Civ pro outline for first semester PDF

Preview

Summary

Full outline for personal jurisdiction, subject matter juris...

Description

PERSONAL JURISDICTION (In Personam Jurisdiction)



A court must have both STATUTORY and CONSTITUTIONAL authority to assert PJ over the defendant o Due Process sets the outer boundaries; States need not grant their courts the full extent of Due Process – they may give less If personal jurisdiction is exercised beyond the constitutional limit, the judgment is invalid and is NOT entitled to “full faith and credit”



The 5 Methods for Acquiring PJ Over a Defendant:  

(1) The defendant (or agent) is served with process within the forum state; (2) The defendant voluntarily appears in the action (thereby waiving his objection to the court’s lack of PJ over him); this is a “general appearance” (3) The defendant consents to a state’s exercise of PJ over him before the claim arises; (4) The defendant is domiciled within the forum state; OR (5) The defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state o The defendant must have such minimum contacts with the forum that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice - International Shoe

  

MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST (Due Process Standard) Does the defendant have minimum contacts within the forum state? (Hanson/Worldwide) Prong I-A  Has the defendant purposefully availed (INTENT) himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, and thus invoked the benefit and protection of its laws? (Has he “reached out” to the forum state?) (Hanson)  (1)Place product in the stream of commerce (2)with the awareness/expectation will be purchased by consumers in the forum state. (cant get to Prong I-B (Bristol Meyers) prong 1b if  Are defendants’ acts and relationship with the forum state such that it is foreseeable that he could be sued in a court there? doesn’t pass  Did the cause of action “arise out of or relate to” the defendant’s contacts with the forum prong 1a) state? (plaintiff’s connection to the forum state?) o If yes  specific jurisdiction (international shoe/burger king) o If no  Has the defendant been engaged in substantial “continuous and systematic” activities within the forum state, such that it is like a second home to him?  If yes  general jurisdiction (the defendant may be sued in this forum by ANY plaintiff on ANY cause of action) * You never get to PRONG II analysis UNLESS PRONG I is satisfied! * (Prong I is the “constitutional touchstone” and the “necessary predicate” for Minimum Contacts Jurisdiction) PRONG II Although the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, would maintenance of this suit offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice? Fairness factors to be considered:  Burden on the defendant and his witness  Interest of the forum state in litigating the claim  Plaintiff’s interest in litigating in the forum state  Interest in efficient resolution (whats the most efficient place to try the case)  Interests of the several states in furthering shared substantive social policies The burden is on the defendant to show that the forum is so gravely difficult and inconvenient I

 

that the defendant would be at a disadvantage in the litigation (Burger King) Wyman v. Newhouse – You CANNOT acquire PJ over a nonresident by fraudulently luring him into the state in order to serve him with process within the forum Burnham v. Superior Court (burnham went to California to visit children and got served) – Scalia 4: personal service within the forum state is sufficient for obtaining PJ over a defendant; affirms Pennoyer’s “historical pedigree;” Brennan 4: fairness should also be considered

Purposeful Availment 







 

Burger King – FL had PJ over MI franchisees; defendants reached out and entered into contract with FL corporation; sent fees to FL, agreed that FL law would govern disputes; Rudzewicz deliberately affiliated himself with FL – it is reasonably foreseeable that litigation would occur in FL, etc o It may be that you NEVER step foot in the forum state, but you STILL have minimum contacts International Shoe – WA had PJ over a DE corporation with its principal place of business in MO: o The corporation conducted “continuous and systematic” activities in Washington (had several employees working there, solicited business there, etc): had the privilege of conducting activities within the state, gained benefits of interstate business, had the benefit and protection of the state’s laws McGee – The court decided that CA had PJ over TX insurance co. even though it had only ONE contact in CA – its insurance policy with McGee’s son o This ONE contact was enough to satisfy the “minimum contacts” test, as the defendant “reached out” to CA and solicited business there o After establishing that the defendant had minimum contacts with CA, the court assessed the “fairness” of asserting personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and determined it was fair Asahi (passed Prong I and failed Prong II) – indemnity action by Taiwanese manufacturer, against Japanese submanufacturer, Asahi; 5 justices (Brennan approach + Stevens) found that Asahi’s contacts with CA were sufficient, but the judges unanimously held that the exercise of jurisdiction over Asahi was unreasonable (only in RARE CASES will inconvenience become constitutionally unreasonable): o Severe burden on a defendant who has to litigate in a foreign judicial system o CA has no interest in adjudicating the action – the case that concerned a CA citizen has been settled; all that is left is an action between two foreign corporations o Plaintiff has not shown that it is more convenient for it litigate in CA rather than in Taiwan/Japan o It would be more efficient to litigate in Taiwan/Japan o No shared interest in social policies STREAM OF COMMERCE (under Asahi): Brennan Approach: if you place a product into the stream of commerce and have awareness that the product will reach the forum state and be purchased by consumers, you have purposefully availed yourself (Worldwide); the possibility of a law suit cannot come as a surprise; a defendant who places goods in the stream of commerce benefits economically from forum state and benefits from its regulatory laws  Place product in SOC and had awareness and expectation.  A knowingly participate of a deliberate chain of distribution of product and knew it would be marketed in the forum state. They knew it would be SOLD.





O’Connor Approach: stream of commerce and awareness are insufficient to establish purposeful availment; additional conduct by the defendant directed toward the forum state is required for PJ (p132). Have to have expectation! Stevens Approach: whether or not a corporation’s course of dealing amounts to purposeful availment depends on the “volume, value, and the hazardous character of the components”

No Purposeful Availment 



Hanson v. Denckla – Mrs. Donner started relationship with DE trust company when she lived in PA, and continued this relationship after her move to FL; FL did not have PJ over the DE trustee because DE did NOT purposefully avail itself of FL o “The unilateral activity of a person who has a relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state” o It doesn’t matter if FL is the “center of gravity” or the most convenient location for litigation – MUST have PJ over defendant Worldwide – no PJ over regional distributor (in tri-state area) and NY retailer in OK (where accident occurred); the defendants have no relation to OK: no activity, sales, privileges or benefits of OK law (there was PJ over the car manufacturer and the importer because of stream of commerce) o Foreseeability is relevant – Due Process requires that the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there  It is NOT enough that it is foreseeable that a product may enter a state (by the unilateral act of a third party: the Robinsons)

General Jurisdiction (narrow person home “domicile” or where they have PRESECNE to think its their home. For example where a place of business is incorporated.) 



Bristol Myers 2017- “continuous and systematic” activities are required for general jurisdiction.  Pay attention to Prong IB. A connection/ adequate link between the plaintiff lawsuit and the forum state/ Affiliation (New change)  If you lived in the forum; injected from in California – yes  If not… like the non residents- then no  Sotomayor dissents the non residents claims REALTE to the same case (drugs) The majority forgot about the other part of Prong 1B (REALTE TO) It is not disputed the suit did no arise out of the plaintiff purposeful acts in the forum state.  Allito….. two things are clear. Not just having a contact with someone from another state, you need some connection  Specific jurisdiction case. Daimler v. Bauman  Must be headquartered.  Mercedes benz  Distribute cars to every state so if grant general jursidction based off that can be sued anywhere  Goodyear case  Only a limited set of affiliations with a forum will render a defendant amenable to allpurpose jurisdiction there. For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general

jurisdiction if the individuals domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home.



Helicopteros (GENERAL jurisdiction case – only because the parties conceded that the claim did not arise out of or relate to Helicol’s contacts with TX) – purchases and related trips alone (even if occurring at regular intervals) are not enough to amount to the “continuous and systematic” activities that are required for general jurisdiction

In Rem Jurisdiction(over the PROPERTY only!!) – the court has power to adjudicate the rights of all persons claiming ownership to a particular item of property located within the state (foreclosures are classic in rem cases) Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction – way to obtain jurisdiction over a person who has property within the forum state, but is absent from the state. (using as the anchor to get jurisdiction, unrelated to lawsuit)  Pennoyer v. Neff – property must be attached to the person at the inception of the suit  Shaffer v. Heitner – when the dispute is unrelated to the ownership of the property, quasi in rem jurisdiction cannot be based solely on the presence of the property in the forum state; there must be minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum Challenging the Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction 



 



Direct Attack – After a defendant files a “special appearance” in order to contest the court’s PJ over him, he may attack a judgment rendered against him VERTICALLY (directly appeal to a higher court in that jurisdiction) – he CANNOT collaterally attack any issue – second court is bound by Full Faith & Credit o Rule 12(h)(1) – defense of PJ is waived if not properly asserted by the defendant at the inception of the case (either in a pre-answer motion or in the defendant’s answer to the plaintiff’s complaint) After the defendant enters a “special appearance” asserting lack of PJ, he may either: o (1) Make an interlocutory appeal and immediately appeal the PJ ruling by way of a direct attack (before there is any adjudication on the merits); OR o (2) If an interlocutory appeal is denied or not allowed, the defendant will proceed to defend the case on the merits and then appeal after the case has been fully litigated by the trial court Collateral Attack – If a defendant makes NO APPEARANCE in the first action, he may later contest the original court’s PJ over him in another court that does NOT have appellate jurisdiction over the first court After the defendant makes no appearance, the first court will enter a default judgment against him o Defendant may then collaterally attack the first court’s PJ, but cannot collaterally attack judgment on the merits if the second court also finds that there was PJ in the first action  Milliken v. Meyer – if a defendant collaterally attacks to challenge PJ, the second court CANNOT review the merits of the case (it is precluded from doing so by the Full Faith and Credit clause) – it may only address issues of jurisdiction If the second court rejects the defendant’s PJ challenge, the defendant’s ONLY remedy is to return to the first court and ask that the default judgment against him be vacated and that the case be re-opened so that he may now defend the plaintiff’s substantive claim against him o The defendant must show good cause for defaulting and not appearing to defend the first time around, and he must have a valid defense to the plaintiff’s claim  It is HIGHLY unlikely that the first court will find that the defendant had “good cause”

Contract Clauses that Affect Personal Jurisdiction 

 

      



“Choice of Law” Clauses (as in Burger King) – the agreement shall be governed and construed under the laws of State X o This does NOT dictate where suit shall be brought or whether the parties consent to PJ (in the jurisdiction of the chosen substantive law) The substantive law of the chosen jurisdiction will govern the substantive rights and obligations of the parties in the event of dispute/litigation So long as the “choice of law” clause is valid as a matter of contract law, the clause will generally be honored by the forum state in which the suit is filed: private parties to a contract are free to define the terms of their contract and their respective rights/obligations under it (there is a “public policy” exception) In the absence of a “choice of law” clause, the court in which the suit is ultimately filed must turn to its “conflict of laws” rules in order to determine which substantive law should govern “Consent to Jurisdiction” Clauses = PJ Both parties to the contract consent to be sued in a particular jurisdiction o Any defense to lack of PJ is WAIVED! (Consent = 2nd method of acquiring PJ) A “consent to jurisdiction” clause does NOT require that suit be brought in the consented-to forum, nor does it mean that the consented-to jurisdiction’s substantive law must be applied in the case This clause ONLY means that Personal Jurisdiction has been consented to in that forum “Choice of Forum”/“Forum Selection” Clauses Parties agree that suit on the contract may be brought only in the courts of the chosen forum o (1) They LIMIT the forum to a particular jurisdiction, AND o (2) They acquire PJ over both parties in the selected forum (through their consent) A jurisdiction could refuse to honor a “choice of forum” clause and hold in unenforceable if unreasonable or against public policy; it could also decline to exercise jurisdiction if it determines the litigation would be burdensome or otherwise improper o Carnival Cruise – S.C. upheld a “forum-selection clause” that was displayed on a cruise ticket and provided that all suits must be brought in FL, even though ticket was purchased in WA, ship departed from and returned to CA, and traveled to New Mexico; Ps had the option of rejecting the contract

The Due Process Requirements of Notice 1. Personal jurisdiction 2. Notice and opportunity to be heard The most fundamental requirement of Due Process is that the defendant be provided with adequate notice of the commencement of the action and the opportunity to be heard Notice MUST: (Constitutional Requirement for Notice, as provided by Mullane) (1) be reasonably calculated to alert interested parties of the pendency of the action; AND (2) be of a quality that one desirous of ACTUALLY communicating with the party would adopt (AKA UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES) 

Jones v. Flowers – If you become aware that the defendant did not receive notice, you may have to take additional reasonable steps; mailed notice of tax sale was returned and unclaimed; failure to follow up was unreasonable – publishing last notice in a newspaper was not constitutionally adequate (because it was possible/practicable to give him more adequate notice)



If a reasonable notice does not reach the defendant, but the plaintiff does not know that the notice has not reached the defendant, notice will still be adequate (if you meet Rule 4, you will probably meet the constitutional requirement)

Service of Process Process serves 2 functions: (1) Notifies the defendant, AND (2) Formally asserts PJ over him  

Rule 4(c)(1) – PROCESS = copy of P’s complaint and a summons to appear in the action “Personal Service”/”In Hand Service” – most statutes now provide that process may be left at the defendant’s home with someone of suitable age and discretion (if not “personal,” then “substituted” service)

BASIC METHODS OF SERVICE OF PROCESS ON INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, OR ASSOCIATIONS UNDER THE FRCP Type of Defendant/Service Rule Method of Service Individuals within a judicial district 4(e) (1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought of the U.S. in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made (where we usually get service by mail); or (2)(A) delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to the individual personally; or (2)(B) leaving a copy of the summons and the complaint at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (2)(C) delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process Minors and Incompetent Persons 4(g) Must be served by following state law for serving a summons or like within a judicial district of the U.S. process on such a defendant in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of the state where service is made A domestic or foreign corporation or 4(h) (1) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual; or a partnership or other unincorporated association within a (2) by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to an judicial district of the U.S. officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process (someone with sufficient business responsibilities) and, if the agent is one authorized by statute to receive service and the statute so requires, by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant



  



Even if service achieves ACTUAL notice, many courts hold, upon proper objection, that service of process is insufficient and PJ has not been properly acquired over the defendant if service is made in a way or on a person NOT authorized by the statute or rule (“insufficient service of process” objection) Statutes/rules prescribed HOW the process must be prepared and WHAT information the summons must contain (if process is in deficient form  “insufficient process” objection) Federal courts have the discretion to “quash” service of process when it is insufficient, rather than dismiss the action Service must be made on the defendant within 120 days after complaint is filed o Rule 4(m) – if service is not made within this time, the court must dismiss the action (without prejudice) or direct that service be effected within a specified time (unless the plaintiff shows good cause for failure to serve) Service of process can be waived





o Rule 4(d) – plaintiff may notify a defendant in writing by mail and request that the defendant waive the service of summons (cost efficient); the defendant must be given reasonable time to return the waiver (at least 30 days) If the defendant does return the waiver, his answer is due 60 days from the date on which request for waiver was sent; If he does NOT return form, defendant must be properly served (he may have to pay cost of service) Waiving service of summons DOES NOT also waive any objection to PJ or venue (but would waive...