CIV PRO

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is the ability of a court to exercise power over a particular defendant or item of property. It may be categorized as in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. To exercise personal jurisdiction, there must be (1) a state statute authorizing the exercise, and (2) the exercise must be constitutional.

In Personam Jurisdiction

In personam jurisdiction exists when the forum has power over the person of a particular defendant.

In Rem Jurisdiction

In rem jurisdiction exists when the court has power to adjudicate the rights of all persons in the world with respect to a particular item of property. This is limited to situations where the property is located within the state and where it is necessary for the state to be able to bind all persons regarding the ownership and use of the property.

Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction

Quasi in rem jurisdiction exists when either (1) the court has power to determine whether certain individuals own specific property within the court's control, or (2) the court is permitted to adjudicate disputes other than ownership based on the presence of the defendant's property in the forum.

Does quasi in rem jurisdiction allow the court to determine the rights of persons with respect to property?

NO

Does quasi in rem jurisdiction bind the defendant personally or any of their property?

NO

In what situations do states have statutes granting their courts in personam jurisdiction?

(1) Where the defendant is present in the forum state and is personally served, (2) where the defendant is domiciled in the forum state, (3) where the defendant consent to jurisdiction, AND (4) where the defendant has committed acts bringing them within the long arm statute

General In Personam Jurisdiction — Physical Presence at Time of Personal Service (Tag/Transient Jx)

General personal jurisdiction may be exercised over any defendant who can be served with process within the borders of the state, no matter how long they were present, even if just passing through. This is also known as tag or transient jurisdiction. However, if the plaintiff brings the defendant into the state by fraud or force to service process, then service is invalid for exercising personal jurisdiction.

Can a transient defendant be served in the forum state for a COA unrelated to their presence in the state even if they were just passing through?

YES

What happens if a plaintiff brings a defendant into the state by fraud or force to serve process?

Service is invalid

When can parties and witnesses be granted immunity from tag/transient personal jurisdiction?

When they are nonresidents present in the state solely to take part in a judicial proceeding or passing through a state on their way to a judicial proceeding elsewhere.

General In Personam Jurisdiction — Domicile

General personal jurisdiction may be exercised if the defendant is "at home" in the state by being domiciled in the state. For an individual, this is established through physical presence in the state coupled with the intent to make that place their home. For a corporation, this is where the company is incorporated or where is maintains its principal place of business, which is the "nerve center" where the company's high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the company's activities.

General In Personam Jurisdiction — Express Consent

General personal jurisdiction may be exercised through contract or appointment. Through contract, a party can give advance consent to jurisdiction in the event of a suit and may even be required to appoint an agent to receive service of process. Through an appointment, a state can authorize a party to do business within its borders and will often require the party to appoint an agent for service of process.

General In Personam Jurisdiction — Implied Consent

General personal jurisdiction may be exercised when the state has substantial reason to regulate the in-state activity of a nonresident of the state, and providing that the nonresident appoints a designated state official as their agent for service of process when they engage in such activity.

General In Personam Jurisdiction — Voluntary Appearance

General personal jurisdiction may be exercised if a defendant voluntarily appears in front of the court. However, many states allow for "special appearances" where the defendant can object to the exercise of jurisdiction in their initial pleading to the court.

Specific In Personam Jurisdiction — Long Arm Statutes

Specific personal jurisdiction may be exercised over nonresidents who perform certain acts or causes results within the state as defined in the state's "long arm statute." Unlimited long arm statutes give the courts power over any person or property over which the state can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction. Limited long arm statutes specify in detail the situations in which the courts can exercise jurisdiction.

Does the defendant need to be served within the forum state through a long arm statute?

NO

What must you determine next after it is determined that a state has a statute allowing the court to exercise in personam jurisdiction over the parties?

Constitutionality

General In Personam Jurisdiction — Constitutionality of Sufficient Contacts

For exercise of general PJ to be constitutional, even if the claim does not arise from activity in the state, the defendant must either (1) be “at home” in the state through domicile of an individual or where a corporation is incorporated or has its principal place of business, or (2) registered to do business in the state and appointed an agent in the state for service of process, provided that the state has a statute authorizing such business.

Specific In Personam Jurisdiction — Constitutionality of Sufficient Contacts

For the exercise of specific PJ to be constitutional, the defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the state such that exercise for the instant cause of action would not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." This is assessed through factors of contact, relatedness, and fairness.

Specific In Personam Jurisdiction — Contact Factor

A defendant must have such minimum contacts with the forum that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable. Whether there are such contacts depends on factors of purposeful availment and foreseeability. Through the contacts, the defendant must have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum and invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Moreover, the defendant must have known or reasonably anticipated that their activities in the forum would render it foreseeable to be haled into court there.

Specific In Personam Jurisdiction — Purposeful Availment in Stream of Commerce Cases

Merely placing an item in the stream of commerce is not a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction. However, placing the item in the stream of commerce couples with some other act showing the intent to serve a particular state is a sufficient basis.

Specific In Personam Jurisdiction — Purposeful Availment in Internet Cases

The maintenance of a passive website for informational purposes only is insufficient to exercise general personal jurisdiction over the defendant for all causes of action. However, it may be sufficient to exercise specific personal jurisdiction for a claim arising from the maintenance of the website itself if the defendant specifically targets readers in the forum. Moreover, maintenance of an active website alone is sufficient for the exercise of general personal jurisdiction if the "at home" test is satisfied.

Specific In Personam Jurisdiction — Relatedness Factor

The claim against the defendant must arise out of or relate to their contacts with the forum. For specific PJ, if the defendant’s in-state activity is based on isolated acts within the jurisdiction, then PJ will be proper only for causes of action relating to that specific in-state activity. If there are multiple claims or parties, then each claim of each plaintiff must arise from or relate to some in-state activity.

Specific In Personam Jurisdiction — Fairness Factor

The exercise of specific PJ must not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Factors to determine this include (1) convenience of the forum such that it is not so gravely difficult and inconvenient that a party is unfairly put at a severe disadvantage in comparison to the opponent, (2) the forum state’s legitimate interest in providing redress for residents, and (3) other relevant social policy considerations.

In Personam Jurisdiction — Constitutionality of Notice

Due process requires that a reasonably calculated method be used to notify the defendant of a pending lawsuit

Traditional Methods of Personal Service

Traditional methods of personal service that satisfy the due process requirement include personal delivery to the defendant, leaving papers with a responsible person at the defendant’s residence or place of business, delivery to an agent appointed to receive service, or delivery by registered mail with a return receipt requested.

Personal Service Through an Agent

The failure of an agent to notify the defendant of service will prohibit exercise of personal jurisdiction unless the defendant voluntarily selected their own agent.

Personal Service Involving Multiple Parties or Unknown Parties

If there are multiple parties or unknown parties, personal service is satisfied by using the best practical means available. This includes notice by ordinary mail for those whose addresses are known or can be reasonably ascertained, or through publication, only if all defendants have substantially identical interests.

Knowledge that Personal Service Was Not Received

Although actual notice is not required, if the plaintiff knows that the defendant did not receive service, they may not proceed if practicable alternative to notify the defendant still exist.

Effect of In Rem Jurisdiction

It has a binding effect on the disposition of property within the state

Statutory Limitations of In Rem Jurisdiction

Generally, most states have statutes providing for in rem jurisdiction in actions for condemnation, title registration, confiscation of property, forfeiture of a vessel, distribution of estate assets, and a grant of divorce only when the complaining spouse is present and subject to personal jurisdiction

Constitutional Limits of In Rem Jurisdiction

The constitutional basis for in rem jurisdiction is the presence of the property in the state. A court has no in rem power over property outside the state. The exercise of in rem power is also prohibited when the property is brought into the state by fraud or force.

Effect of Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction

It allows a court without in personam jurisdiction to determine certain disputes between parties regarding property when that property is in the state

Types of Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction

Type I involves disputes between parties over their rights in property within the state. Type II involves disputes unrelated to the in-state property.

Statutory Limits on Type I and Type II Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction

Because the defendant has property in the state that the plaintiff attaches, the court can adjudicate the dispute on the basis of its power over the property so long as the judgment against the defendant is satisfied solely out of that property.

Constitutional Limits on Type I Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction

When a dispute involves the rights of the parties in the property itself, jurisdiction based on presence of the property in the state is proper because the close connection between the litigation and the property provides the necessary minimum contacts.

Constitutional Limits on Type II Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction

When a dispute is unrelated to the ownership of property, jurisdiction cannot be based solely on the presence of the property in the state. There must be minimum sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum. Because this is the same test as in personam jurisdiction, type II quasi in rem is rarely used.

Procedural Requirements of Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction

The plaintiff must bring the asset before the court by attachment or garnishment to inhibit the sale or mortgage of the defendant’s interest.

Are notice requirements for in rem and quasi in rem the same as in personam?

YES