Civil Procedure Historical Overview Goal = to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action Burden of proof of a civil = ―by a preponderance of the evidence‖ To file in federal court need a ―diversity of citizenship‖ and a ―federal question‖ Only state cases the Supreme Court of the United States can hear is those that apply federal law Courts of Appeals: 13 circuits Definitions: Comity: respect owed to a coordinate system of government Choice of law: whos law is going to apply in a case involving diversity Rendering state: state that gives judgment Recognition state: the state that accepts holding of valid judgments Full Faith and Credit Clause: in U.S. constitution, says decisions of other states need to be honored by recognition state In personam jurisdiction: jurisdiction over the person In rem jurisdiction/quasi-in-rem 1/quasi-in-rem 2: jurisdiction over the property Purposeful Availment: appearance in court consenting to allow court to have jurisdiction over Special Appearance: appear in rendering court to dispute personal jurisdiction •alternative: default then collaterally attack in recognition state when they try to enforce why we care where we are sued: 1. inconvenience 2. local bias 3. choice of law Personal Jurisdiction Personal jur. is statutory and each state must enact statutes allowing it —statute does not have to reach the full limits of due process, as defined by the constitution, but it cannot go beyond them first ask if the statute allows p.j. then goes on to constitutional question General Jur.: can sue the for a claim that arises anywhere Specific Jur.: is sued for a claim that arises in the forum state Exclusive Jur: stretches over persons & property within state No direct Jur: over persons outside the state Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) • based on raw physical power • gives states powers over non-residents 4 traditional bases of jurisdiction 1. Presence (found in state): when served with process, gives the state general jur. 2. Property within state: judgment then limited to the property 3. domicile (resident): gives general jur. 4. consent (appears in court) _____________________________________________________________ In Personum In Rem _______________________________________________________________________ How to assert: personal service in forum state attach res at beginning of suit ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Basis: presence of person in forum st. presence of ’s res in forum st. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Effect of Judgment: unlimited personal obligation limited to value of res in state _________________________________________________________________________
Types of Service: - service by person - constructive service
service in Pennoyer was constructive but not sufficient, there was no likelihood that would see ad or know about suit no in rem jurisdiction by Oregon court because property was not an issue in original suit, only attorneys fees were, he should have attached property at beginning of suit Hess v. Pawloski (1927) – expansion of Pennoyer - Car accident in Mass., state wanted anyone traveling within state to designate someone upon whom service could be made once no longer in state - Because process cannot be served on an out of state citizen if no longer in state, found this to be a reasonable alternative - = implied performance Non-resident motorist statute: consent to jur. for a lawsuit arising from that accident and consented to service of process on an appointed agent (state employee appointed by statute) – all states have these statutes created new system for automobiles and to cover driving
International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) • new doctrinal formula, makes state lines less important… still applies today jurisdiction is okay if ―has such minimum contacts with the forum that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice‖ 2 prongs of test: 1. contacts 2. fairness can now serve process outside of the state, does not overrule Pennoyer, only test is is outside of state facts of case: state of Wash can sue a non-Wash based corporation for failure to pay taxes… … Wash had right to extend jurisdiction because the co had substantial contacts within the state and it was fair to subject the company to Wash. Jurisdiction even though company wasn’t located in/had property within state doesn’t want to base decisions on outdated notions of territorial sovereignty McGee (1957) Texas corporation sells life insurance to a California citizen, and company changed hands, sued in California: Personal jurisdiction upheld Gives a broader scope to jurisdiction 3 Influential Factors: 1. solicited business from California (reached out) 2. Relatedness between ’s contact with forum and this cause of action 3. State’s interest in providing its citizens with a forum
Hanson v. Denkla: Suit over estate – PA widow sets up account with Del. Bank and moves and continues to transact business, wants FL jurisdiction over Del. – but Delaware didn’t reach out to do business in Fla, thus no purposeful availment Purposeful availment: if there is something the company did to give state jurisdiction – a purposeful activity to gain a benefit (J. Blackmun sharply dissented)
Gray Long arm statutes; within US Constitution but in state statutes Extent to which due process permits substituted service where defendant had no agent or employee in the forum state Jurisdiction is supported in the state both parties can most conveniently settle their dispute Section 17(1)(b) of civil practice act provides for jurisdiction and does not violate due process Worldwide Volkswagon v. Woodson (1980) Family from NY, moving to AZ; new Audi explodes during accident in Oklahoma, sues manufacturer and N. American importer No foreseeability that would be subject to jurisdiction in forum state – not foreseeable that product would have gotten to forum state No purposeful availment because contact is the result of a ―unilateral act of a 3rd party‖ – the family took car to Oklahoma of own volition (court hints that had accident been closer to NY, there might have been jur.) look at reasonableness/fairness: 1. burden of 2. forum state’s interest 3. interest 4. interstate judicial efficiency 5. social policies issue of foreseeability: foreseeabilty of car traveling to OK not enough to be considered sufficient for jurisdiction
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine (1984) Libel suit brought in NH because it was the only state where the stat. of limitations had not yet expired, court found it OK to sue there, there were minimum contacts but Hustler was specifically sold to NH customers Calder v. Jones (1984) National Inquirer wrote article about Cali citizen, who sued in Cali, court upheld jurisdiction because writers specifically targeted person in Cali Burger King V. Rudzewicz (1985) Fl owned BK sued franchise owners from MI where they refused to close the store after franchise rights had been revoked. MI ’s had never entered FL Suit was brought in Florida and because K was entered into with a FL country, knew parent company was in FL and there was a choice of law forum clauses in K for FL 2 questions: 1. Relevant conduct (purposeful availment)? If yes 2. Is it fair? (look @ burden on , forum state’s interest, ’s int., interstate judicial efficiency, & substantive social policies) Burden to show inconvenient forum is on … difficult to show, must be grave unfairness and show that is at a grave disadvantage in litigation Long arm statute allows jurisdiction, see rule 4k(1)(a)
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California (1987) (plurality opinion) Stream of Commerce Case 2 theories for jurisdiction: 1. Purposeful availment exists if one could anticipate that product would get into the forum state (Brennan + 3) 2. Need purposeful availment + intent to serve forum state (ex. advertising)(O’Connor +) 3. Qualitative Steam of Commerce (volume, value, hazardous quality) (Stevens + 2) Helicopteros Nacionales v. Hall (1984)
Crash occurred in Peru, suit was brought in TX even though only initial K meetings, and some training occurred there and some parts were made there, there was a K stipulation that all suits would be brought in Peru Contacts were insufficient for personal jurisdiction (Brennan disagrees- thought there were sufficient contacts) Shaffer v. Heitner (1977) Stockholders suing Greyhound in Delaware, where there is a law allowing sequestration of any property within the state during the suit, but the property is not related to the disputein this case, but Del. Tried to seize stock, SupCt says they cannot do that Reaffirms International Shoe and applies it to in rem as well as in personum jur. – Delaware has no right to assert jurisdiction over company because even though they are incorporated in Delaware they do not hve the sufficient contacts Bases of jurisdiction other than minimum contacts 1. consent 2. presence of property – needs to be related to dispute for in-rem (see Int. Shoe) 3. presence of person State Sovereignty 1. right of state 2. right of the individual not to be subjected to another state’s laws other than his/her own
Burnham v. Superior Court of Cali. (1990) Plurality Cali wants jurisdiction over man who was visiting Cali on business and to see his kids for purposes of a divorce case, tagged him while in the state Scalia: Distinguishes Shaffer says reason for being in state doesn’t need to be related to dispute here, Pennoyer allows for tagging Brennan: need more than just presence, should stick to Shaffer and require reason for being in state be related to case, wants a minimum contacts analysis White: wasn’t a rule to get rid of confusion Cybersell v. Cybersell (1997) Trademark infringement case, AZ co. and FL co have same name and AZ corp wants to sue in AZ but even though internet hits are from all over the FL co doesn’t specifically solicit business from AZ and there are not sufficient contacts to warrant jurisdiction in AZ
Overview of Jurisdiction Pennoyer: - presence personal or rem - consent to jurisdiction - status - domicile International Shoe - Minimum contacts Shaffer - Cuts back on property - Little said about consent - Status remains an issue Why personal jurisdiction rules… 1. Convenience 2. Bias 3. Choice of law 4. Consent to sovereignty Notice and Opportunity to be heard: Due process requires both
Notice achieved through service of process Federal Rule 4: Process = summons and copy of complaint Rule 4(e)(2): Personal service is good anywhere in the state Can be substitute service if at ’s dwelling and usual place of abode and person of suitable age and discretion that also resides ther Rule 4(d): Waiver: can send formal waiver of service, cannot fax a waiver Rule 4(e)(1): Allows to use methods allowed by state as well as those by federal law, both in the state where is served and where court w/jur. is Rule 4(e)(2): Serving an agent: appointed by K or by operation of law such as motorist laws Rule 4(h) Service upon corporations must serve an agent, only outside state lines if the state of service allows it International service = rule 4(f), unless country forbids it 4(f)(c)(2); can serve by mail **Apply Rule 4 to hypos in book** Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank (1950) Process needs to be more than a gesture, need to make good faith effort at actual notice Sometimes service will not be possible and that is OK but fair attempt need to be made, sometimes service by publication will be acceptable, but not in this case Service must: 1. be reasonably calculated to reach you 2. and other people who have similar interests National Development Corp. v. Triad (1991) Service made upon housekeeper because resident was not at home, he complains this was not fair service and notice, court finds that it was because it appears as though it was a domicile and other relevant factors indicated that he would get the notice Look at what established home as a dwelling: 1. indicia of permanence 2. there at time of service
Connecticut v. Doehr (1991) Prejudgment attachment to assure award if won suit, essentially putting a lien on the house 3 prong test: 1. private interest 2. risk of erroneous deprivation & value of additional safeguards 3. govt’s interest, burden of additional process if loses and has caused harm by attaching property the then owes damages bond requirement: - bond can prevent harm that the hearing may not be able to prevent - most states require a bond, support for it as well as hearing
Erroneous Deprivation: ??????? Subject Matter Jurisdiction Federal: limited jurisdiction State: general jur. even though states may divide courts by type (ex. probate) Diversity j: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1) Alienage j: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(2) Federal ? j: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Diversity J: Purpose = neutrality, keeping fed judges insulated from local politics Amount in controversy must exceed 75,000 Complete diversity: no from the same state as any (see, Strawbridge) Test for diversity is when case is files Natural persons are citizens of that state in which they are domiciled—1 domicile at a time, starts with the place in which you are born and does not change until you go somewhere else with an intention to remain there Corporations do not have domiciles- a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated, and where it has its principal place of business (ppb) To determine ppb look at nerve center, muscle center, place of activities, total activity, etc.---- can only be 1 ppb Unincorporated entities such as unions the entity is a citizen of every tate in which a member is a citizen Mas v. Perry ( 1974) Diversity of citizenship case, icluding alien jur. not a citizen of any state so can bring suit only in state courts Randazzo v. Eagle –Picher (1987) Failure to show complete diversity, suit dismissed with prejudice J.A. Olsen v Winona (1987) Determining ppb of a corp Federal Question Jurisdiction: Gives fed jur to al cases involving constitutional questions and federal statute No amount in controversy requirement Well Pleaded Complaint Rule: Complain itself – not the defense to it, must be about a federal law, not just mentioning fed law, must be about federal law Louisville & Nashville RR v. Mottley (1908) Injured RR riders granted free life passes as compensation, passes were revoked after passage of new federal statute, Mottleys sued claiming the fed law didn’t apply to them and tried to invoke fed ? jur Case is about a breach of K… claim is not based on federal law so cannot invoke fed ? jur under well-pleaded complaint rule, they only figureed defense would bring a fed claim and that is not enough for fed jur here