Download Jurisdiction in Federal Courts: Wrongful Death Action and Personal Jurisdiction and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Chapter 1: An Overview of Procedure 01/07/ A. The Idea and Practice of Procedure
Procedure: how rights are enforced in courts procedure law (aka adjucative law): goal is not to affect behavior
FRCP 26 – Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery (p.447) a. there are certain things you must provide to the other side without a discovery request name and phone of anyone with discoverable information (and the subject) that you may use to support your claims or defenses
How do we know if a procedural rule is a good one? accuracy – want to be able to apply the law correctly, get the desired result efficiency – not necessarily at the lowest cost but one that promotes fairness may have the opposite effect of accuracy (ie res judicata)
US – Adversary System plaintiff and defendant direct the course of the litigation and procedural rules provide guidance as to how resolved ie: parties decide what evidence they want in discovery, procedural rules say how to get it courts are the referees
Moving towards a system where courts take a more active role
B. Where Can Suit Be Brought?
Hawkins v. Masters Farms, Inc. (2003) p. 6 Facts: Kansas: M’s tractor crashed into C, C died. H sued M as representative of C’s estate. claim brought in federal court but under Kansas state law (wrongful death action) – could have been brought in state court M files motion to dismiss – claims that there is no diversity of jurisdiction and thus there is a lack of jurisdiction in federal court. Court Grants. Because the court has not decided anything about the merits of the case, it can be adjudicated in another court – the dismissal is not an adjudication of the merits. Issue: Subject matter jurisdiction? Holding: Incomplete diversity, case dismissed. Analysis: Subject matter jurisdiction: the power to hear that type of case General Limited: court can only hear certain types of cases ie: Federal Courts, probate courts, small claims court Personal jurisdiction: court has the power to adjudicate the parties’ rights – usually the defendant 01/08/ Constitution – Article III Section 1 - establishes US SC and gave Congress the power to create inferior courts to rule on fed law Section 2 – Federal Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction – includes, but not limited to: all cases arising from: constitution, laws of the US, US treaties cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls diversity jurisdiction – between citizens of different states
US Code – Title 28 §1331 – Fed Cts have original jurisdiction if case involves Constitution, laws or treaties of US
§1332 – Other times that Fed Court has original jurisdiction civil matters exceeding sum of $75,000 if between ... citizens of different states, etc...
ol
Must have complete diversity to fall under federal jurisdiction – both Ps conflict with both Ds citizenship is usually established at the time that the case is filed when filing as personal representative, use citizenship at the time of death of the deceased personal representative is deemed to be citizen of place where deceased was Person is a citizen of the state where he or she domiciled – (a) residence and (b) intent to remain. Court determined C resided, and intended to remain in Kansas, therefore there was incomplete diversity and Fed Ct lacked subject matter jurisdiction in this case, had to go beyond the face of the complaint and look to evidence to determine intent to remain – you do not have the definite intention to leave at some point in the future once you establish a citizenship in a state, you remain a citizen of that state until you have the intent to remain indefinitely in another state in which you are residing Party claiming federal subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proof. (this case estate)
This case can now be re-filed as a jurisdictional matter in state courts. Statute of Limitations may pose a problem. Some states have a saving action – if the action is properly filed, will toll SOL for the fed. litigation Missouri – has subject matter jurisdiction but probably does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants
How do Fed Courts determine personal jurisdiction? FRCP 4(k)(1)(A) - Fed DC, in general, asserts personal jurisdiction to the same extent as the state courts 01/09/ Jurisdiction Subject Matter: court is authorized to hear that type of case cannot be consented to if the court lacks jurisdiction Personal: court is authorized to restrict the individual on trial’s rights can be consented to if the court lacks jurisdiction
Venue: localizes where a case can be tried within the judicial system (ie which district)
C. Stating the Case
1. Lawyer’s Responsibility
Bridges v. Diesel Service (1994) p. Facts B brought action against DS for wrongful termination under the American with Disabilities Act in District Court (Fed Subject Matter Jurisdiction established because the case arises out of federal law) Court dismissed claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies – there was a pre-requisite of filing with EEOC before proceeding with ADA trial DS now moves for sanctions under FRCP 11 claiming that signing of the document was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances Issue: Is this a violation of FRCP 11 in which sanctions are proper? Holding: No. FRCP 11 is intended to prevent misconduct – procedural rather than substantive error. Analysis FRCP 11(b) – by signing and submitting to court, you are certifying that you have conducted a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances that (1) not being presented for improper purposes (2) claims, defenses are warranted by existing law or are non-frivolous argument for extending 1
Every Defense Must be Included in the Answer defenses contained with 12(b) can be raised in pre-trial motion or in the answer (see Forms 19 &
lack of subject matter jurisdiction lack of personal jurisdiction improper venue insufficient process insufficient service of process failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted failure to join a party under Rule 19 all of the above are known as Dilatory pleas- because they delay the process and can be raised by a motion
motions can get claims dismissed, seeking action by the court, as opposed to the answer which simply segways into discovery 01/14/ Problems p.
- Take some action on the case. Because the case has been dismiss, or at least requires some action on the plaintiff.
- a. No – can only be raised in the answer. b. Yes – 12(b)(5) The process is the summons and complaint; the process itself can be insufficient as well as the service c. Yes – 12(b)(3)
Problems p. 24
- 8(b)(6) - Failure to respond to the allegations of the complaint: allegation is considered denied or avoided
- 8(b)(5) – lacking sufficient information has the effect of a denial
Rule 12(i): If a party moves, any defense listed in 12(b)(1)-(7), whether in pleading or by motion, and a motion under 12(c) must be heard and decided before trial unless the court orders a deferral. these are inherently preliminary matters and it makes sense to resolve them before trial
12(g) and (h) – rules stating that if motion not made at a certain time, then waived – not all 12(b) defenses have same rules
In addition to raising defenses in the answer, the defendant can also raise their own claims Counterclaim instead of just pleading contributory negligence, defendant may also make a counterclaim for negligence also, matters completely separate from those the plaintiff has alleged can provide the basis for counterclaim there are those that are compulsory (those that arise out of the same transaction) and permissive (those not raising out of the particular transactions) compulsory claims must be raised in the same trial or the claim is lost forever Cross-claim Third-Party Claim
4. Amendment of Pleadings the rules are extraordinarily lenient on permitting amendments to the pleadings can be made at any time – court will allow so long as justice requires
D. Parties to the Lawsuit
1. Permissive and Compulsory Joinder
Rule 18: no limit to the number of claims that you can join against an opposing party
1
Rule 20: Permissive Joinder of Parties (a)(1): Plaintiffs – “same transaction or occurrence” (a)(2): Defendants – similar standard
Rule 21: under the federal rules, misjoinder is not grounds for dismissal of the action – rather, if misjoined, party(s) will be dropped or claim can be severed Note: Rule 42 allows the ordering of a separate trial for convenience, to avoid prejudice or to expedite and economize this difference from severance in that it remains part of the same action, merely a separate trial severance is a completely separate action if the claims are interrelated, and there is a need for same judgment, then will do separate trials if there will be no harm or prejudice created by separate judgments, will go to severance
Rule 19: Compulsory Joinder ie: 3 claims to interest in the same property (A, B, and C). A sues B seeking partition. Should C be joined? C would be prejudiced by the judgment – would have issues with his interest in the property, even if C is not technically legally bound ie: if C wants to sell his interest, would run into issue when the court records say that A and B each own half of the property Rule 19: looks to whether the absence of C would prejudice those parties in the complaint or C himself necessary party: one who should be joined if it is feasible (absence causes prejudice) – see above indispensable party: if the person is so important that the case should not proceed without them (ie: in cases where the court lacks jurisdiction) that the court will dismiss rather than go on
Larson v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co Insured (P) v. Insurance Company and Lawyer (D) 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41864 (D. Colo. 2007).
NATURE OF CASE: Motion to amend complaint to add party.
RULE OF LAW: (1) An amendment to a complaint seeking to join a party to a lawsuit that is filed one month after complainant confirms the party's involvement in the lawsuit is timely filed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (2) All persons may be joined in one action as defendants if claims against them arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the other claims.
FACTS: The Larsons (P) retained an attorney, Brad Ross-Shannon (D), to sue American Family Mutual Insurance Company (D), which held their homeowners' policy, after the company (D) failed to pay a house fire claim. Ross-Shannon (D) did not pursue their claim because he was trying to be hired by American Family (D) in other matters. The Larsons (P) fired Ross-Shannon (D) and hired another attorney, who initially filed a complaint in April 2006 against only American Family (D), in state court. American Family (D) removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. After the insurance company (D) provided discovery in January 2007, the Larsons (P) learned that Ross-Shannon (D) was in talks with the company (D) while he was representing the Larsons (P). The Larsons (P) attorney then sought to amend their complaint to add Ross- Shannon (D) as an additional defendant, based on breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and conspiracy, claims that would destroy diversity and force a remand to state court. Ross-Shannon (D) and American Family (D) objected, arguing that the amendment was not timely filed, since they knew of the purported claims against Ross- Shannon (D) in February 2006, and waited until February 2007 to filed the amendment, and that joinder of new parties should not be allowed, because the new claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the other claims.
ISSUE: (1) Is an amendment to a complaint seeking to join a party to a lawsuit that is
2. Intervention
Rule 24 - Intervention allows someone who is outside of the action to invite themselves into the action as either a 3rd party P or 3rd^ party D 2 Types Intervention of Right: similar to necessary joinder concept Permissive Intervention
Rule 22 – Interpleader deals with the situation where you have something that more than one person wants, but you don’t want it ie: insurance company issues life insurance policy, 2 people claim that they are beneficiary, the insurance company can go to court and interplead both, deposit money into the court, and the 2 claimants would be left to fight it out
3. Class Actions
Extension of the necessary parties idea – in these cases, the judgments would affect so many people, but the individual results may not be enough to warrant litigation
A class of people is represented by a certain number of named parties you have the opportunity to opt out of the class so that you can sue on your own (if you don’t opt out, then res judicata will bar any future suit based on the same action)
E. Factual Development – Discovery
Federal Rules assume that the plaintiff and defendant will conduct a reasonable investigation under the circumstances, using the devices open to them without the aid of the court ie: surveillance, checking the internet, etc. the fact investigation is limited, and that is why the pleading does not have to be extremely specific
Rule 26-37: Federal Discovery Rules 26(a) Required Disclosures mandatory disclosures now required even before discovery, you have to turn over without being asked Initial: who you plan to call as witnesses, what types of documents you plan to use, etc, in aid of your own case Pretrial these disclosures must take place before discovery begins (what was once discovery are now termed additional discovery tools) depositions (30) , interrogatories (33), production of documents (34), physical or mental examinations (35), requests for admissions 26(b) Scope of Discovery (1) any nonprivleged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence ie: hearsay is discoverable, but cannot be admitted at trial (2) limitations on frequency and intent 01/16/ Butler v. Rigby (1998) p. Facts lawsuit for automobile accident assume negligence and thus state law, probably in federal court because of diversity defendants filed notices of depositions on AMG and MHC
wanted: listing of total number of patients involved in litigation, number of patients referred by attorneys, number of patients referred by specific attorneys, and all letters of guarantees/ contracts with attorneys AMG and MHC moved for a protective order to prohibit Ds from discovering the requested information because on the grounds that it is not relevant, some of it was privileged, and that the request was overly burdensome Issue: Was the requested information discoverable? Holding: Everything other than privileged information – actually gives defendant more than what they asked for Analysis does not fall under rule 34 – not a party to the case – must use another method rule 30: oral depositions to obtain information from non-parties, 30(b) : can subpoena information, only way to compel information from non party failure to comply is contempt Rule 26(c): Protective Orders if you are going to compel someone to give information, you have to give them some form of relief The 3 Big Challenges to Discovery Requests: information is irrelevant even if relevant, production is unduly burdensome even if relevant, it is privileged Relevance: 26(b)(1) – relevant to any party’s claim or defense, need not be admissible in this case, doesn’t appear relevant to proving negligence the magistrate judge says relevant because could be used to show that the drs. are not only treating patients, but will be witnesses and could possibly be retained experts want to know if they have a special relationships with the attorneys (arms of the personal injury law practice) rules recognize almost any information that would go to show bias as discoverable Burdensome: 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) – deny/ limit if the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit, considering a variety of factors in this case, the court knows that will be extremely expensive (and since the parties are non parties) and thus orders the defendants to pay half of the costs Privilege – based on state law even if the information is relevant, if it is privileged then cannot be discovered no matter what Erie Doctrine – when in federal court because of diversity apply federal rules of procedure apply state substantive law Privilege has nothing to do with the probative value (as opposed to relevance) and thus constitutes substantive law as opposed to procedure as a matter of social policy, outside of the procedural system, we must use state law Rule 72(a): allows review of a magistrate judges interlocutory order by a district court judge criterion: whether the decision is contrary to law
F. Pretrial Disposition – Summary Judgment
Houchens v. American Home Assurance Co. (1991) p. 35 Facts
Houchens’s husband disappeared in Thailand and was never seen again. He had two life insurance policies, and Houchens wanted them paid out. The problem was that the policies required Mr. Houchens die in an accident in order to pay out. Houchens sued American Home Assurance for breach of contract, but AHA argued that there was no way to prove that Mr. Houchens died in an accident. Virginia law- one who has been missing for at least 7 years is presumed dead H brought suit against AHA for breach of contract on 2 life insurance policies covering her husband
- one covered occupational accidental death and the other non-occupational accidental death AHA moved for summary judgment – no evidence of death, let alone that death was accidental 1
could have done that and had their verdict correctly set aside would be if the jury itself was unreasonable. 01/22/ H. Former Adjucation
Rush v. City of Maple Heights (1958) p. Facts R’s motorcycle ran into hole in the road, R thrown off an injured. Brought separate claims for damage to the motorcycle and then for personal injury Motorcycle – Municipal Court – ruled in favor of R Personal Injury – Court of Common Pleas – determined that issues of negligence and proximate causation had been established at the previous trial, only thing to determine was measure of damages, judgment entered for R City appeals –claims error in allowing R to split cause of action and file in separate courts Judgment reversed Issue: Can a plaintiff file separate claims for injury to person and property? Holding: No. Rule: A person may maintain only one action to enforce his rights existing at the time such action is commenced. Analysis Former Adjudication Collateral Estoppel: issue preclusion prevented from raising issue in a later action Res Judicata: claim preclusion if the same cause of action, than everything in the second lawsuit will be precluded, not just the issues Rush’s lawyer was relying on stare decisis – in Vasu v.Kohlers, the Supreme Court had split injury to person and property into 2 separate and distinct clams the Court overrules this past decision by adopting persuasive evidence of the majority rule used in other states the point of moving to the broader scope of causes of action is to force the plaintiff to join all claims from the same tortuous act or else they will lose the ability to bring the claim to trial increases efficiency, fosters policy of repose Note: could husband bring claim that he was injured? Yes, res judicata applies only to the individual. But, under the federal rules, he is allowed to join them – res judicata simply wouldn’t prevent him from filing claim in his own right. Doctrine of Mutuality of Estoppel – applies in FL, but Federal Courts and other states have abandoned in regards to the exact same issue (P1 and P2 are in the same accident and bringing the same cause of action) but P1 and P2 file separate claims, the judgment in the first case is not binding on the second 01/23/ I. Appeals
State Court System Trial Court Appellate Court Supreme Court (FL-Circuit Ct.) (FL- Dist. Ct. of App)
Review by the intermediate appellate court is by right Review by the Supreme Court is discretionary
Federal Court System Trial Court Appellate Court Supreme Court (District Ct) (Circuit. Ct. of App)
Review to the Circuit Court of Appeals is by right Review to the US Supreme Court is discretionary - writ of certiorari
1
can/will review when lower federal courts disagree, when State Supreme Court has decided a case on federal law in diversity (Erie cases) – some states have provided a certification procedure whereby federal courts can certify questions to the State Supreme Court so that the federal court has a better idea on how State would find the issue if the SC chooses not to answer, then the federal court is simply left trying to guess what the State SC would do
Apex Hosiery v. Leader (1939) p. Facts P brought an action for treble damages under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act Court makes order for the discovery and production of documents for inspection, copying, and photographing by the plaintiff for use in trial defendant appeals this order – want a reversal of the order to produce Issue: Is an order pertaining to discovery appealable? Holding: No. As a general rule, in the federal justice system, only final orders (those that would end the case) are appealable. Interlocutory (intermediate) orders, as in this case, are generally not appealable. Analysis under the version of FRCP in place at the time of the case, to begin discovery you had to have court order, you could not simply request from the party – this is what happened here this court notes that the issue on appeal could have great effect on the outcome of the case, but nevertheless these interlocutory orders are not appealable WHY? if reviewable, litigation would be extended further, would interrupt discovery NOTE: all orders of a magistrate judge, though interlocutory in nature, are reviewable by the district judge these are not considered appeals - magistrate is like "assistant judge" just because interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable does not mean that they are not reviewable once the final judgment is rendered, assuming that the issues have been preserved,
Appealability: the ability to take the order up right now Review ability: applies to most every legal issue in the case – will be reviewable at some point
Note: “Per Curiam” – unanimous and unsigned in the above case, probably means that the opinion was written by a law clerk – used if straightforward matter also used when court is split significantly but nobody wants to write concurring or dissenting opinion (less often the reason for per curiam opinion)
28 U.S.C. § (a) (b) if the DC makes a decision that this is an interlocutory order worthy of review, CoA can choose to review it this is very rare
Immediately Appealable Orders? Butler v. Rigby – the decision to order, and the decision not to order, production of certain documents NO Bridgeport Music – separate trials and severance ct thinks factual issues closely interlaced – simply order separate trials not until after both trials (entire case has been litigated) is final judgment entered
Chapter 2: Personal Jurisdiction 01/24/ A. The Origins
Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) p. Facts Neff hired Mitchell to do legal work - when Neff failed to pay, Mitchell sued in state court Neff was not a resident of the state, not personally served with process, and did not appear judgment entered for Mitchell for failure to answer after constructive summons by publication after the default judgment was entered, Neff acquired 300 acres of land – Mitchell had this land seized and sold to satisfy judgment Pennoyer then bought the land, obtained a sheriff’s deed Neff brought suit against Pennoyer in federal court to recover possession of the land (action of ejectment)– claiming his original government deed was better than Pennoyer’s sheriff’s deed TC: found for Neff – based on technical grounds SC: affirms – BUT based on jurisdictional grounds *Appellate Courts can always affirm for any reason Issue: Was service of process by publication valid? Holding: No. Rules: see bold below Analysis: The law assumes that property is always in the possession of the owner, and the owner therefore knows what happens to his property; therefore, attachment of the property before judicial proceedings makes constructive notice sufficient. Terms: in personam: jurisdiction over the person when a court has jurisdiction in personam over a person, it can adjudicate the rights of the person for that lawsuit– sky is the limit in terms of what can enter against them in rem: jurisdiction over the property in these cases, you are suing the property – adjudicating the interests of the individual as to that individual piece of property as well as everyone else who claims an interest in that property ie: quieting title – once the judgment is entered, that is the valid title as to everyone who may make a claim for that piece of property quasi-in-rem: in rem because it is based on the presence of the land; quasi because it has nothing to do with the property, but the property is the excuse to adjudicate this separate claim; limitation that judgment is for the amount of the property No limitation or requirement that this be an action that has anything to do with the property; not an action to decide who owns the property (assumption that absent defendant owns property free and clear) Attaching the property; the defendant hears that the property has been attached and is going to have to come back to save his property; if he doesn’t come back the property will be sold (has a choice to let that happen and avoid the adjudicating and getting a judgment for money, or go adjudicate the property claim) Property taken hostage and held to compel the defendant to come in and defend the lawsuit In this case – used publication in service – does not really provide adequate notice, no in personam! had they instead contacted the legal system in the state that he was in - still would not be OK a state cannot serve beyond their boundaries for the state to assert personal jurisdiction – must be within the state or there must be a waiver as long as you are in the state, you are within the states power – you can be served you don’t have to have any ties to the state in order to be served, just have to step foot within the bounds to acquire jurisdiction This part of the case is still valid – though they have been substantially relaxed but, in general, physical presence is still sufficient No in personam jurisdiction here because no service of process to individual within the state Quasi in rem was the other option – still no jurisdiction Neff acquired the property in question after the judgment in order to assert quasi in rem jurisdiction, you need to attach it at the time you file suit
same as serving process to the individual had it been attached at beginning of the lawsuit (for the purpose of asserting jurisdiction), constructive service by publication would have been OK the attachment itself would serve as notice – the assumption is that even if you are outside of the state, you will probably hear about from someone who is occupying the property or someone will tell you that the property has been seized each state has exclusive jurisdiction of persons and property within its borders and no other state can come in and assert power over such
To Assert Jurisdiction You Must Have Power and Notice in personam: serving process to the individual within the state establishes both quasi in rem: attaching the property established power, the attachment and constructive notice serves as notice
One Point on the Exam for saying that the Federal Courts have the same leash on service of process as the State: 4(k)(1)(A) “serving a summons or filing a waiver of service established personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located” 01/25/ You are required to give full faith and credit to judgments by another state unless the other state did not have jurisdiction. The 14th^ Amendment allows the validity of these judgments to be directly questioned – die process clause the issue of personal jurisdiction, and whether the states have complied with the rules to obtain personal jurisdiction, is a matter of personal rights – you cannot take someone’s property without due process and you cannot have due process unless you have personal jurisdiction
Hypo: 2 FL residents make a contract for sale of piece of property in Massachusetts – buyer pays and seller refuses to deliver. Which state can adjudicate the dispute? FL: can assert in personam jurisdiction – if both are in the state, then so long as defendant is served there, OK MA: can assert in rem jurisdiction – property is located within the state It seems that each state is over stepping their bounds and adjucating a persons or property to which another state also has exclusive jurisdiction Pennoyer v. Neff not usurping jurisdiction, simply an effect of asserting jurisdiction over a matter to which you are allowed basically, you can assert “indirect jurisdiction” but you cannot assert “direct jurisdiction” over persons or property outside your borders
Problems p.69 – A, resident of Minnesota, is suing B, a resident of North Dakota, in Minnesota (where B owns land) A serves B in ND – B moves to dismiss the Minnesota action for lack of personal jurisdiction. (direct attack) Will be granted – can’t go outside the boundaries of your state to assert personal jurisdiction. a. A serves B in ND – B ignores and default judgment entered against her. When A went to ND to get enforced, and B argues that judgment is invalid and shouldn’t be enforced ND not required to give full faith and credit to the judgment because the rendering court did not have personal jurisdiction c. If served when B was just traveling to Minn. on business? not granted – does have personal jurisdiction (physical transitory presence) d. collateral attack – but they will lose because did have personal jurisdiction
e.
1
1. Redefining Constitutional Formulation of Power
Corporations were always an issue for personal jurisdictions – service of process rules did not work very well corporation is a fiction – entity created by operation of law if corporation was created by laws of state, it is a citizen of that state but what about the other states? Courts tries to look at it under both options created under Pennoyer – seemed inconsistent (diff. jurisdictions) consent – state can create presumption that by doing business within the state, you are consenting to jurisdiction within that state this would give the state the power to adjudicate only those claims against the corporation that involved activity within the state... state gets specific jurisdiction physical presence – if you say that doing business in the state is the same as personal service of process, then you are acquiring general jurisdiction once they leave the state, lose jurisdiction the 2 concepts flow together into “doing business” as a basis for asserting personal jurisdiction over corporation
Milliken v. Meyer 2 partners sued each other; Meyer was resident in Wyoming but was served in Colorado Court determined that it was OK even though process was served outside of the states boundaries court says that by being a domiciliary of a state, the courts of that state could exact personal jurisdiction - mutual benefits established domicile as basis for jurisdiction (residence plus intent to remain)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) p. Facts: ISC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in St. Louis, MI engaged in the manufacture and sale of shoes and other footwear ISC maintains no offices in WA, no contracts for sale or purchase there, no stock in that state, makes no deliveries in interstate commerce employed 11-13 salesman who resided in WA (where their principal activities occurred) orders were shipped f.o.b. from points outside of WA into the state (invcd. at place of shpmt) Washington sues to recover unpaid contributions to the state unemployment compensation fund statute allowed, and WA complied with both, service of process against one of the employees in the state and mailed process to headquarters ISC contends that is activities within the state are insufficient to confer jurisdiction and thus it would be a denial of due process to subject them to taxation. used the device of special appearance to raise defense – lost in admin agency and state courts US SC: affirms Issue: Within the limitations of the Due Process clause of the 14 th^ Amendment, has ISC, by its activities in the State of Washington, rendered itself amenable to proceedings in the courts of that state? Holding: Yes (thus, it is not a denial of due process to exact taxes on them) Old Rule: jurisdiction to render judgment in personam is grounded in de facto power over their person New Rule: To be subject to a state’s jurisdiction, a party must have certain minimum contacts with it such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice Analysis Assertion of jurisdiction by a state where it does not comply with requirements violates due process, thus it is a federal constitutional issue (giving rise to jurisdiction) if you are within the boundaries of the state, then personal service of process still sufficient but, when not within the boundaries, then minimum contacts are sufficient Previous Law Bases for Personal Jurisdiction
1
presence – “doing business” consent implied consent “doing business” driving + tort domicile ISCo – the Court is looking back over all the decisions (general rule plus exceptions) and looking at the underlying principle behind them saying the Courts in the past were instead basing decisions unconsciously on the minimum contacts principle (which is broad enough to cover these exceptions) Minimum Contacts: 2 Components continuous and systematic activities in the state give rise to the claim Insufficient isolated and casual unrelated to claim 01/29/ Gives Rise to Claim
Unrelated to Claim
Isolated and Casual II -? III - NO Continuous and Systematic
I – YES IV -?
Why Do These Matter? Relatedness: Related v. Unrelated Frequency : Isolated v. Continuous you receive benefits and protection and in return you have reciprocal duties
II: MAYBE Hess v. Pawloski: was allowed – but, it was not based on this theory, it was the law Generally, the answer will be yes – look at the context
IV: SOMETIMES this one is more uncertain if the state asserted jurisdiction in these claims – general jurisdiction
The arrows above show the direction of increasing intensity
frequency this is the area where there is jurisdiction
relatedness
All Personal Jurisdiction Questions: start with the analyzing the International Shoe framework
E. Self-Imposed Restrains on Jurisdictional Power: Long Arm Statutes as a Restraint on Jurisdiction
1. Long Arm Statutes as a Restraint on Jurisdiction
Every Assertion of Jurisdiction Requires 2 Things there is a statute authorizing the assertion of jurisdiction
Franklin, CA resident, purchased life insurance policy and when the ins. co. was bought out, accept the reinsurance certificate that was sent to him. paid premiums by mail from his CA home to Ins. Co.’s TX office when Franklin died, Ins. Co. refused to pay, claiming he had committed suicide and McGee brought suit in CA Ins. Co. claims no jurisdiction Issue: Jurisdiction? Holding: Yes.
Analysis Insurance Companies Contacts with State of CA: Frequency – one long standing contracting (pretty low on this side) Relatedness – directly related, the contract is the exact thing being sued on This case is a lot like Hess where a single tort was enough for assertion of specific jurisdiction Here: a single contract within the state is enough to subject yourself to jurisdiction on it
What if he signed in Oregon, then moved to California and continued paying premiums from there? still isolated and casual and still highly related so seems like this too would be a yes. but... it was up to to move to CA, ins. co. had no control over contract being related to CA
Hanson v. Denckla (1958) p. Facts dispute arose over the assets of deceased mother who had lived in Pennsylvania, established a trust in Delaware and later moved to FL where she died while in FL, correspondence of the trust was mailed to her wrote a will in FL, giving all assets other than trust to 2 daughters and the trust remainder to the third daughter 2 daughters sue in FL to say that trust is invalid (meaning they would get all assets); 3 rd^ daughter sued in DE claiming that the trust was valid Parties disagreed whether FL or DE had jurisdiction (if FL – 2 daughters got estate, if DE – 3 shared) SC: FL had no jurisdiction over the Delaware trustee Issue: Jurisdiction? Holding: Delaware. Rule: Unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant is not enough; it is essential that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the State, thus invoking its benefits and protections of its laws. Analysis the trustee had no control over whether she moved to FL or not, and thus never purposefully subjected themselves to FL jurisdiction if the test is the rule above, what is the problem? mom moved to FL under her own free will and the trustee was obligated to continue maintaining the trust
Adds Third Variable Frequency Relatedness Causation (defendant caused the contact with the state)
*Shaffer v. Heitner (1977) p. Facts Heitner owned single share of stock in Greyhound – filed shareholder’s derivative suit (suit on behalf on the corporation) naming 28 present or former officers as defendants claimed that they had violated their duties to Greyhound by causing it to engage in activated that resulted in it being held liable for substantial damages in a private antitrust suit H filed a motion for sequestration of DE property – signed the day it was filed he had a stop transfer order put on their stock – attached property
Defendants responded by entering special appearance – contended that the ex parte sequestration did not accord due process of law, that the property seized was not capable of attachment in DE and that they did not have sufficient contract with DE to sustain the jurisdiction of that states courts DE Courts: rejected s claims – asserted quasi in rem jurisdiction US SC: reversed Issue: Should the standard of fairness and substantial justice set forth in International Shoe Co. be held to govern actions in rem as well as in personam? Holding: Yes. Rule: all assertions of state curt jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny. Analysis the court is asserting quasi-in-rem: using its jurisdiction over the stock to assert jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants the stock has nothing to do with the litigation itself attachment at outset of the litigation of property of defendant completely unrelated to claim Note: DE had statute saying that stock was property of state in which incorporated Why does it make sense that ISC should extend to cases involving the presence of property? asserting jurisdiction based on the presence of property is a fiction the presence of property has no significance unless it represents a contact The Court does not hold that presence of property in the state is irrelevant can provide evidence of contacts Also: for pure in-rem actions, the presence of property in the state is enough when the law suit relates to the property within the jurisdiction, it would make sense to assert jurisdiction (even if minimal contacts, highly related) Here: the stock is completely unrelated to the litigation and does not suggest contacts that would meet the other tests for jurisdiction – thus no jurisdiction
Re-Evaluation of Harris v. Balk isolated, contact, likely not cause no grounds for jurisdiction
What about real property? if law suit has nothing to do with the land, then probably still do not have jurisdiction might be sufficient if even though completely unrelated, totally continuous and systematic ie: deriving income off a farm that you own but do not work it yourself
3. Specific Jurisdiction 02/04/ World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodsen (1980) p. Facts: Robinson’s bough Audi from Seaway Volkswagen in NY – driving it through Oklahoma, car was stuck causing a fire which severely burned mother and 2 children R’s brought a products-liability action in DC for County Creek, Oklahoma Volkswagen challenged Okla. from exercising in personam jurisdiction When Okla. S.C. denied writ, appealed to US S.C. Issue: In personam jurisdiction? Holding: No. Foreseeability alone is not a sufficient benchmark under the due process clause. Rule: It is the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State that determine whether he should reasonable anticipate being haled into court there. Analysis: Volkswagen carried on no activity whatsoever in the state R: argues that because could have foreseen the vehicle would travel there, should be subject to litigation there Due Process Clause is not violated if forum state asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state
1
