Personal Jurisdiction

Front 1

C.C.P. § 410.10

Back 1

CA court may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.

Front 2

International Shoe v. WA (1945, US Supreme Court):

Back 2

For personal jurisdiction, there must be: "Minimum Contacts" . . . such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

Front 3

Kulko v. Superior Court (1978, U.S. Supreme Court)

Back 3

NY Separation Agreement, Haitian disso; Mom moves to CA with kids per stip, files motion re CS, serves by mail. H moves to quash based on lack of minimum contacts.

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction? Yes, kids and mom live in CA;

2. Personal Jurisdiction? No. Must purposely avail oneself of CA laws. H had no financial benefit, no business in CA. Want to encourage agreements re custody without punishing party with financial orders

Front 4

Jashid-Negad v. Kessler (1993)

Back 4

CT parents send 17 y/o to Berkeley, pay tuition and living costs. Son causes injury resulting in civil action against parents for negligent supervision.

1. Yes, minimum contacts: availed themselves of CA benefits, "caused an effect" in CA.

Distinguish as civil case, maybe.

Front 5

Modlin v. Superior Court (1986)

Back 5

Mom moves to CA. H visits child in CA while lecturing at med conference. Employer pays H's CA med license and for lectures. H can't take any other compensation.

1. No minimum contacts: only 3 contacts, child visits don't count (Marriage of Judd), license and conventions minimal.

Front 6

Marriage of Judd (1976)

Back 6

1. Even if husband did business in the state, cause of action of wife for dissolution of marriage did not arise out of such business;

2. It would be neither fair to husband nor reasonable to hold that state acquired jurisdiction over him merely because he sent support payments to California and communicated with his children and wife by telephone or mail.

3. It is a strong policy of the law to encourage the visitation of children with their parents."

Front 7

Marriage of Kumar (1982)

Back 7

Using CA court to enforce child custody rights is NOT a minimum contact.

Front 8

Marriage of Walter (1986)

Back 8

If a nonresident's activities are sufficiently wide ranging, systematic and continuous, party may be subject to jurisdiction within state on cause of action unrelated to those activities; however, where activity is less extensive, cause of action must arise out of or be connected with defendant's forum-related activity.

Front 9

Marriage of Tarvin (1986)

Back 9

Unresolved pension from disso of years before.

1. Although the pension was a divisible community asset and subject to partition in a later action, jurisdiction to divide federal military pension benefits was limited under the Federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (FUSFSPA), to the military spouse's residence, domicile, or consent, and the husband did not reside in California or consent to jurisdiction. The husband's past residency in California did not satisfy FUSFSPA, since the only connection between the past residency and the partition action was his omission of the pension as an asset, which was remote and indirect.

2. Jurisdiction acquired over the husband in the earlier divorce proceeding had ended as to the division of property rights once the dissolution decree became final.

Front 10

Muckle v. Superior Court (2002)

Back 10

Past minimum contacts were irrelevant; what matters are minimum contacts at the time of proceeding.

Front 11

4 ways to get Personal Jurisdiction

Back 11

1. Domicile
2. Consent
3. Minimum Contacts
4. Presence in state: "Gotcha"

Front 12

Burnham v. Superior Court (1990, US Supreme Court)

Back 12

Husband served while visiting child in CA.

1. Gotcha jurisdiction OK as to Petitions; Not OSC's.

Q: What about enticements? effect on policy to foster moves and visits?

Front 13

In re Fitzgerald & King (1985)

Back 13

W served H with 2nd OSC while he was in state defending the first OSC.

Gotcha jurisdiction is not OK if party required to appear in state to defend an action.

Front 14

Family Code § 2012

Back 14

Party may appear in opposition to a motion and the appearance shall not be deemed a general appearance by the respondent when a motion to quash is pending.

Front 15

FC 7620

Back 15

Minimum contact / personal jurisdiction over party who conceives child in CA, naturally or assisted conception