CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 32 by 1XjCa6C

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 29

									CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 32
Professor Fischer
Columbus School of Law
The Catholic University of America
November 8, 2002
WRAP-UP OF LAST CLASS

  We finished our discussion of the modern
  International Shoe, a landmark case setting
  out the modern theory of personal jurisdiction
  in cases involving non-resident defendants.
  By examining another major Supreme Court
  case, World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson,
  we began to consider how the Court has
  applied the International Shoe test applies to
  a situation where a non-resident defendant
  allegedly commits a harmful act outside the
  forum state that causes harm within the
  forum state.
WHAT WILL WE DO TODAY?
 Continue our study of this issue by
 analyzing 3 significant Supreme Court
 cases:World-Wide Volkswagen v.
 Woodson (1980), Asahi (1987), and
 Calder v. Jones (1984)
MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST IS
FACT-SPECIFIC
 Since courts must pay careful attention
 to facts in applying the minimum
 contacts test (remember that Justice
 Stone said in International Shoe that it
 is not a “mechanical or quantitative”
 test, you must be familiar with the facts
 of the cases we are reading in this unit
 on personal jurisdiction, as well as case
 names for all Supreme Court cases.
REVIEW: MINIMUM
CONTACTS
 State the minimum contacts test that
 the Court in International Shoe held
 was required by the Due Process
 clause.
THE SUPREME COURT: MODERN STANDARD
FOR PERSONAL JURISDICTION

   According to Chief Justice Stone in
  International Shoe, the modern standard for
  a state’s assertion of personal jurisdiction
  over a non-resident defendant is that “due
  process requires only that in order to subject
  a defendant 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
  not offend "traditional notions of fair play and
  substantial justice.“ [citation omitted]”.
  le”.
REVIEW: GENERAL AND
SPECIFIC JURISDICTION
 What is GENERAL jurisdiction? How
 does it differ from SPECIFIC
 jurisdiction?
World-Wide Volkswagen: Flow
Chart
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN:
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
 Where do plaintiffs file their action
 against defendants?
 Why do plaintiffs choose this forum?
Who’s Woodson?
  A puzzle: Charles S. Woodson is a
 respondent in the U.S. Supreme Court,
 but he is not a defendant. Please
 explain.
Another Puzzle
                 Why didn’t the
                 plaintiffs sue Lloyd
                 Hull, the drunk
                 driver of the vehicle
                 that hit their car?
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN: CLAIMED
BASIS FOR JURISDICTION

  What is the source of law for plaintiffs’
  claimed assertion of jurisdiction over
  defendants?
Oklahoma Long-Arm Statute,
Tit. 12 §1701.03(a)(4)(1971)
  A court may exercise personal jurisdiction
  over a person who acts directly or by an
  agent, as to a cause of action or claim for
  relief arising from the person’s . . causing
  tortious injury in this state by an act or
  omission outside this state if he regularly
  does or solicits business or engages in any
  other persistent course of conduct, or derives
  substantial revenue from goods used or
  consumed or services rendered, in this state .
  ..“
BACK TO WORLD-WIDE
VOLKSWAGEN
 How does the Oklahoma Supreme Court
 rule on the writ of prohibition?
 What is the legal issue for decision by
 the U.S. Supreme Court?
 How does the U.S. Supreme Court rule?
REASONING OF U.S. SUPREME COURT
MAJORITY OPINION IN WORLD-WIDE
VOLKSWAGEN

                    The U.S. Supreme
                    Court endorses the
                    “minimum contacts”
                    test set out in
                    International Shoe
                    According to Justice
                    White (1962-93),
                    who delivers the
                    Court’s opinion, what
                    are the two functions
                    of the minimum
                    contacts test?
Academic Debate:Federalism
Compare Martin H. Redish, Due Process,
Federalism, and Personal Jurisdiction: A
Theoretical Evaluation, 75 NW. U. L. Rev.
1112 (1981) with Allen R. Kamp, Beyond
Minimum Contacts: The Supreme Court’s New
Jurisdictional Theory, 15 Ga. L. Rev. 19
(1980)
Insurance Corp. of Ireland, 456 U.S. 694
(1982) – federalism is not a separate source
or restriction on power of state courts to
exercise personal jurisdiction. Federalism
concerns are just a function of individual
liberty interest preserved by due process
clause which is the only source of the pj
requirement.
Justice White’s Majority
Opinion in WWVW
                  According to
                  Justice White,
                  which prong of
                  the International
                  Shoe test should
                  be examined
                  first?
APPLYING THE MINIMUM CONTACTS
TEST TO THE FACTS OF WWVW

  How does Justice White apply the
  International Shoe test to the facts of World--
  Wide Volkswagen?
  Is it relevant that the NY defendants arguably
  could foresee that the Audi would enter
  Oklahoma?
  Is the concept of “purposeful availment”
  important to Justice White? Why or why not?
WORLD-WIDE: DISSENTS
              Please explain the
              basis for Justice
              Marshall’s (1967-91)
              dissent.
World-Wide Dissents
  Please explain the
  basis for Justice
  Brennan’s (1957-90)
  dissent.
World-Wide Dissents
  Please explain the
  basis for Justice
  Blackmun’s (1970-
  94) dissent
  Do you agree with
  the majority or with
  any of the dissents?
  Why?
Justice Blackmun’s puzzlement
   What about this case caused Justice
  Blackmun to be puzzled?
   Could you dispel his confusion?
WWVW
  Case indicates that to exercise pj over a non-
 resident D, the court must find purposeful
 conduct either by direct acts of the D in the
 forum or by conduct outside the state that
 the D could have foreseen could result in suit
 being brought in the state
 Forum injury is not enough by itself to confer
 jurisdiction.
Asahi v. Superior Court, 480
U.S. 102 (1987)
  Another “stream of commerce” case
  What is the issue that the Supreme
  Court must decide in Asahi?
Asahi- A Badly Divided Court:
Count the Votes
  Part I - unanimous
  Part IIA
  Minimum contacts lacking 4 (O’Connor)
  Rehnquist, Powell, Scalia)
  Part IIB
  “Reasonableness” prong not met: Fairness 8
  (all but Scalia)
  Part III (O’Connor, Rehnquist, Powell, Scalia)
Asahi
  Asahi status is uncertain given that there is
  no majority opinion on the issue of minimum
  contacts
  Court found no jurisdiction based on due
  process alone (separate from minimum
  contacts analysis)
  How often will defendants have minimum
  contacts with a forum but the exercise of
  personal jurisdiction will offend notions of fair
  play and substantial justice?
Asahi on Minimum Contacts
  Is some “additional” conduct required other
  than placing goods in the stream of
  commerce and being that the goods will end
  up in the forum state (such as advertising,
  marketing)
  O’Connor – yes (says World-Wide court held
  mere foreseeability not enough)
  Brennan – no (says World-Wide court
  carefully limited its holding to situation where
  consumer took goods to state)
Calder v. Jones: Personal
Jurisdiction in Libel Actions
                   Libel action in
                   California over 1979
                   National Enquirer
                   article that claimed
                   that actress Shirley
                   Jones had a drinking
                   problem.
Calder v. Jones
  Which defendants contested the
  jurisdiction of the California court?
  Why?

								
To top