Civ pro midterm

Jurisdiction

The court’s power to hear a case

Personal jurisdiction

Can this court exercise power over this defendant? (Person)

Personal jurisdiction is about

The defendant. (Does this particular court have power over the defendant?)

Subject-matter jurisdiction

Can this court hear this type of case. (subject-matter/case)

Subject-matter jurisdiction is about

The court’s power to hear the type of case (Does this court have authority to hear this kind of lawsuit?)

Three types of personal jurisdiction

In personam jurisdiction (we consistently, 100% prefer in personam), In rem jurisdiction, Quasi in rem jurisdiction

In personam jurisdiction

The court’s power is over the defendant’s person because he has some connection with the state. (This could be using the roads, or causing an effect, or being domiciled there).

In rem jurisdiction

The court is exercising power over the defendant’s property.

Quasi in rem jurisdiction

Pennoyer isn’t the

modern test for personal jurisdiction

Hess v. Pawloski

Implied consent

A state can treat certain conduct within the state as implied consent to personal jurisdiction.

International shoe co. v washington

What is minimum contacts

Specific jurisdiction

General jurisdiction

When courts have due process over a defendant

When they have proper power (they satisfy jurisdiction)

Full faith and credit clause of the Constitution

States must recognize, respect, and enforce the valid judgments of courts in other states.

A state is only required to give full faith and credit to a judgment if the rendering court had proper jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause in the first place.

To exercise personal jurisdiction, you also need

a statute that allows for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. (State law has to permit pj through a statute; regardless if we are in state or federal court.)

First step to finding pj

Finding a state statute that allows for the exercise of personal jurisdiction in the case/forum. (If you can’t find a state statute that allows the exercise of pj, then there is no pj.)

Second step to finding pj (second statutory step):

Is jurisdiction Constitutional? (How do I determine that?) Does it satisfy the jurisdictional requirements set forth in the cases we read.

The two types of in personam jurisdiction:

Specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction

Specific jurisdiction

The alleged claims “arise out of” or “relate to” defendant’s contacts with the forum. (The defendant is being sued for a claim that is connected to the defendant’s contact with the forum state.)

Specific jurisdiction example

So if California had specific pj over you, you’re being sued in California for a claim that arises out of or relates to something you did, some contact you forged with California.

Pennoyer v neff

Territorial jurisdiction

A state has power over people and property that are physically located inside the state.

Traditional bases of in personam jurisdiction (derived from Pennoyer case)

1. Defendant is served process while present in the forum. (referred to as presence, confusing name)

2. Defendant’s agent is served with process in the forum. (Sometimes, we appoint someone to be our agent to receive service of process).

3. The defendant is domiciled in the forum. (This gives us general jurisdiction as well).

4. The defendant consents to pj.

(daps c)

Hess v Pawloski (two things) + big expanded rule

Driving your car into another state does two things under Nonresident Motorist Act:

1. You consented to jurisdiction (in a case arising from driving your car.)

2. You appointed a state official to be your agent of service of process (the registrar of motor vehicle.)

It takes the idea of consent and expands it to implied consent.

Also, expands idea of service of process on agent to agent appointed to you by law.

This case is specific jurisdiction.

(International shoe): How to do the shoe test

1. (Purposeful minimum contacts) Is there relevant contact between defendant and the forum?

Assessing minimum contacts (two elements)

a. Purposeful availment: contact between the defendant and the forum must result from the defendant’s reaching out to the forum. (This can be through being domiciled in forum, making money in forum, uses roads in forum, causes some effect in forum.)

b. Foreseeability: (Not that product would get in forum, but foreseeable that defendant could get sued there.)

(No law on whether stream of commerce constitutes purposeful availment).

2. (relatedness) Does the plaintiff’s case “arise out of” or “relate to” defendant’s contact with the forum?

“Arise out of” = caused by (“Did the defendant's forum activity cause this lawsuit?” Causation.) (little contact with the forum. Ford) (The contact caused the claim.)

“Relates to” = connected to (“Even if the contact didn't directly cause the lawsuit, is there a strong enough connection between them?”) (continuous, systematic, substantial contact with the forum. Ford) (The contact is meaningfully connected to the claim.)

(If answer to related to question is no, then you can only proceed with general jurisdiction.) (No relatedness = no specific jurisdiction)

(General jurisdiction: Human- where your domiciled. (Human- served with process in forum counts too) Corporation- state of incorporation and or personable place of business) (Activities in forum).

3. Fairness or reasonableness analysis (applies to specific jurisdiction only) (throw in 5 fairness factors, engage the facts, and come to a reasonable conclusion).

Five fairness factors

1. Burden on the defendant (defendant must show that the forum is so gravely inconvenient that she’s at a severe disadvantage in the case, if not the case then jurisdiction is okay.)

2. Forum state’s interest (something the forum state has an interest in; like protecting residents or enforcing its road safety laws.)

3. Plaintiff's interest in convenient/effective relief (plaintiff in Ford has an interest in a efficient litigation at home since he is injured and traveling far away would be difficult)

4. Legal system’s interest in efficiency (whether the forum is a convenient place for the litigation) (Ford example: all the witnesses to the wreck are in Minnesota, all the evidence is in Minnesota, Minnesota forum makes sense.)

5. The shared substantive policies of the state.

(What do the different states want/policy concerns?)

Ernie’s

1. Purposeful availment/contact?
↓
2. Does the claim arise out of or relate to those contacts?
↓
3. Is exercising jurisdiction fair/reasonable?
→ Balance the 5 fairness factors.

• Defendant → Is it too burdensome for them?

• Forum state → Does this state care about the case?

• Plaintiff → Is this a convenient place for the plaintiff?

• Efficiency → Is this the most efficient place to resolve it?

• States' interests → What do the different states want/policy concerns?

Statutory analysis (on exam, the statute comes first before shoe test).

Don’t leave any blank questions.