Civil Procedure Outline
Personal Jx- in what states can the π sue the Δ.
In personam- pwr over the person. General jx- the Δ can be sued in that state for a claim that arose anywhere in the world. Specific jx- the Δ is being sued for a claim that arose from their actions w/in the forum. i.
Constitutional Limits- Due Process Circle
Pennoyer v. Neff- Traditional basis for in personam
The Δ is served with process in the forum- presence- general jx 2.
Service on the Δ agent in the forum
The Δ is domiciled in the forum- general jx
The Δ consents to jx
Hess v Pelosky- expanded the traditional basis for in personam jx 1.
The π wanted to sue the Δ for causing an accident in the state, but under the traditional way couldn’t serve process bc the Δ had left the state. That state court was able to uphold jx through the nonresident motorist statute- if you drive in our state; you are consenting to in personam jx and appointing a state official as your agent for service. Always specific jx. 3.
International Shoe v. Washington
There is jx if the Δ has such minimum contacts with the forum so that jx, does not offend traditional notions, fair play and social justice. i.
You can serve process outside the forum by this time, as long as you meet the Shoe Test ii.
There are 2 parts contact and fairness
Doesn’t overrule Pennoyer, test if Δ is not present when served 4.
The TX company solicited the business in CA
CA had an interest in providing justice for its residents. 5.
Under Internaitonl shoe the contact btwn the Δ and the forum must result from the Δ’s purposeful availment. The Δ must reach out to the forum. 2.
No jx in FL over a DE bank, the bank only serviced a client in the forum, didn’t reach out. 6.
World Wide Volkswagen-
NY family buys car in NY to move to AZ, in car accident in OK sue in OK for a car defect, sue 2 NY Δ in OK, no jx 2.
No purposeful availment by the Δ.
It must be foreseeable that the Δ could get sued in that state, not that your product could get to the state. 7.
Burger King- MI residents owned a franchise in FL; got sued there and the Δ argued that it was unfair to allow suit in FL 1.
Court makes it clear that there are 2 parts under International Shoe: contact and fairness. 2.
Contact is assessed first, it no relevant contact then it could be fair to sue there but still no jx. 3.
The Δ had reached into FL for a franchise so contact met, the Δ said it was unfair and the Court said tough you can travel i.
Court said that you have to show that you are at such a great disadvantage that it would be unfair to litigate there ii.
Tough to prove bc wealth of the parties is irrelevant. 8.
Asahi Metal v. Superior Court NO LAW 4-4 split – stream of commerce case. 1.
Brennan theory -it is a contact if I put the product in the stream of commerce and I reasonably anticipate it could end up in states c, d, e 2.
O’Connor theory- need the Brennan theory plus an intent to serve states c, d, e 9.
McIntyre- stream of commerce NO LAW- split 3 ways- English company only reaches out to Ohio; the Ohio Company then sells everywhere. Individual hurt in Jersey and sues the English company there, Supreme Court no jx, Majority agreed on no jx 1.
4 justices adopt O’Conner theory- found no intent
Bryer and another –don’t take sides, agrees with both tests just doesn’t see enough facts 3.
Ginsburg- dissent- would have found jx, she said if you target the US, then you can be sued in any state where your product does harm 10.
Burnham- Jersey Δ sued in CA, the Δ is present in CA when served with process. Sued on general jx. The question raised is whether traditional service is good by itself or do you need to go through the International Shoe test as well. Split 4-4 1.
Scalia theory- that presence when served is ok by itself. Traditional basis is an alternative to International Shoe test. 2.
Brennan theory- always apply International Shoe test, it...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document