#11418 - Jx Jurisdiction - Civil Procedure

Jurisdictional Considerations

Where to bring your suit

Important considerations:

• Convenience to plaintiff

• Procedural rules applied - fed/state courts are governed by different set of procedural rules

• Plaintiff may sometimes obtain a different substantive law depending on the state in which he files suit

• Or plaintiff might wish to take advantage of prejudice against out-of-state or big city defendants

• Familiarity of lawyer with particular court and set of rules

• Quality of judges sitting in particular court

• Backlog of cases = time for trial

SMJ = refers to kinds of suit a court may here

Personal jurisdiction = the ability of a court to compel particular persons to appear before them

4 requirements before suit can be brought in particular court

1. Territorial jurisdiction

2. Subject matter jurisdiction

3. Venue

4. Ability to withstand a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens

Notice

1. service of process

   1. Classic: always good in any circumstance - is handing the summons and complaint directly to the defendant.

   2. 'Substituted service' if there is a reasonable person (not a minor, someone who has relationship, who can be trusted to pass it on) there but not the actual defendant.

   3. Mail

   4. Agent for accepting service of process (in many states, this is a condition of doing business)

Publication, only when you can demonstrate other methods are unavailable

Jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction

Subject Matter jurisdiction

Federal question jurisdiction = 28 USC 1331, plaintiff asserts claim based on federal law

Diversity jurisdiction = 28 USC 1332, plaintiff and defendant are citizens of diverse states.

Territorial Jurisdiction

Note:

Power theory - States have full power over what occurs in their borders

Full faith and credit clause - all state courts as well as federal courts must honor the rulings of other states (when those rulings are consistent with the state laws)

Original rule

To have In Personam jurisdiction, either 1) person must be physically in state and therefore been served; 2) property must be attached to the personal claim prior to the actual litigation. This was supposed to give sufficient notice to the defendant, even if he was outside of the territory. Without notice, the defendant is deprived their due process.

Policy: in the interests of state to have control over property located within the state

Case

Pennoyer v Neff: where the court found that there was no notice, and therefore no jurisdiction, because the property was attached after the court's order. Circulating notice in newspaper not sufficient, when there is an acceptable alternative (but see: Shaffer v Heitner where notice in a newspaper was appropriate because the identities of the defendants were not knowable)

CASE TYPE DISTINCTIONS

2. In personam = binds a defendant personally (rights/obligations between people), typically providing damages or injunctive relief

3. In Rem = bind property in the sense of adjudicating rights of all persons who claim interest in the property

   1. Quasi in rem type 1 = 1 resolves dispute about the property itself

   2. Quasi in rem type 2 = 2 establishes rights to property, but the underlying dispute is unrelated to the property ..examples = tort claim for damages against absent defendant who owns real property within the state…this property would be brought within the jurisdiction of the court by attachment

4. In modern law, territorial jurisdiction is independent from notice, but in this era of Pennoyer, the concept of notice is not so fully developed as an independent development, which is why concepts of notice weave into the opinion and is used to justify some of the outcomes

Evolving….

2. International Shoe

   1. Defendant need not be present for in personam jurisdiction. Due process requires only that he have certain minimum contacts (in this instance: employees, customers, rented locations to sell merchandise, benefitting from the state itself, was enough). There is jurisdiction as long as it meets the threshold of "fair play and substantial justice." Presence must be continuous and systematic.

      1. Note: Court discusses that presence only used to be important because of the necessity of in-hand service of process for notice. Now this is not the case.

         1. If you have enough contacts with a state as a business, then you should automatically have notice that you could be sued there

         2. Availing oneself to privileges of state = that state has jurisdiction over you

      2. Black's dissent = too dangerous to base it on 'fair play/substantial justice' - this takes power away from the states and runs the risk of giving corporations too much power (by simply allowing the court to make such a subjective judgment)

2. Worldwide Volkswagen

   1. Simply putting your product in the 'stream of commerce' is not enough to personally avail yourself to benefit of the state, not enough to maintain that it is reasonably foreseeable to be sued anywhere your product ends up (no notice) - even though it is the nature of cars to travel. NO PURPOSEFUL CONTACT.

   2. McGee - showing that even if there is only one minimal contact, if you're suing out of that contact you can do it no matter what.

3. Good Year Tires v Dunlop

   1. Long-arm statute

   2. Specific jurisdiction: must target the forum state, claim must arise out of/related to that targeting. Flow of manufacturer's products may bolster specific jurisdiction, but then the claim must arise out of that 'flow.'

   3. They tried to get general jurisdiction because North Carolina was a store which sold Goodyear tires.

   4. Takeaway: in order to have general jurisdiction, it has to be your HOME state.

      1. Perkins -

      2. Helicopteros -

      3. Gator v LL Bean -

4. Burger King Corp

   1. Note: this is also a diversity jurisdiction case, which is why it is in FEDERAL court.

   2. Florida long arm statute specifically delineates specific jurisdiction to fullest extent of constitution: "any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who breaches a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state, so long as the cause of action arises from the alleged contractual breach"

   3. Defendant claims not to have notice, but given his continuous contact with FL office, the contract, his sophisticated bargaining power = sufficient contacts for specific jurisdiction

      1. Dissent: but local business will never generate sufficient revenue to deal with suit in a different state, and a corporation has plenty of money to do so.

   4. TWO PART TEST

      1. Defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum State (purposefully directed contacts at the forum state and the suit needs to arise out of those contacts)

      2. Other factors which determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice, such as - the burden on the defendant, the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, shared interest of the several sates in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.

5. Shaffer v Heitner

   1. Erie Doctrine: Why does it matter which state gets jurisdiction? Politics. States err on side of their own law.

   2. Ownership of property = automatic jurisdiction? (when that property is STOCKS)

      1. Issue: Is a Delaware Statute consistent with the Due Process clause when that statute allows a court of that state to have personal jurisdiction based solely on the defendants ownership of property in that state?

      2. NO: The Pennoyer framework is outdated. Now, in both in personem and in rem jurisdiction, minimum contacts are required.

         1. But note: sometimes the owning of property is sufficient to meet minimum contacts & notions of fair play/substantial justice

         2. Exceptions:

            1. Admiralty suits involving vessels that move quickly from port to port and country to country

            2. Foreign companies - attached property in Connecticut of a Kuwaiti defendant corporation, not subject to jurisdiction in any other state besides Connecticut

      3. No jurisdiction - although Delaware is the home of the company, it is not the home of the Directors of the company, claim did not arise out of the contact itself.

6. Nicastro v McIntrye: where a foreign company must have specifically targeted a state, not enough to have their merchandise end up there as a result of the 'stream of commerce.' (even though the company specifically targeted United States. No contact because the company uses a separate distributor, not located in New Jersey). No specific efforts to reach New Jersey.

   1. Basically acts as a hypo as a minimum contacts. There was no holding because there was no majority (only dissenters and plurality)

   2. All you can take is Breyer's concurrence

      1. Worried about

         1. Little guy plaintiff being screwed by not being able to bring a suit (by not applying stream of commerce doctrine)

         2. Little guy defendant being screwed by stream of commerce doctrine

      2. So the operative fact: the concurrence is so small that you could argue either way, but the only one fact Breyer does give us: he would have gone with the dissenters if the lawyer had pleaded more facts to show that New Jersey was a big scrap metal state and that there was a really good chance that the product would end up there (because solely going to conventions is not enough). Ginsberg...