Sei sulla pagina 1di 12

CIVIL PROCEDURE I OUTLINE

FALL 2001 BEINER


I. DEFINING CIVIL PROCEDURE
1)Rules by which one brings a law suit and goes to trial over a civil matter.
*Whats a civil matter? P v. D as opposed to criminal, which is State v. D
2)PROCEDURE V. SUBSTANTIVE LAW (torts, property)
*steps you go through regardless of what type of claim or substantive area of law.
FIRST ISSUE TO ASK? Am I in the right place?
*Jurisdiction over parties and/or property
NEXT ISSUE TO ASK: What court am I in?
CIVIL ACTIONS: 2 FUNDAMAENTAL SOURCES OF PROCEDURE
1)Federal Rules: apply in Federal Court
2)State (AR) Rules: apply in State Court
(Constitution wins out over any rule of federal procedure)
EXTRA DEFINITIONS:
*FULL FAITH AND CREDIT: Any judgment rendered by one U.S. state, should be enforced in any other U.S. state.
Must have personal jurisdiction or it is void.
*DUE PROCESS: required Personal Jurisdiction (use minimum contacts rule) and Proper notice. NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
*COLLATERAL ATTACK: attacking a lawsuit by bringing a 2nd lawsuit. The judgment was void (worthless) and we
dont want it to be used w/ legal effect. (Pennoyer)
*FEDERAL: division of power b/t over-all federal government and states.
*CONSENT:
1) IMPLIED CONSENT: If you dont, we will apply some one to you.
2) EXPRESSED CONSENT: You must do this.
II. OVERVIEW OF A SUIT FROM BEGINNING:
1.

ACT: someone is wronged or hurt (substantive law) Think:


a. Is there a basis for claim?
b. Is the suit economically efficient?
c. Where do we sue?
2. FILE A COMPLAINT: (P files and serves it on D)
a. Jurisdiction: Person or Subject Matter
b. Service of Process: giving notice of the action issue summons and complaint
3. RESPONSE OPTIONS:
a. Answer Complaint (this can contain a denial)
b. Ignore Complaint (default judgment) (sometimes people do this b/c its not worth it).
c. Attack Complaint (motion to dismiss)
d. Agree with Complaint
e. Counter-claim (Ill sue you back)
4. DISCOVERY OF THE BASIC FACTS OF CASE: (where P & D exchange info)
a. Document of Request
b. Interrogatories
c. Depositions
d. Locate witnesses
5. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: (Effective in federal courts)
a. There is no triable factual issues, therefore the judge makes a ruling before trial.
(Based on these facts, I should win.)
6. GO TO TRIAL: (2 types of trial: 1)bench trial/before the judge 2)jury trial/before

the jury.
a. P has the burden of proof and gets to put up his evidence first.
b. The D can then motion for summary judgment
c. The D puts on his evidence
d. P can then motion for judgment
e. Case goes to jury
f. Jury renders a decision.
7. APPEAL
8. APPELLATE COURT CAN AFFIRM, REVRSE, REMAND
III. THE TRADITIONAL BASES FOR JURISDICTION
*States have jurisdiction within their boundaries that involve:
1) People
2) Property
*Once person who committed wrong left, they were no longer under the jx of those boundaries.
*P has the burden of proof to prove jurisdiction.
3 BASIC TYPES OF JURISDICTION:
1.

In Personam: Person in state (OVER A PERSON, no property attached) (OWE PERSONAL


OBLIGATION, so one does it by paying the other or doing something for them).
2. In Rem: courts power to determine the rights of the world to your property (OVER THE THING:)
3. Quasi in Rem: against a person and ruling its judgment as the value of property (which can only be
up to the amount of the property) within jurisdiction (It can either be CLASSIC: involving property,
or not involving property) (To do this the property must be ATTACHED up front) (Some quasi in
rem do deal w/ property, but it's no about the rights the world has to it. Just a dispute b/t 2
properties)
*There is also Transient Jurisdiction: in the states boarders and tagged with a subpoena then the court
has in personam jurisdiction. Tag, your it!
*There is also Consent Jurisdiction: you come in and defend yourself (in personam) *Special
Appearance: D comes in to contest a lawsuit based on jurisdiction alone (You dont have jurisdiction
over me).
*Limited Appearance: D agrees to come in and defend the lawsuit up to the value of the property (do this
in order to keep court from getting in personam jurisdiction over you)
A. Pennoyer v. Neff JURISDICTION : DUE PROCESS ISSUE: 14TH AMENDMENT
(Rule: The process from a court in one State cannot run into another State, and summon parties there domiciles to leave its
territory and respond to proceedings against them).*Once person who committed wrong leaves those boundaries, they are
no longer under the jurisdiction of those boundaries.
*ATTACHING PROPERTY: for State to have jurisdiction over the land, they have to attach it up front. (def. The taking
into custody of a persons property to secure a judgment or to be sold in satisfaction of a judgment)
ATTACHING PROPERTY: 1)gives notice
2)brings property under jurisdiction

Plaintiff (MO) v. Defendant (AR)


*If P cant get jurisdiction in MO, he can always go to the court where the D is. ALTHOUGH, if you go into the state you
are giving them jurisdiction over you.
*Can AR court claim jur. Over MO resident in a counter-claim? Yes, because MO. Resident consented by filing suit
originally in the state.

HYPOTHETICALS:

1) Ben (P) and Jerry (D), both live in AR. Car wreck in MO.
a.Can P sue D in AR? Under what theory of jurisdiction?
*Yes. You can always sue D where he lives, in personam
b. Can P sue D in MO? Why would you want to sue in MO?
*Yes. 1)if you tag them in MO
2)he may have property in MO (quasi in rem)
-This is where wreck occurred. You have witnesses, police report, etc.
2) P lives in AR and D lives in MO. They get into an accident in MO.
a.Can P file suit against D in MO? Yes, in personam
b.Can P file suit again D in AR? Maybe: D has property in AR, tag him (quasi in rem)
(If he isnt coming over state lines, theres really no way to get him)
c.What if P files suit in AR, and D comes in to defend the suit. Does court have jurisdiction over D? Under what theory?
Yes, CONSENT THEORY (in personam jurisdiction)
d.D comes into the state to contest jurisdiction. Does AR have jurisdiction over him? Why not?
No, this is a SPECIAL APPEARANCE.
e.What if, along with the motion on jurisdiction, D answers the complaint? At this time, it is up in the air.
3)Jerry loans Ben the down payment for a summer home on a lake in MO. Jerry believes that he is buying a 12/2 interest
in the home. Jerry and Ben are both residents of AR. Ben considers himself the rightful owner with Jerry simply using it
the time as a guest. A dispute arises b/t the 2 regarding Jerrys rights?
a. Can Ben sue Jerry in MO? If so, under what jurisdictional theory? Yes, quasi in rem, or in rem. Depends how you
want to approach it.
b. Can Ben sue Jerry in AR? Under what jurisdictional theory? Yes, in personam
4)Ben and Jerry are AR resident. They co-own lake house in MO. Jerry steals Bens Jeep Cherokee, which Jerry had
parked at the lake house in MO.
a.Can Ben sue Jerry in AR? Under what circumstances? Under what jurisdictional theory? Does it
matter where the
Jeep Cherokee is? Yes, in personam
b.Can Ben sue Jerry in MO? Under what jurisdictional theory or theories? Yes, quasi in rem (attach the house)

IV. JURISDICTION BASED UPON POWER OVER PROPERTY


*DEBT FOLLOWS DEBTOR
-Rule: The obligation of the debtor to pay his debt clings to and accompanies him wherever he goes no matter how long he
stays.(Cant run away from your debt!)
Harris v. Balk (quasi in rem) >>>>>overruled by Shaffer
-Harris (NC) owed $ to Balk (NC) who owed $ to Epstein (MD). Epstein sued Harries for the $ owed to Balk. Harries
came to MD and court said that quasi in rem jx could be exercised over the debt owed to a D if the D's DEBTOR was
subject to personal jx in the state.
V. EXPANDING THE BASES OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
*IMPLIED CONSENT
-Rule: Court held that a statute saying that by driving on hwys one is consenting to the laws of the state was appropriate.
Hess v. Pawlowski (P (Penn) was in wreck in Mass.)
*Service must be made by registered mail & the non-resident must return receipt.
*By driving on a highway, the driver is giving that state implied consent to have jurisdiction taken over them in that state.
Supreme Court says (REASONS FOR IMPLIED CONSENT):
1)Cars are dangerous machine, therefore by driving we need to have a way to protect out citizens
2)Residents have an interest in proceeding in his or her own home forum.
3)Proper notice must be given and is coupled with enough time to come and defend
4)There should be intent to be non-discriminatory towards non-resident (PRIVILAGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE).

PROBLEM: The mere transaction of business does not imply consent. There needs to be more? There must be a link b/t
the underlying factor and the issues of the state. If this wasnt so then the state could sue anyone for anything!
**CONSTITUTION TRUMPS EVERYTHING! If state believes one thing that doesnt follow the constitution it will not
prevail.
HYPOTHETICAL:
*Real Estate agent sells house in AR, but she isnt licensed in AR. She says the house is great, but it is not. Buyers want
to sue her in AR. By doing business in AR, does this give AR personal jurisdiction?
-AR has statute that says if you arent licensed and you sell, you are under our jurisdiction.
-There is also more than mere business. The state has a public interest.
-The real estate agent still must be property served.
*P (MO) v D (AR)
-P contract with D resident to buy crystals. Part of the deal: Any dispute will be resolved under MO law CHOICE OF
LAW
-This was consented.
-Is there a difference between LAW and JURISDICTION? Yes. Its Ds due process right we are concerned about. A lot
of times one state has to deal with another states laws.
VI. INTERPLEADER
-RULE: Depositing $ as property of the court while the interested parties litigate over ownership.
NY Life Ins. v. Dunlevy: Interpleader: Debtor has $ but does not know whose money it is so he deposits the property with
the court while the interested parties litigate over ownership. This helps the debtor to avoid double liability (multiple suits).
*2 suits:
1. B&B v. Effie: in personam (PA)
2. Effie v. NY Life (CA)
*Defense that PA case was an interpleader action. Effie argues in CA case that they don't have jx from PA case
interpleader. Court ruled that any personal judgment rendered by a court against a claimant who did not voluntarily submit
to jx and was not a resident of the forum state was void for lack of personal jx.
(this case went against Pennoyer v. Neff b/c this case was in personam and the property was attached later)

FEDERAL INTERPLEADER ACT: allowed for Nationwide Service of Process. (This court said that ALL interpleader
acts are in personam).
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL: (issue preclusion) once court has decided issue it cant be reviewed by another court.
1. If interpleader is decided on a distinct issue, apart form the original action, jurisdiction from the original action does not
carryover into the interpleader.
2.After NY Life ins. Companies got rule then they can serve parties and have jurisdiction nation wide.
VII. THE REQUIREMENT OF REASONABLE NOTICE
*RULE: A fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding is that then notice must be of such nature as
reasonably to convey the required information and it must afforded a reasonable time for those interested to make their
appearance.
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust: NOTICE/SERVICE: Lots of little trust made into one big trust.
Notification by publication. Ct. held that those who address and names known must be notified by mail. Those unknown
just do the best to get them notice.
*Notice comes under the guide of DUE PROCESS:
Requirements:
1)Personal Jurisdiction (Power over D)
2)Proper Notice

Mullane: The notice was served properly by publication under NY Law, but this does not mean that it is OK under
Constitutional Law of Due Process b/c the constitution TRUMPS everything else.
*An elementary/fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality: is notice
REASONABLY CALCULATED, under all circumstances, to appraise interested parties of the pendency of the action and
afforded the main opportunity to present their objections.
(What if you dont know how to get it touch with the person? If you have tried and cant find them, then publication will
be O.K. b/c if people really cared they would have left name and address)
RULES OF NOTICE ARE CONTEXTUALLY BASED.
HYPOTHETICAL:
-Proper Notice goes out. What about the ones that dont show up? (The ones who show up will adequately represent the
interest of the rest of them)
WHAT ABOUT OTHER FACT PATTERNS:
1)What about statute that doesnt say anything about what a service should contain? If you have consent statute you have
to have it detailed. There is a summons form that you can get from the court.
2)Tenants were being evicted and notice was posted on front door. Is this O.K.? No. One needs to be personal served or
through registered mail.
(What happens if summons is lost in the mail or stolen. D doesnt show up and then there is a default judgment? D should
be given an extension of time and is he doesnt answer after that, then the judgment is O.K.

QUESTIONS TO HELP:
1. PERSON LEFT STATE, NOT TO RETURN?
*An advertisement in a local newspaper is NOT sufficient notice to bind a person who has left a state intending not to
return.
2. SECRETARY OF STATE GIVES NOTICE?
*Every statute of this kind should require the P bringing the suit to show in the summons to be served the PO address or
residence of the D being sued, and should impose either on the P himself or upon the official receiving service or some
other, the duty of communication by mail or otherwise w/ the D.
3. NOTICE OF ATTACHMENT OF CHATTEL OR REAL ESTATE?
*The attachment of a chattel or real estate, together w/ publication, may provide adequate notice, under the theory that
property owners usually are aware of and concerned about the status of their property.
*When the mortgagee is identified in a mortgage that is publicly recorded, constructive notice by publication must be
supplemented by notice mailed to the morgatgee's last known available address, or by personal service.
4. POSTING NOTICE ON APARTMENT DOOR:
*It seems like this would be adequate, but this is presuming that the tenant still lives there, and that there isn't anyone who
would take this notice off of the door (children other tenants, etc) Merely posting novice on an apartment door does NOT
satisfy minimum standards of due process).
Dissent: Notice via the mails is so far superior to posted notice that the difference is of constitutional dimension. MAIL:
may fail due to loss, misdelivery, lengthy delay, or theft. Unlike the use of the mails, posting notices at least gives
assurance that the notice has gotten as far as the tenants door).
5. IT IS THE D'S FAULT: The court stressed that if the D failed to get notice it was their fault since they either had failed
to furnish the P a correct address at the scene of the accident, as required by law, or had failed to leave a forwarding
address.
6. IS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE ALSON CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE PROCESS? *Federal
rules reflect some concern regarding the content of the summons: Rule 4(a)generally prescribes the contents of the
summons to be used in federal actions, and the S.Ct. has approved an illustrative form of the summons.
PERSONAL SERVICE IS THE BEST WAY TO SERVE. YOU THEN HAVE A PERSONAL SERVER AS THE
WITNESS.

VIII. A NEW THOERY OF JURISDICTION (MINIMUM CONTACTS)


*RULE: Due Process requires only that in order to subject a D to a judgment in personam, if he were not present within the
territory of the forum, he have certain MINIMUM CONTACT with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
(Before this, as in Pennoyer v. Neff a corporation could have no legal existence out of the boundaries of the sovereignty by
which it was created)
*As corporation grew beyond those boundaries, courts were forced to develop ways to apply the jurisdictional principle of
Pennoyer to them:
1. CONSENT THEORY presupposed that a foreign corporation could transact business in a state only with that states
consent. (This worked for a while)
2. PRESENCE THEORY A foreign corporation is amendable to process it is doing business w/in the state in such
manner and to such extent as to warrant the inference that it is present there.
(Assertion of jurisdiction over corporation was now in terms of ACTUAL ACTIVITES in the state) PRESENCE was
moved to DOING BUSINESS.
**Up to this pt. We were focusing on individuals instead of corporations. Questions we must ask: What were corporations
activities in the state? Was there an office in the state? What if there was an office, but it got closed down and was no
longer present?

International Shoe co. v. Washington: MINIMUM CONTACTS REQUIREMENT: SPECIFIC JX IS ALL THAT IS
NEEDED:
*Delaware Corp. doing business in WA. sate wants workman's compensation $ from corp. Salesmen in WA. K b/t the
customer and MO office. Court says that corp is doing enough business in Wash to give jx. Minimum Contacts:
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. SATISFIED. Salesmen are agents of the corp.
Corporations are a legal fiction.
In Pennoyer v. Neff, one might say, We arent doing anything in Washington. We arent property. It dealt more with
Power.
WHAT COURTS LOOK FOR FOR JURISDICTION:
1)MIINIMUM CONTACTS AND TRADITIONAL NOTION OF FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTNATIAL JUSTICE:
Fair Play is shifting from power to convenience (where suit takes place) and does it seem fair to everyone involved.
Estimate of Inconviences
2)QUANTUM AND QUALITY
The quality of the contacts seem to be more important than the quantity.
3)CONTINUOUS AND SYSTEMATIC
4)how much the D is benefiting and gaining protection from the state law.
TYPES OF JURISDICTION (GENERAL/SPECIFIC):
Depends on:
1)how much contact
2)whether the underlying lawsuit is related or unrelated to the contact in that state.
General: You are there enough to be sued for anything. You do so much business in this state that we have jurisdiction
(systematic and continuous) ANY AND ALL ACTS.
Specific: certain types of acts in states give jurisdiction for those acts. (casual) SPECIFIC RELATED ACT
*3 Theories of Corporation JX:
1. Consent: in order to do business in state, the corporation must give consent.
2. Presence: "doing business" within the state
3. Doing Business (Minimum Contacts)

IX. DUE PROCESS AND LONG-ARM STATUTES


Long Arm Statute court reaching out to bring things into their jurisdiction. (seeking to provide personal jurisdiction over
non-residents).
To bring someone to AR you must have:
1. Long-arm Statute satisfied
2. Due Process
McGee v. Int. Life Insurance TRANSACTING BUSINESS W/IN THE STATE:
(This is like International Shoe b/c by having insurance contract w/ someone, they can have benefits of CA law. Making $
off of CA citizens, Minimum Contacts). The suit was based on a K that has substantial connection w/ the state.
Rule: An insurance company doing business solely by mail may be sued in the state where the insured resided under that
states long-arm statute.
*States have a lot of interests in insurance.

MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST:


1.Assumption of obligation
2.Mailing of materials
3.Offices and solicitation
4.Benefits from the law of the state as well as the protection
5.Transactions
X. THE DEVLOPMENT OF LONG-ARM LAWS
Hess v. Pawloski: encouraged states to utilize their police powers to enact a # of statutes asserting jurisdiction based not
only on the operation of automobiles w/in a state but also in engaging in a variety of other hazardous activates or
enterprises.
International Shoe: with its emphasis on contact with the forum state-further encouraged states to expand their
jurisdictional reach.
Limitation: they apply only to suits brought in the courts of the state in which the jurisdictional act occurs or in the federal
courts sitting states.
Gray v. American Radiator: DOING AN ACT: Ohio manufacturer of valve was usable in Illinois for an injury caused
by an Illinois radiator of which the valve was a component. Long arm statute: "anyone who commits a tortuous act
within the state" and "tortuous act" can't be divorced from the tort causing the injury. Doing an act having foreseeable
liability predicting consequences in the state. Due Process: Enjoyment of other state's laws, commerce and protection,
therefore subject to suit in that jx. Minimum Contacts exists.
*RULE: The place of a wrong is where the last even takes place necessary to render the actor liable and the statue does not
violate the due process of law if: 1)there was certain minimum contacts w/in the State and 2)there was a reasonable method
of notification.
THIS SET PRECEDENT ONLY IN ILLINOIS. (At most it could be used to persuade).
SEC. 16 CIVIL PRACTICE ACT: summons may be personally served upon any party outside the state.
SECTION 17 (1)(b): a non-resident who, either in person or through an agent, commits a tortuous act w/in the State
submits to jurisdiction.
SUPPORT OF TORTUOUS ACT LAW: The statute of limitations is the period form the time when the injury occurs.

Hanson v. Denckla PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT (in regards to Minimum Contacts):


*Mother left trust in DEL and moved to FA. Trustee was the I/D party. S.Ct said that FA didn't have personal jx over the
I/D party, therefore they didn't have jx at all. The court emphasized that the COA sued on couldn't be said to have arisen

out of business done in FA since the trustee's obligation was created in DEL, and merely continued when the settler of the
trust moved to FA.
*RULE: It is essential that in each case there be some act by which the D purposely avails itself of the privilege of
conducting activities w/in the Forum State, thus involving the benefit and protection of its laws.
*A state does NOT acquire jurisdiction by being the center of gravity of the controversy, or the most convenient
location for litigation. (NY believes this)
Indispensable Party: a party who is so important that the trial cannot go on without them)

Purposeful Availment (the intentional giving state jurisdiction)


v.
Unilateral Activity (activity by one that didnt give the state jurisdiction)
XI. JURISDICTION BASED UPON POWER OVER PROPERTY
Shaffer v. Heitner >>>>>>>>>>>>>overruled Harris v. Balk
*quasi in rem used to be based on attachment or seizure of property present in the jurisdiction, and NOT on contacts b/t
the D and the State. The owner was only affect indirectly with his property.
*This case changed this:
*RULE: The Ds mere domicile in the forum state is not always enough to constitutionally confer jurisdiction over him.
It would be unfair to subject a D to jurisdiction over his property located in the forum state if he does not have minimum
contacts with the state.
*UNLESS THE CASE INVOLVES THE PROPERTY YOU CANT USE THE PROPERTY TO GET TO THE
DEFENDANT!!
Shaffer v. Heitner: MINIMUM CONTACTS APPLIED TO QUASI-IN-REM; LIMITS THE AVAILABILITY OF
QUASI-IN-REM JX
*P brought shareholders' derivative suit in DEL against a # of the corp's nonresident directors and officers. To gain jx, P
used DEL statute providing that any stock in a DEL corp could be used "sequestered" to provide quasi-in -rem jx against its
owner. Ct says that this type of quasi-in-rem doesn't work anymore b/c the D doesn't satisfy minimum contacts. Property
which is not itself the subject matter of the litigation doesn't alone provide a basis for jx.
Definitions: Shareholder's Derivative Suit: bring action against officers and directors that you think have mishandled corp.
-Anti-Trust: conspire to use illegal activity to put competitor out of business.
*Before the court dealt that property didnt deal with the interest of the people. Now it does.
*Where underlying lawsuit deals with property: (Classic Quasi-in-Rem)
-When its in rem theres enough contacts by property to give jurisdiction (not by Penn., but by International Shoe)
-Quasi in Rem (ex. Someone get injured on property) you cannot just attach the property. The lawsuit will work if there is
minimum contacts.
*Where underlying lawsuit does not deal with property?
-Must show minimum contacts, even if they have property in the state.
REVIEW ON WHERE WE ARE NOW:
1. Quasi in Rem: Lawsuit involves the property with respect to 2 parties so it STILL WORKS if it satisfies minimum
contacts.
2. Quasi in Rem: Lawsuit that doesnt involve the property DOESNT WORK b/c you need minimum contacts and then
you have in personam jurisdiction.
3. In Personam: (1) with resident still works; (2) with non-resident need minimum contacts
4. In Rem:
With respect to the whole world a thing STILL WORKS
5. Transient Juris.: Unclear/still widely enforced
6. Consent:
STILL WORKS

(Harris v. Balk, quasi in rem; debts not attachable to someone else DOESNT WORK b/c property has nothing to do with
the action).

*When asserting jurisdiction one must think:


1)Am I satisfying the Long-Arm Statute
2)Does the Long-Arm Statue satisfy Due Process?
After Shaffer: Most personal jurisdiction will be based on Minimum Contacts.
WWVW v. Woodson NO PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT; FORESEEABILITY IS NOT ENOUGH:
*An "Audi" sold in NY to NY residents was in an accident while passing through OK. The cr. held that the foreseeability
of P's driving into the forum state was not enough to justify personal jx. Regarding "purposeful availment," purposeful
must be construed to mean that D's conduct in relation to the state be such that he should "reasonably anticipate being haled
into court there." OK ct doesn't have jx b/c there was no contact b/t the retailer and OK. Neither the retailer not the
distributor had entered the automobile market in the forum state, since neither did any business there, shipped or sold any
products there, had any agents for service or process, or advertised in any media calculated to reach customers in that state.
*Here, the use of D's products in OK was merely an "isolated occurrence," and was completely due to UNILATERAL
ACTIVITIES of the Ps.
*RULE: The mere fact that a product finds its way into a state and causes injury there is not enough to subject the out-of
state manufacturer or vendor to personal jurisdiction there.
*The court held that the foreseeability of Ps driving into the forum state was not enough to justify personal jurisdiction.
Regarding purposeful availment, purposeful must be construed to mean that Ds conduct in relation to the state be such
that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
FORESEEABILITY: doesn't mean foreseeability of the event, yet it means foreseeability of reasonably being haled into
court there.
2 Themes:
1.Sovereignty D purposeful availment issue; whether WWVC reasonably anticipated being haled into court.
2.Convience Traditional notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice.
(Minimum Contacts 1)protect D against the burdens of litigating in a distant or in convenient forum and 2) it ensures that
states do not over do their power. SOVEREIGNTY & CONVENIENCE

CONSIDERATIONS: (Fairness Factors)


1)The burden of the D (Is it outrageous to pull him in?)
2)State's interest in adjudicating dispute
3)Ps interest in convenient and effective relief (where will it be least expensive, witnesses, etc)
4)Shared interests of several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.
(substantive social policies (products liability)we all want a place for defective products to be liable).
DISSENT:
DISTINGUISHING B/T WWVC (CAR) AND GRAY (RADIATOR)
-radiator valve was known to be distributed from here to there
-automobile was sold in this area (restricted area)
-Gray was more directly related to the economic benefit of the distribution
Rule: Just putting something into the stream of commerce is not enough to make it foreseeable.
Keeton v. Hustler: PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT
*Jurisdiction is permissible b/c the magazine is widely circulated in N.H.
PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS NOT A SOVEREIGNTY RIGHT, BUT A PERSONAL RIGHT TO BE CALLED
IN.

Kulko v. Superior Court PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT IN NONCOMMERCIAL SETTING


*Court held that a N.Y. father who let his daughter move to CA to live with her mother did NOT purposefully avail himself
to any benefits or protection under CA law, and he was not subject to CAs jurisdiction.
EFFECTS TEST: the lower court said action outside the state caused effects inside; therefore, purposeful availment.
Supreme Court said the effects test is only applicable when talking about BAD ACTIONS and BAD EFFECTS.
Burger King v. Rudzewicz PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT; CONVENIENCE
*BK had K with R under FA law. R defaulted on payments. Can BK bring R into court in FA when R had most dealings
with BK district office in Michigan? Long-Arm Statute used: statute said "it extends to any person including a noncitizen
who breaches a K by failing to perform acts that the K requires to be performed there." This would include failure to send
payments. Ct. said that FA does have jx. K with corp in other state is sufficient minimum contacts: (open negotiation for K
between 2 sophisticated parties).
DEALING WITH CONTRACTS:
1. By signing the K with a designation of a state's law, D "purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protection of the
forum state's laws."
2. "Prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along w/ the terms of the K and the parties actual course of
dealing" established minimum contacts.
3. D cannot be unfairly surprised by being required to defend in the state mentioned in the K.
4. If D can prove the terms of the contract were "fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power," the
contractual provisions would not have supplied the basis for jx.
TWO TYPES OF CONSIDERATION:
1. Purposeful Availment: Haled into court
2. Convenience factors: can bolster a weak purposeful availment.
BASIC JURISDICTIONAL RULES: (Why can a forum legitimately exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who
purposefully directs his activities toward forum residents?)
1. State has manifest interests (providing convenient location for residents to redress injuries by out of state actors)
2. D was purposefully deriving benefit from the interstate activities.
This is fair b/c they should have to account in other states for consequences.
3. Due process Clause is not a territorial shield to avoid interstate obligations that have been voluntarily assumed
4. Modern transportation and communication have made it much less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself.
5. MINIMUM CONTACTS: must be established
6. The forseeability that is critical to Due Process Analysis is that Ds conduct and connection are such the he should
reasonably anticipate begin haled in to court.
7. Purposeful availment ensures D wont be haled in for (solely) a result of random, fortuitous contacts, or
unilateral activity.

*JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS: seems to be breaking down into 2 prongs:


1. MINIMUM CONTACTS:

(a)Purposeful Availment
(b)K w/ substantial connection.
(c)Look not only at whether there is a K, but where the things in the K will occur (TERMS OF THE K)
2. REASONABLENESS>>>>>>look at the 5 convenience factors (these sometimes serve to establish the reasonableness
of jx upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would otherwise be required; P WOULD WANT TO DO THIS). D
WOULD WANT THESE IF: D has minimum contacts, but the fairness factors are too great.
5 convenience factors:
1-Burden on D
2-Interest of Forum State
3-P's interest in relief (Interest of state in providing forum for its residents and relative convenience of parties).
4-Interstate judicial system interest in efficient resolution of controversies.
5-Shared interest of several states in furthering fundamental policies.
(These sometimes serve to establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts
that would otherwise be required.)

EXTRA: You can sue seller where seller sells something, but you can't sue a buyer where he buys something.
***MINIMUM CONTACTS: PLACING OBJECT IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE:
RULE: The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, w/o more, is not an act of the D purposefully directed
toward the forum state.
Asahi v. Superior Court PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT
*Japanese based manufacturer sent vales to Taiwan based company who sold %20 of goods to CA. Used long-arm statute
and minimum contacts analysis. the majority said that there was no purposeful availment and that placement of something
into the stream of commerce is not enough; there must be additional conduct for purposeful availment (i.e., must promote
business there).
*Supreme Court cannot decide what the end of the stream of commerce should be. Where consumer buys product???
CATCH UP: THESE TWO THINGS SHOULD ALWAYS BE SHOWN:
1)MINIMUM CONTACTS
2)FAIRNESS/REASONABLENESS
XII. GENERAL JURISDICTION AND STATE LONG-ARM LAWS
CONTINUOUS AND SYSTEMATIC
A. DEFINITION OF GENERAL JURISDICTION:
*such SYSTEMATIC and CONTINUOUS contacts that a person can be haled into state for many things that may have
nothing to do with their contracts in the state.
-In General Jurisdiction the amount of MINIMUM CONTACTS is much HIGHER!!!!
-Specific Jurisdiction may only require one contact (purposeful availment, fairness, etc).

Helicopteros v. Hall: Were the contacts that the Columbian company had with TX sufficient to hale them into a TX court
when the K said jx was in Peru? This action arose out of a helicopter crash in South America so can't have specific jx.
-Ct looks at General jx (continuous and systematic) and held that Ks weren't continuous and systematic enough to give TX
jx. S.Ct. said that Ks were insufficient - that the claim did not ARISE OUT OF the activities in TX. Dissent said "yes,
But.." it is definitely RELATED TO activities in TX. Dissent said that the TX ct had jx b/c of business contacts and the
economic privileges received.
*RULE: It is possible for the D to have sufficient contacts and yet have the forum considered inconvenient.
XIII. A REFRAIN: JURISDICTION BASED UPON PHYSICAL PRESENCE

A. TRANSIENT JURISDICTION ("Tag. Your It!")


*judges are still following this b/c it has LONG RELIED ON THE TRADITIONAL PRINCIPLES.
Burnham v. Superior Court: TRANSIENT JX IN PERSONAM
*Married and divorced in N.J. Mom moves to CA. Dad send kids to live with mom. Mom tags Dad during his visit to CA
subjecting him to CA courts.
JUSTICES:
Scalia: said transient, historical, always been here, no qualifications to jx of person, totality of circumstances. ENDORSES
TRANSIENT JX.
Brennan: says that Int'l Show (minimum contacts) should be applied and that jx over Burnham shouldn't be by CONSENT.
IX. CONSENT
Insur. Corp. of Ireland
*P needed info to determine if jurisdiction was appropriate and D refused to produce info.
*Court said that if you don't give info to disprove then it will be taken as proven.
"ISSUE SANCTION" (If you don't provide the info, then the court will decide issue for you)
-Be prepared to participate.
*Consent via Contract Clause: any dispute will be held in __ jx.