet

Front 26

To what extent can a federal district court exercise personal jurisdiction?

Back 26

A federal district court may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent a state court of the state in which it sits could exercise jurisdiction

Front 27

What 2 requirements do you need for jurisdiction?

Back 27

-Does subjecting the nonresident defendant to jurisdiction violate her 14th Amendment right to Due Process? (minimum contacts)
-Does subjecting the nonresident defendant to jurisdiction violate the state’s own jurisdictional statute?

Front 28

What determines sufficient minimum contacts?

Back 28

-Volume of contacts – amount of activity
-Purposeful availment
-Balance of convenience
-Location of witnesses and evidence
-Location of injury
-Continuity of contacts
-State interest in protecting citizens and business community and deterring misconduct

Front 29

Minimum contacts standard

Back 29

Defendant has to have sufficient contacts with the state so that due process isn’t violated

Front 30

Jurisdiction over status, e.g. marital status

Back 30

theory is that marriage is somehow a res (in rem) so it is partially in that state

Front 31

Jurisdiction over nonresidents

Back 31

-According to Neff court, nonresident defendant must be personally served with process within the state or must voluntarily appear before the court (consent to the jurisdiction)
-State court could also seize defendant’s property located in the state at the outset of the action. If property was seized, service by publication was acceptable – no personal service necessary

Front 32

Just because the property is there and attached in Quasi in rem do they have jurisdiction?

Back 32

No- it will be treated as a contact, but minimum contacts still has to be met

Front 33

Quasi in rem jurisdiction

Back 33

Court attaches the defendant’s property in order to apply it to satisfy the claim

Front 34

In rem jurisdiction

Back 34

Jurisdiction over property or a thing

Front 35

In personam jurisdiction

Back 35

Jurisdiction over the person, i.e. the defendant

Front 36

Due Process

Back 36

-Requires that the court have personal jurisdiction over the defendant
-Requires that the defendant have notice of the lawsuit

Front 37

What’s the difference between personal and in personam jurisdiction?

Back 37

-in personam, in rem, and quasi in rem are the three types of personal jurisdiction
-personal jurisdiction just means that you get jurisdiction over the defendant and then you have to decide how

Front 38

Pennoyer v. Neff
State Court has jurisdiction over nonresident if:

Back 38

(1) Nonresident DF is personally served while in the state—In Personam
(2) Controversy involves property located in the state—In Rem
(3) Court attaches property owned by DF at beginning of suit—Quasi-in-Rem

Front 39

Pennoyer v. Neff (1st Case)

Back 39

Mitchell sued Neff in OR State Court to recover unpaid legal fees
Notice published in newspaper (if address known needed to be personally served, or Complaint mailed to DF)
Neff is in CA
Mitchell obtained Default Judgment
Court attached Neff’s OR land, which is sold to Pennoyer and Mitchell gets proceeds

Front 40

Pennoyer v. Neff (2nd Case)

Back 40

Neff brought action of ejectment against Pennoyer nine years later in OR court
Neff claimed OR court lacked jurisdiction over him in the original suit
Neff asserted judgment was invalid, as was Pennoyer’s claim of ownership

Front 41

Swift v. Tyson

Back 41

Rules of Decision Act—State Laws apply in common law. Court here held that state laws mean only statutes, and does NOT include common law. Therefore, common law issues would be determined by federal law
The rationale was that this was supposed to simplify everything if states adopted the federal common law (which never happened)

Front 42

Murphy v. Michetti

Back 42

PLF filed breach of contract and fraud action. DF filed notice of removal. PLF claims notice was 14 days late—PLF using time of the receipt of faxed copy of complaint—DF used time restriction starting from service of process
Section 1446(b): Removal within 30 days after receipt of the complaint through service or otherwise
Holding: 30 days are triggered only by receipt of service of process pursuant to requirements of Rule 4. Not all states have same rules

Front 43

Mas v. Perry

Back 43

College People in LA. Mr. from France, Mrs. from MI. DF from LA. They lived in LA, but had no intention of remaining there. Court said that domicile is determined by an Individual’s taking up residence in a location with intent of remaining there. PLFs win—there is diversity jurisdiction.
Domicile Determined by:
Individuals taking up residence in a location, with intention of remaining there

Front 44

Piper Aircraft v. Reyno

Back 44

A plane crash occurred in Scotland, and victims were Scottish. They brought suit in the US (manufacturers of plane were from PA and OH). The case was dismissed for forum non conveniens, to be tried in Scotland, even though there would be much less possible remedy under Scottish laws.

Front 45

Bates v. C&S Adjusters

Back 45

Bill Collector’s letter was forwarded to PLF’s residence in NY. Venue in NY was appropriate b/c a substantial part of events given rise to action occurred in NY.
Holding: Forwarding letters to the district in which debtor has moved is an important step in the collection process; Receipt of collection notice is a substantial part; evidence (collection notice) is located in NY.

Front 46

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust

Back 46

Established a balancing test to determine whether publication is sufficient for service.
Here, notice by publication was sufficient only for beneficiaries who were unknown or absent, since it would be overly costly to contact them.
Rejected notion of whether the case was in rem or in personam—again rejecting the distinction (ancient distinction)

Front 47

Shaffer v. Heitner

Back 47

Quasi-in-Rem Case
H owned one share of stock of Greyhound, and sued officers and directors of subsidy
Brought suit in DE, Conduct in question was in OR, Greyhound incorporated in DE, Principal place of business in AZ (if suing the corp. could sue in AZ or DE but he is suing people)
Ds have never lived in DE, nor have they spent any time in DE—H attached their 82,000 shares of stock and options for jurisdiction
Holding: Jurisdiction inappropriate in DE—Minimum Contacts applies to all 3 Jurisdiction

Front 48

Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary

Back 48

P sues Titan, an OH company, in IL
IL Long-Arm Statute Section 17(b)(1): Jurisdiction is predicated on commission of a tortious act in IL
Since injury occurred in IL, Court finds the tort occurred within the state
Minimum Contacts exist b/c products were sold in contemplation of use in IL
Holding: Jurisdiction by IL proper

Front 49

Asahi Metal v. Superior Court

Back 49

Pro Jurisdiction in CA: Introduction into stream of commerce; purposeful availment; foreseeability; state interest
Against Jurisdiction in CA: Inconvenience; No business in CA; No volume of Contacts; No interest in US judiciary; No purposeful availament (only 1% business)
Holding: CA did NOT have jurisdiction—no purposeful availment and it would be unreasonable for CA court to exercise jurisdiction. Both are foreign companies.

Front 50

What are the reasonableness factors in Burger King?

Back 50

-Extent of the purposeful interjection into the forum state
-Burden on D of defending in the forum
-Extent of conflict with the sovereignty of D’s state
-Forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
-Most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy
-Importance of the forum to P’s interest in convenient and effective relief
-Existence of an Alternative Forum

Front 51

What case established the 2 PART TEST FOR DUE PROCESS BRANCH and what is the test?

Back 51

Burger King v. Rudzewicz
1) Purposeful Availment
(2) Reasonableness—Factors:

Front 52

World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson

Back 52

Car purchased in NY—Accident in OK—Residents of AZ
Pro Minimum Contacts with OK: Car (foreseeable would move); Accident in OK; Evidence & Witnesses in OK; State interest; National economy
Against OK Jurisdiction: No business in OK; petitioners are NY companies; no foreseeability; no purposeful availment (benefit); no continuity of contacts; not really a state interest since businesses are not OK and no residents are affected of OK
Holding: OK court does not have jurisdiction—unilateral activity by PLF does not satisfy requirement of contact with state

Front 53

Burger King v. Rudzewicz

Back 53

BK is FL corporation; R & M apply for franchise in MI
Pro Jurisdiction FL: Purposeful Availment; State interest; foreseeable would be sued in FL since FL corp. and forum selection clause; Volume and Continuity of Contacts
Against Jurisdiction in FL: Fairness & Convenience; Main Contacts with MI; No business activities in FL; MI state interest; No genuine consent; No foreseeability
Holding: Jurisdiction in FL appropriate

Front 54

Hanson v. Denckla

Back 54

-Trust set up in DE by woman from PA
-Woman moved to FL and died there—gave benefits to children who sued in FL for benefits
-Delaware Trust claims FL does not have jurisdiction
-FL does not have jurisdiction

Front 55

Which case established the balance of convenience test and what is it?

Back 55

McGee v. International Life Insurance
Balance of Convenience Test:
(1) Contacts: there have been sufficient amount of contacts since they solicited Franklin in CA
(2) Convenience: will not suffer too much inconvenience for sending one or two agents to CA, while it would be much harder for old woman McGee to go to TX
(3) Evidence: all evidence and proof to determine whether or not this was a suicide would all be located in CA
(4) State Interests: CA has an interest to protect citizens from insurance company; TX has an interest to protect its businesses
-Sets very low standard for minimum contacts

Front 56

McGee v. International Life Insurance

Back 56

Person bought insurance policy from AZ company
AZ insurance company is bought by TX company
Franklin, in CA, accepts a substitute policy from TX
Franklin pays all premiums until he dies
Franklin’s mother (McGee) sues in CA wanting money from policy
Insurance company claims CA court does not have jurisdiction
Holding: CA Court does have jurisdiction

Front 57

What case established minimum contacts standard? What is the standard?

Back 57

International Shoe
Due Process requires only that in order to subject a DF to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does no offend “the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
Applies both to people and corporations

Front 58

International Shoe v. Washington

Back 58

Int’l Shoe incorporated in DE
Shoe’s principal place of business is in MO
Shoe transacts some business in WA
Given 1 shoe to display, can’t write contracts, got $31,000 in commissions, not given the shoes
WA assessed unemployment compensation taxes against Shoe
Does WA state court have jurisdiction over Shoe?
-Yes