Personal Jurisdiction in Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction over Individuals and Corporations | Study notes Civil procedure

Civil Procedure Notes

Personal Jurisdiction in State Court

a. Pennoyer v. Neff framework Significance

i. The Supreme Court held that courts have personal jurisdiction over an

individual if the individual is served with process while physically present

within the state. Courts likewise have PJ over an individual’s property if

the property is identified (and usually attached) by the court at the

initiation of the suit. (“Jealous Sovereignty Theory”)

1. This ruling took international law theory and “folded it” into the

14th Amendment’s due process clause, which bans state

governments from depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property

without certain procedural processes.

Applicability

ii. If there is something in the State (something of the defendant or the

defendant herself) then that State has adjudicative power over the

defendant concerning any cause of action, notwithstanding under which

state’s law the cause of action arises or where the cause of action occurred.

iii. Hypo- Mitchell brings an action again Neff for only a certain amount of

money, Neff comes to Oregon to litigate liability only up to the value of

the property he had in that State. Does the Oregon court have PJ in

personam when he shows up (in person or through his lawyer)? – Yes. He

did show up. The Oregon court has the power to say that he may not

litigate on that small amount on which the court had quasi in rem

jurisdiction; he’ll have to litigate his liability on the entire amount of the

cause of action. However, most States allow limited appearances, which

allow a defendant to come to the court to litigate the quasi in rem action

only up to the amount of the property over which the court had

jurisdiction. This seems wasteful, though, because if the property is worth

less than the plaintiff’s action another action for the amount not litigated

must be brought in a different State.

1. If we take the idea of a limited appearance seriously, it seems that

the litigation of issues in the first suit should not preclude their

relitigation in the second (but we’ll talk about issue preclusion

later).

iv. Hypo- A defendant comes to a different State to litigate a suit and is

tagged in an unrelated lawsuit and defaults, then the judgment is taken to

his home state where the defendant sues on the judgment in the other state.

Is that valid? Yes. The person was tagged in the other state, and so if the

law of that State says that you are not immune from service when you

show up for a different suit, it is constitutional. And the home state must

use the other state’s laws in order to rule on the first judgment. Since the

defendant was there voluntarily and he or she was not immune from

service of process the court had personal jurisdiction.

Docsity.com

Partial preview of the text

Download Personal Jurisdiction in Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction over Individuals and Corporations and more Study notes Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!

Civil Procedure Notes Personal Jurisdiction in State Court a. Pennoyer v. Neff framework Significance

i. The Supreme Court held that courts have personal jurisdiction over an

individual if the individual is served with process while physically present within the state. Courts likewise have PJ over an individual’s property if the property is identified (and usually attached) by the court at the initiation of the suit. (“Jealous Sovereignty Theory”)

1. This ruling took international law theory and “folded it” into the

14 th^ Amendment’s due process clause, which bans state governments from depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property without certain procedural processes.

Applicability ii. If there is something in the State (something of the defendant or the defendant herself) then that State has adjudicative power over the defendant concerning any cause of action, notwithstanding under which state’s law the cause of action arises or where the cause of action occurred. iii. Hypo- Mitchell brings an action again Neff for only a certain amount of money, Neff comes to Oregon to litigate liability only up to the value of the property he had in that State. Does the Oregon court have PJ in personam when he shows up (in person or through his lawyer)? – Yes. He did show up. The Oregon court has the power to say that he may not litigate on that small amount on which the court had quasi in rem jurisdiction; he’ll have to litigate his liability on the entire amount of the cause of action. However, most States allow limited appearances , which allow a defendant to come to the court to litigate the quasi in rem action only up to the amount of the property over which the court had jurisdiction. This seems wasteful, though, because if the property is worth less than the plaintiff’s action another action for the amount not litigated must be brought in a different State.

If we take the idea of a limited appearance seriously, it seems that the litigation of issues in the first suit should not preclude their relitigation in the second (but we’ll talk about issue preclusion later). iv. Hypo- A defendant comes to a different State to litigate a suit and is tagged in an unrelated lawsuit and defaults, then the judgment is taken to his home state where the defendant sues on the judgment in the other state. Is that valid? Yes. The person was tagged in the other state, and so if the law of that State says that you are not immune from service when you show up for a different suit, it is constitutional. And the home state must use the other state’s laws in order to rule on the first judgment. Since the defendant was there voluntarily and he or she was not immune from service of process the court had personal jurisdiction.

States often do not assert this power over defendants. They commonly make a defendant “immune from service” (although this really means being immune from PJ).
States often choose to make out-of-state witnesses immune as well (but not lawyers).
What about plaintiffs? This is less common, even though the plaintiff sometimes has to litigate in a particular State because that’s the only place where the courts have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
D.C. governmental contacts exception- Many times you have to go to D.C. to work with the government for something, and so the person is given immunity from service of process for issues unrelated to the business for which the defendant is there. v. Hypo- Neff is domiciled in Oregon, and sued in Oregon for unpaid lawyer’s fees from Alaska, but is served in California. Neff defaults. Then the plaintiff sues in California to execute the judgment on some assets that Neff owns there. Did the Oregon court have PJ in personam, even though he was not served in Oregon?- Yes. A traditional rule is that a State has PJ over all of its domiciliaries, despite where they are in the world. (This is starting to show the cracking of the Pennoyer framework, because the physical presence=power theory wouldn’t allow this, but the courts started doing this). b. PJ over Corporations under the Pennoyer v. Neff framework i. It was originally accepted that the only State whose courts had in personam PJ over a corporation was the State of incorporation. Under the Pennoyer framework this was expanded. ii. But it was never the case (and is still not the case) that if the CEO is in a State and was tagged for a lawsuit against the corporation, the tagging would give the State’s courts in personam PJ over the corp.
unless for some very odd reason the CEO was truly that corp’s agent for service of process (this is not usually the case)
must distinguish a. whether service on the CEO in the forum state is sufficient for PJ over the corp in the state i. answer - NO b. from whether service on the CEO (whether in the forum state or outside it) is sufficient notice to the corp under Mullane (interpreting the 14th^ Amendment) i. YES c. And whether service on the CEO (whether in the forum state or outside it) is adequate service under forum law i. generally YES e.g. under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) iii. Hypo- A State in which the corporation is not incorporated, makes the corp. appoint the Sect. of State as its agent for service or process as a condition for doing business in the state, and the corp. is sued in that State concerning past business in the state and service is made upon the Sect. of

State by doing business in states and so there was a continued presence even after the corp was gone) v. The theory of where the corp. was subjected to PJ in personam, and thus able to be sued on anything (not just issues on the business that was done there) was where the corp. was incorporated, the state where it has its principal place of business, and states where it does a substantial enough amount of business to be considered present. This is law that was developing before International Shoe. c. International Shoe v. Washington (U.S. 1945) i. IS was incorporated in Delaware, its principal place of business was Missouri, and it was doing business in Washington through a few salesmen. It said that it was not subject to the Washington state tax and could not be sued in Washington because (1) service was improper when it was done on the salesman (Mullane not satisfied) (2) IS was not a corp. of Washington (not incorporated there) and was not doing business there in an amount substantial enough to count as being present (3) that Washington had no law that provided the fictitious agent on whom service of process could be made for a suit against a corp. (4) IS is not an employer within the meaning of the statute because it only pays the salesmen on commission (Wash failed to state a claim) and (5) statute for taxes violated the due process clause of the 14th^ Amendment, and it violated the interstate commerce clause.

The SC said that notice was fine, because Wash not only served a salesman personally, but also mailed service to main office in MO.
also rejected argument that Wash failed to state a claim and that the Wash statute violated the due process and commerce clauses
real issue is PJ
The SC is really trying to change the law so that there can be PJ on a defendant for past acts in the State. Under a new theory, even if the defendant is no longer present in the state, he can still be subject to PJ in personam.
“But to the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state. The exercise of that privilege may give rise to obligations; and, so far as those obligations arise out of or are connected with the activities within the state, a procedure which requires the corporation to respond to a suit brought to enforce them can, in most instances, hardly be said to be undue.” a. Specific in personam jurisdiction - you can be dragged back only for specific causes of action (for your actions in the state in the past). ii. court recharacterizes past cases on PJ
Presence in the state in this sense has never been doubted when the activities of the corp. there have not only been continuous and systematic , but also give rise to the liabilities sued on ... [there is

no PJ when] single or isolated items of activities in a state … in the corporation’s behalf are not enough to subject it to suit on causes of action unconnected with the activities there.

Sometimes single acts are sufficient for PJ because of their nature or quality.

Personal Jurisdiction in Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction over Individuals and Corporations, Study notes of Civil procedure

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Personal Jurisdiction in Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction over Individuals and Corporations and more Study notes Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!

i. The Supreme Court held that courts have personal jurisdiction over an

1. This ruling took international law theory and “folded it” into the