Jurisdiction Outline

1. JURISDICTION

   1. Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)

The modern test for PJ is the “minimum contacts test” of International Shoe. Relevant past decisions:

• Pennoyer: The court has PJ over a Δ who is served in state (unless he is only there due to fraud). Five ways for a court to exercise PJ over a Δ:

  • He is a resident of the state.

  • He is served in the state,

  • He consents to be served in the state.

  • He is sued in rem or quasi in rem.

• Hertz Corp. v. Friend: A corporation is a citizen BOTH of the state where it is headquartered and the state where it is legally incorporated.

• International Shoe v. Washington: Δ must have minimum contacts related to the suit:

“Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to judgment in personam, if he not be 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.”

1. The Three Elements of PJ

• (1) Is there service?

  • In federal court…Rule 4(k)(1):

    • (A) Δ is subject to a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the FDC sits; or

    • (B) Δ is joined under Rule 14 t(third party complaint) or 19 (required joinder) and is served within 100 miles of the FDC.

  • In state court: Does the state’s long arm statute allow the court to hear the matter? The longest arm is International Shoe, but state courts may choose to exercise less PJ than that decision requires. State courts have concurrent jurisdiction over most federal matters, but the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction in a few matters, e.g. patents, admiralty, copyright, etc.

• (2) Does the state’s long arm statute permit the court to hear the matter?

• (3) Does the Due Process Clause of the 14^th Amendment allow it? (Contacts, Consent, and Notice?)

  1. International Shoe: Contacts Test

• Strength of Contacts

  • There is no PJ if Δ has no contacts in the forum state.

  • Otherwise, Δ’s contacts are assessed on a sliding scale in two dimensions: the contacts’ relationship to the claim and the nature of the contacts.

• Did Δ purposely avail himself of the foreign state’s laws and protections? This stands in for notice, giving Δ reason to know that a suit could be brought against him.

  • If Δ’s contacts are continuous and systematic AND related to the claim, then we have jurisdiction.

  • If Δ’s contacts are isolated and sporadic OR unrelated to the claim, then we must ask:

• Reasonableness of PJ: “Fair play and substantial justice.” This includes…

  • The state’s interest in hearing the suit.

  • The burden on Δ to defend himself in the forum state.

  • The convenience of trying the case in the chosen forum and the availability of witnesses and evidence there.

  • Whether it was foreseeable to Δ that his conduct would make him subject to the court of that state.

    1. Consent

• If a party expressly consents to jurisdiction in a forum, then we have PJ.

• Consent is usually achieved through contracts, which is valid if the K is enforceable:

  • Choice of law clause: Parties may agree ahead of time to apply the law of a certain state regardless of the forum they choose to adjudicate the dispute. (Burger King).

  • Forum selection clause: The parties may specify the forum which will adjudicate any dispute arising under the contract. This must be made in good faith and be fundamentally fair at the time the agreement is made. The forum can’t be one chosen to deter litigation.

    1. Notice

• The 5^th and 14^th Amendments says parties are entitled to due process, which requires a party to be notified when a court is asserting jurisdiction over that party and plans to adjudicate its rights.

  • Parties must be served notice in a manner reasonably calculated in the circumstances to communicate to parties to the action and afford them a chance to pose their objections. (Mullane).

    • The party needs to know how and when to respond and also allow reasonable time to appear.

    • Notice must be served by the most reasonable means available.

  • Personal service is always sufficient.

  • Notice by publication can be sufficient if the identity or location of the party is unknown and it would be unduly costly or burdensome to track her down.

    1. Cases

• Hanson v. Denckla: purposeful availment

• WWVolkswagen: purposeful availment, policy for movable products, stream of commerce

• Burnham: service in-state is still enough to est. person juris.

• Burger King v. Radzowicz: deliberately reaching out, purposeful availment fair warning/notice of D’s suability in FL

• Pavolvich: “Effects Test”: foreign act with foreseeable effects in the forum state. (specific juris)

• International Shoe: minimal contacts. Power over PEOPLE.

• Shaffer v. Heitner: gets rid of in rem (Delaware Greyhound). Power over THINGS.

• Carnival Cruise: forum selection clauses: generally upheld. CONSENT

• Mullane: Notice: mailings are important personally. NOTICE.

  1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) (Federal)

In order for a federal court to hear a case, it must have one of the three types of federal SMJ.

1. Federal Question Jurisdiction

• Federal question jurisdiction is granted by Article III of the Constitution and by 28 USC § 1331.

• Article III gives federal courts jurisdiction over all claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the U.S.”

• State courts may hear federal questions as well, except for those specifically given to the USDC’s by Congress.

• Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule: To have federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff must present a federal question in her complaint, and it must be necessary to her case. It is not sufficient that she...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Procedure Outlines.