I. Territorial Jurisdiction:
I. Exercising over citizens of the state
a. In personam – present/resident/in the state (Burnham)
b. In rem-- proceeds based on the property
i. Quasi in rem type I -- dispute about property between 2 people who are claiming the land
ii. Quasi in rem type II-- property is attached
1. Establishes right to property but not about the property itself
c. Pennoyer v. Neff (exercising jurisdiction within the boundaries of the state)
i. States do not have in personam jurisdiction over non-residents, unless they are served within the state
ii. In personam jurisdiction is appropriate when a company or individual has contacts, ties or relations within the state
iii. Quasi-in rem jurisdiction: The action establishes a right to property, but the underlying dispute is unrelated to the property
iv. No physical presence in state and property was not attached in the beginning of the suit.
d. Two Methods to Challenge Territorial Jurisdiction
i. Direct Attack
1. Def appears before forum to object to the forums jurisdiction over him
a. Special Appearance
i. Motion to Dismiss due to lack of territorial jurisdiction
ii. Collateral Attack
1. When a default judgment is taken and you challenge jurisdiction in a subsequent proceeding
II. Long arm statute
a. Must be reviewed; rules and regulations of states to adjudicate over citizens of other states
b. Must follow procedures of statute as far as how process served etc.
c. Two Types of Statutes
i.
Authorizes jurisdiction to reach to the limits of Due
Process (
ii. Enumerated Acts
1. Sets out circumstance under which state intends to authorize jurisdiction
a. Ex. Bensosan v. King
i.
NY statute that
b. Ex. Omni Capital Intl v. Rudolf Wolff Co.
d. Federal Long Arm Statutes
i. Rule 4 (k) (1) (C) and (D)
1. Congress provides Fed Courts have jurisdiction to bring in anyone with M/C w/ US
a. Ex. Bankruptcy, Anti-Trust, Securities
b. Interpleader
i. Life Ins. Example
1. Diff Def/Diff States
2. Now don’t have to try in each state
ii. In absence of federal law or statute, look to the state’s long-arm statute
iii. Rule 4 (k) (2)
1. When
you have a foreign Def and can’t reach with State’s long-arm statute can use
the
a. Arose from Omni Case
III. Due Process
a. Look at the P’s connection to the forum/look at the P’s minimum contacts
i. Establishing minimum contacts:
1. International
Shoe v.
a. did not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
b. When a non-resident exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state; a procedure which requires the corporation to respond to a suit brought before them is hardly said to by undue
c. Action can rise from activities in the state through the contacts or the relationship of the d to the forum
i. Specific jurisdiction
ii. General Jurisdiction
ii. Specific jurisdiction (defendant/forum/litigation)
1. Contacts give rise to litigation
a. Contacts of D with the forum have to give rise to the litigation
i. International Shoe was an example
b. Contacts also have to be sufficient
i. Even an occasional or singular act, b/c of its nature or quality of the act, can be sufficient for purpose of specific jurisdiction
1. Mc. Ghee v. International Life
2. International Shoe
ii. Shaffer v. Heitner established that in rem and in personam jurisdiction should both be established through minimal contacts because all adjudicate in the interest of the forum
iii. In Asahi, the contacts weren’t sufficient and it was found that putting products into the stream of commerce isn’t purposeful availment (Plurality Decision)
1. WW Volkswagen said the same thing
iv. Result of purposeful availment/direction (have a reason to believe that you can be haled to court in the forum state)
1. Definitions: deliberately engaged in significant activities within a State or has created continuing obligations between himself and residents of the forum
a. Has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there and because his activities are shielded by the “benefits and protections” of the forum’s laws it is presumptively not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum as well. (Burger King v. Rudzewicz)
b. Def knows he is likely to be sued in that jurisdiction
2. Awareness Plus Test (Asahi)- Must indicate a purpose to serve the market in the state/market
a. Designing the product for the market or the forum state
b. Establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum state
c. Advertising
d. Marketing the product through a distributor
3. Tests of Purposeful Availment:
a. In state activity
b. Effects test
i. Calder v. Jones
ii. Keeton v. Hustler
c. Contract
i. Burger King v. Rudewicz
ii. When breached, look at:
iii. Examine negotiations
iv. Contemplated future of consequences
v. Terms of Contract
vi. Actual course of dealings
d. Marketing (serving the market)
iii. General jurisdiction (defendant and the forum)
1. Continued and systematic and sufficient contacts with the forum that are substantial and of such nature to justify suit on unrelated causes of action
a. Perkins v. Benquet –Phillipine island mining co that had shut down all operations during WWII
i.
Moved to
ii.
2. What’s sufficient:
a. Principle Place of Business
b. Physical location (Wal-Mart)
c. Significant sales
i. Comparative to instate business activities
3. What’s not:
a. Advertising (good enough for purposeful availment, but not general jurisdiction)
b. Purchases
c. Insignificant sales
4. Helicol said that the business had to by systematic and that a mere purchase would not purport someone to jurisdiction in a place where they purchased the good
iv. Fairness and Reasonableness factors: est. by Burger King
1. Look at this after Specific or General Jurisdiction has been established
2. P interest in the forum
3. Efficient resolution of a controversy
4. State substantive social policy
5. Burden on D
a. Forum non conveniens: common law doctrine under which a court in appropriate circumstances may decline to exercise its jurisdiction to the interest of the easy, expeditious and inexpensive resolution of a controversy in another form
6. Forum’s interest in adjudicating
IV. Notice and Service
a. Can be served if within a state (Burnham v. Superior Court of Ca)
i. Scalia view was very strict
1. Only needed to be within borders to be served unless placed in state by coercion or duress
ii. Brennen believes it must be fair
1. Must be enjoying the fruits of the economy or benefits of the state
iii. Must be served through processor if you are a corp.
b. Service of Process
i. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust
1. Means employed must be those that a person desiring to inform the absentees would reasonably adopt
a. Means in case were inadequate not b/c it didn’t reach everyone but b/c it failed to reach those who could have been easily informed
2. Must have reasonable time to respond
ii. Mennonite Case
1. Only looking for one person (instead of 100’s) should have made more effort to find them
iii. Greene v. Lindsey
1. Court ruled that eviction notice on door not enough should have mailed as well.
c. Rules to Serve Individual
i. Personal Service
ii. Leave summons at usual place of abode w/ someone of suitable age and discretion that resides there
iii. Delivery to an Agent
iv. Service by Mail (Waiver Method)
v. In compliance with state law
d. Rules to Serve Corporation
i. Official Agent
ii. Service by mail
iii. In compliance with state law
V. Consent to Territorial Jurisdiction
a. Pre-Suit Consent
i. Consent by Agreement/Contract
1. Agreement in advance
2. Forum Selection Clause
a. Specifies particular forum to the exclusion of all others
b. Ex. Carnival Cruise v. Shute
3. Consent to Jurisdiction Clause
a. Suit to be brought to forum but not exclusive
b. Post-Suit Consent
i. Making a general appearance
1. Not answering
2. Appearing w/out making a special appearance
ii. Special Appearance
1. Complying to requirements to properly assert a TJ objection
a. In Fed must be first thing you file
i. Objection to Courts Territorial Jurisdiction
b. In
iii. TJ as a personal right can be waived
1. Ins
Corp of
a. By not complying with discovery orders to determine if court had jurisdiction the court held that they did have jurisdiction
II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
a. Court’s authority to adjudicate a particular type of claim
i. Not Waivable
1. Am Fire and Casualty v. Finn
ii. Court must have both TJ and SMJ to adjudicate
b. Constitutional and Statutory Framework
i. Constitution creates Fed Govt with limited enumerated acts
1. Original Jurisdiction
a. Gives court power to hear the case in the first instance
2. Appellant Jurisdiction
a. Gives court power to hear the case on appeal
3. Concurrent Jurisdiction
a. Most cases that fall w/in SMJ of Fed Court could be filed in State court
4. Exclusive Jurisdiction
a. Only can be brought in Federal Court, states cannot hear them
i. Bankruptcy, Admiralty, Patents
1. Fed Anti Trust not in statute but is interpreted as exclusive
c. Federal Question Subject Matter Jurisdiction
i. Article III, Sec 2
1. Actions arising under the constitution, the laws of US, and treaties
a. Some statues provide remedies for federally created organizations
i. Osborne v. Bank of US
ii. Red Cross
b. In Bankruptcy if civil suits are related to bankruptcy they can be moved to federal court
i. Dow Korning (Breast implants)
ii. Well Pleaded Complaint Rule
1. Complaint that contains only those elements necessary to the P’s cause of action
2. Does not include anticipated defenses
a. Ex.
3. Policy behind the WPC Rule
a. To provide certainty at beginning of lawsuit whether court has jurisdiction
b. If
allowed case to be brought to
4. Rule does not apply to Constitutional standard
a. Congress
could pass statute that says any case that brings Fed defense could be tried in
iii. Holmes Test
1. Suit arises under the law creates the cause of action
a. Statute creates a right and provides authorization to sue (remedy)
i. Ex. Title 7 gives rights and provides right to sue
2. Sometimes remedy might be implied in statute but not specifically stated
iv. Substantial Federal Issue Test
1. Even if state law cause of action can still have Fed Q SMJ if right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial issue of Federal Law
a. Ex. Smith v.
i. Only issue is whether bonds are unconstitutional and right to relief depended on that determination.
b. Merrell Dow Pharm v. Thompson
i. Diff in this case was Fed ? was not the only ? and could show negligence w/out it
d. Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction
i. Art III, Sec 2
1. Between citizens of different states
2. Between states, or its citizens and foreign state, citizens
3. Purpose
a. To prevent bias of instate claims
4. Requires Both Complete Diversity and Amount in Controversy
a. Complete Diversity
i. Based on when suit is filed
&nbs