This is an extract of our Personal Jurisdiction document, which we sell as part of our Civil Procedure Outlines collection written by the top tier of NYU School Of Law students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Civil Procedure Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
PERSONAL JURISDICTION Jurisdiction---judgments void without proper jurisdiction Any time an action brought, defendant wants to think, can I challenge any of these four?: Personal Jurisdiction; Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Venue; Forum Non Conveniens A. Background a. Any judgment made without proper jurisdiction is void, and not subject to full faith and credit b. Policy Reasons for Jurisdiction i. Unfair for defendant to be haled into a court where he cannot reasonably expect to be sued ii. Judges/jurors in courts other than those of defendant's home state may have bias iii. Inconvenience of traveling to another forum to defend oneself B. Personal Jurisdiction Some states have statutes limiting jurisdictional reach of their courts; others have "long-arm statutes" allowing their courts' jurisdiction to reach as far as the Constitution allows. Federal courts have personal jurisdiction over a person who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located. a. General Personal Jurisdiction-defendant subject to jurisdiction even arising out of non-forum related activities as long as contacts with forum state are systematic and continuous. Appropriate where the entity is so imbued with the character of a particular forum that it is considered the equivalent of a domiciliary. Classic example is GM in Michigan. b. Specific Personal Jurisdiction---suit must arise out of the transactions that generate jurisdiction c. Types of Personal Jurisdiction i. In rem--- jurisdiction over a thing or property physically in the state, when the suit is about that property. Judgment restricted to value of property ii. Quasi in rem---jurisdiction over property that is not related to the action. X might sue Y, with jurisdiction quasi in rem as a way of securing assets to pay for an award of the suit. Judgment restricted to value of property. iii. In Personam-- jurisdiction over the person or corporation who has at least minimum contacts in the state. Unrestricted judgment amount. Due Process quotes:
1. Sovereignty of each state to try causes in their courts plies a limitation on the sovereignty of all its sister states.---WWV
2. Due process gives predictability to the legal system by allowing potential Ds to structure their primary conduct with some
minimum assurances as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.
3. Issacharoff: ability to enforce a judicial decree turns ultimately on authority that judges can coerce parties to abide by their judgments; issues of representation, judicial authority over subjects Cases iv. Pennoyer v NeffPennoyer has to forfeit the land. Shows that a judgment is void if made without jurisdiction. Neff is no longer domiciled in Oregon, he has moved to California. So due process is violated if he can be sued in a state in which he's not domiciled. Pennoyer failed to attach Neff's Oregon property to the suit before proceeding, therefore, no in rem jurisdiction either. v. Bryant v Finnair---broadened after Pennoyer Finnair was sued in NY for an injury that occurred on a tarmac in Paris. Finnair just had a small promotional office in NY, but that was enough to subject it to general jurisdiction in NY. vi. International Shoe v Washington "Fair Play and Substantial Justice"; "Minimum Contacts," "Systematic and Continuous Contacts"---
? Expands jurisdiction beyond Pennoyer/Neff situations. International Shoe is subject to jurisdiction for suits that arise out of those contacts.
? Delaware corp with principal place of business in Mo. No offices or sales in Washington, but had salesmen in Washington to exhibit samples, based on commission. Argues can't be sued in Washington for failure to contribute to employee compensation fund.
? State has right to general jurisdiction over out-ofstate defendant if his contacts are "systematic and continuous" in that state.
? Rationale: If a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protections of the laws of that state, which gives rise to obligation, which a state will enforce if the obligations are connected with the business activities in the state.
? Establishes two-part test for in personam jurisdiction over a corporation not present in the state: first, are there minimum contacts with the state and does the suit arise from those contacts. Second, does jurisdiction comport with traditional
conception of fair play and substantial justice? (At least specific jurisdiction if it meets these).
? Also allows for general jurisdiction over out-of-state corp if operations are "so substantial" to justify suit against it on anything.
? Minimum Contacts: Are there sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state that make jurisdiction reasonable or fair, that defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum state
? Fair Play + Substantial Justice: Assuming min contacts met, think about 4 other factors for determining fairness. vii. Hanson v Denckla---purposeful availment
? If a corporation "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state," it has notice that it is subject to suit there and can protect against it.
? If one purposefully avails himself, then it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there, and he can act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation by procuring insurance, passing costs on to consumers, or severing connection with state if risks are too great. viii. World-Wide Volkswagen v Woodson Steps back a bit. The mere unilateral activity of those who claims some relationship with a non-resident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state. It was foreseeable that customer would drive from NY to Oklahoma, but not foreseeable to the dealer that he would be haled into court in Oklahoma for sale of car in NY. WW also discusses stream of commerce. Outlines some steps it sees as required for personal jurisdiction: no activity in Oklahoma, no sales or services, do not avail themselves of privileges and benefits of Okla law, solicits no business there.
--jurisdiction only good if the D delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state To get at fair play and substantial justice, outlines 5 considerations: 1) Burden on defendant in defending suit there 2) The forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute 3) Plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief 4) Shared interests of states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies (e.g. In Kulko, ex-wife who moved w/ kids to California couldn't sue the
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Procedure Outlines.