Personal Jurisdiction

Notice

- The other primary requirement for exercising PJ. (Notice and contacts) - DUE PROCESS requires both notice and contacts

Differences between in personam and in rem

1. How jurisdiction is obtained: in personam is obtained by serving d notice personally with process. In rem is obtained by seizing property. 2. Effect on judgment: in personam the judgment binds the d personally. The judgment winner can have certain assets seized and sold in order to satisfy the judgment. In rem affects only property and is limited to the value of the property. P cannot use judgment to seize other property owned by d. Prior judgment not binding on d in second suit, meaning d can relitigate any or all of the issues a second time.

Two categories of PJ

1. In personam: Jurisdiction over the d 2. In rem: Jurisdiction over a particular item of property owned by a person. a. Quasi in rem: A court may only affect a named defendant's interest in a specific named piece of property. i. Type 1: Claim arises out of or is otherwise related to the property. Ex. If a person is injured by a hazardous condition on another person's land. ii. Type 2: A claim unrelated to the property. The property mainly serves as an asset to satisfy any judgment that the court may enter against the owner. Severely limited by Shaffer v. Heitner.

Application of PJ to Particular Circumstances: Intentional Behavior

1. It's the intentional nature and directedness of the harm that can substitute for minimum contacts and purposeful availment. A. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.: The Court held that there was no question that respondent's contacts with the forum state were sufficient to support jurisdiction, at least where petitioner's claim arose out of those contacts. The Court stated that whether the laws of the forum would require application of the "single publication rule" and expose respondent to extra-jurisdictional damages was not material because jurisdiction, not choice of law, was at issue. B. Calder v. Jones: Court held that jurisdiction over petitioners was proper based upon the effects of their intentional conduct in California. Respondent's career was centered in California, the article was drawn from California sources, and the harm was suffered in California. The Supreme Court noted that petitioners were not charged with untargeted negligence, but rather their intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions were expressly aimed at California, and under the circumstances, petitioners must have reasonably anticipated being sued there. NOTE: Keeton and Calder: both libel cases both on personal jurisdiction. Fundamental differences: SC covering different grounds in both cases. Both cases consider: what is the relationship between the P and the forum?

Application to Particular Circumstances: Contracts Cases

1. McGee:McGee v. International Life Insurance (1957), dealt with an insurance policy. A California resident purchased a life insurance policy. The insurance company then assigned the policy to a Texas insurance company. The California resident paid premiums from California t Texas until his death. When the company refused to pay, the beneficiaries sued in California. The court held that maintaining an insurance policy in Californian was sufficient to establish minimum contacts between the insurer and California. Therefore, California courts had PJ. 2. Hanson: In Hanson v Denckla (1958), a person had established a trust with a Delaware trustee. The person later moved to Florida. After the person died, an action was brought in Flroida courts to gain the assets in the trust, which required PJ over the DE trustee. The court held that the persons unilateral move to Flroida did not establish contacts between the Delaware trustee and Florida. The trustee did not play a role in the person's move. 3. Burger King v. Rudewicz: most detailed discussion of how minimum contacts test applies to contracts. Merely entering into a K with a resident of the forum is not sufficient. If the K is negotiated and or to be performed in the forum, that is evidence of how the parties have purposefully availed themselves of the forum. Here, franchisee knew he was negotiating with FL corporation and made payments to FL-- purposefully directed.

PJ Cases Outside Minimum Contacts Test

1. State of incorporation: Pennoyer suggested that a state could exercise jurisdiction over a corporation in its state of incorporation, even though d had no assets, employees, or operations in that state. Universally accepted rule, though never approved by SCOTUS. 2. Presence: Pennoyer ruled allowing a state to exercise J over anyone who was served while present in that state. SCOTUS approved this in Burnham, 1990. Court was divided with no majority opinion. i. Scalia: long tradition was enough that this practice complied with due process. Therefore, UNNECESSARY TO APPLY MINIMUM CONTACTS. Saying MC is for people who were not present. ii. Brennan: MINIMUM CONTACTS APPLIES. But, d's voluntary presence gives general jurisdiction. iii. Stevens: Jurisdiction present.

Definition of Notice

A P gives notice of a pending action when she serves the summons and copy of the complaint on d. The summons commands d to answer P's complaint within a fixed period of time.

Definition

A courts power over the parties to a case. If a court does not have personal jurisdiction over a part, any order or judgment the court may render does not bind that party.

PJ and Consent

Because PJ is a personal defense, a party may waive it either expressly or by taking actions inconsistent with the defense. 1. If a party consents to a court's jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to evaluate minimum contacts. Consent alone is enough to establish jursdiction.

Adequacy of Notice

Due process requires that service of process be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. (Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank)

Waiver of service under FRCP 4(d)

FRCP 4(d) allows a P to ask a d to waive service, which is an alternative to actual service.

Notice of service by publication

In rem cases: Service by publication for in rem has been rejected by Mullane and later SC cases, holding that when the addresses of property owners can be ascertained, some other method of service that is more likely to reach d is required. -Publication alone is sufficient if the whereabouts of the d are not known and cannot be ascertained with reasonable effort. In these cases, service by publication is acceptable in both in rem and in personam actions.

Development of the Modern Constitutional Test for PJ

MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST!!! -Pennoyer v. Neff: A state can obtain in personam jurisdiction over a non-resident only if that non-resident is personally served with process while within that state. Service by publication against a nonresident is ineffective to get jurisdiction. - International Shoe: greatly extended the reach of jurisdiction by allowing a state to exercise jurisdiction over d's who aren't present in the state. Replaced Pennoyer's analysis with MINIMUM CONTACTS analysis. Jurisdiction was proper over a d who had "certain minimum contacts with the state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and susbtantial justice". - Shaffer v. Heitner: held MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST to IN REM JURISDICTION. Shaffer eviscerated the use of in rem jurisdiction in cases where the claim does not arise out of the property. - WWV: In order to be subject to a state's jurisdiction, a d must have chosen to have some contact with that state considerations of fairness, convenience, and the interests of the state in overseeing the litigation are otherwise irrelevant. i. Minimum contacts = Purposeful availment + Foreseeability (reasonably being haled into court) ii. At the end of WWVW: Rejection of PURE stream of commerce way of looking at things. Now stream of commerce with some view of foreseeability and foreseeability being defined by purposeful availment. A purely unilateral act on the part of the d does not give jurisdiction to P iii. Interstate federalism wing and fairness to defendant wing: two parts of WWVW iv. Fairness: (1) burden on d, (2) interest of the forum in adjudicating the case, (3) P's interest in obtaining effective relief, (4) interest of judicial system in efficient resolution, and (5) shared interests of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.

Application of the Modern Constitutional Test for PJ

Minimum contacts test has two steps: 1. Contacts: Determine if there are any contacts at all between the d and the forum. If there is at least one contact, the court determines whether the claim arises out of the contacts. i. A contact is considered only if it is the result of purposeful activity (WWV), otherwise known as purposeful availment. 2. Fairness: If there are contacts, the court then incorporates the five WWV factors. i. Burden on the D: travel, differences in legal systems. ii. Interest of the state: interested if any of the parties are from that state or if the dispute directly affects the state. iii. Interest of P: satisfied if the forum is a convenient place because of availability of witness or other evidence. iv. Efficient resolution: inefficient if a case involving multiple parties must be split up and relitigated in separate places. If all claims can be heard, the factor is supporting jurisdiction. NOTE: lack of fairness rarely defeats jurisdiction. Asahi is the only case where the court refused to allow jurisdiction even though there were contacts.

Constitutional Standard for Notice

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank: Can use publication to give notice when you don't have names or addresses.

PJ Constitutional Requirement

PJ is a constitutional requirement for both state and federal courts. A judgment rendered over someone who has no PJ violates that persons right to due process.

Service of process for PJ

Proper service of process is necessary before a court may exercise PJ over a d. Any judgment rendered without reasonable notice violatles d's due process rights and is therefore invalid.

PJ and General Jurisdiction

Shoe: dictum stated that if party had a substantial and continuing relationship with a state, the courts of that state could hear any claim arising against d, even those unrelated to the contacts. - Goodyear Dunlap v. Brown: SC said general jurisdiction could exist in the proper case. (No PJ in this case though)

PJ and Stream of Commerce

Supreme Court only recently provided a clear answer to SoC issues in Nicastro. - SoC issue arises when d distributes goods in multiple states through a third party. D knows some of its goods go to a particular state but it doesn't know exactly where. - The issue in PJ is whether purposefully injecting goods into the stream of commerce constitutes purposeful availment with a state in which one of those goods causes injury. Answer: NO. - J.McInture Machinery v. Nicastro (Plurality opinion): Merely placing a product into the SoC is not enough to subject a d to PJ even if d knows the product will end up in forum. Instead, PJ exists only if the d engages in other activities SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED at the forum, such as advertising in the forum or providing services to the product.

Acceptable means of notice

Traditional means or other substituted service. - Service by first class mail or certified mail. - Service on the secretary of state with instructions to deliver to d - Service by publication

PJ and Internet Cases

Whether someone who visits or views a website may sue the person who operates the site in the viewers home state. Leading test: The type of website involved. 1. Passive site: a passive site can only be viewed. PJ rarely exists. 2. Active site: Viewer may put into and enter into a transaction. Operation of an active site CLEARLY constitutes a contact. A seller who contracts online to sell goods to a buyer has established contacts with the buyers state. 3. Interactive site: somewhere between the other two. View may enter info that affects site but not enter into a transaction. Court will look at all of the circumstances; level of activity, whether site is commercial in nature.

How notice is provided

Who serves: The court itself does not serve and neither can the party. FRCP 2(c)(2). Methods of service in state court: 1. Defendant in state: Variety of service methods allowed, mostly in hand and on an agent of the d designated to receive service. 2. Defendant out of state: Long arm statute (which are a response to Shoe and later cases, making it clear that a d can be sued in a state as long as contacts exist) i. Specific cases: Most statutes allow for service on an out of state d only in situations specifically enumerated in the statute itself. (Gibson v. Brown) ii. To limits of Constitution: a few statutes forgo the difficulties of specifying when service will be C and simply state that service is allowed whenever the state can exercise PJ over d consistent with Due Process. Service in federal court: FRCP 4. 1. Ds in the US: service can be made by serving it in hand, leaving process at d's usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who also resides there, serving an agent authorized by K arrangement or law to receive service of process, or serving according to any method authorized by either the state which the district court sits or the state where service takes place. 4(e) 2. Corporations within the US: Service can also be made by delivering process to an officer or a managing or general agent. FRCP 4(h) General rule: FRCP 4(K)(1)(A) provides that service of process using any of the methods is effective to establish jurisdiction over a defendant only if defendant "is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located" (a) To apply this test, it is necessary to consider both whether there are minimum contacts with the state and whether state law provides a means of serving defendant. (b) Although it is necessary to consider state service laws in determining whether a federal court may exercise PJ, the plaintiff in federal court does not necessarily use the state law methods to effect service. Plaintiff instead uses the methods set out in the FRCP. The FRCP also allows Plaintiff to "borrow" state law service rules.