CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 31

1
CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 31

• Professor Fischer
• Columbus School of Law
• The Catholic University of America
• November 6, 2002

2
WRAP-UP OF LAST CLASS

• We wrapped up our study of subject matter
  jurisdiction by finishing up our study of when
  cases can be removed from state court to federal
  court. Removal is a limit on the ability of a
  plaintiff to choose the forum.
• We discussed International Shoe, a landmark case
  setting out the modern theory of personal
  jurisdiction. International Shoes minimum
  contacts test significantly expands personal
  jurisdiction beyond Pennoyers power rationale,
  which had become outmoded.

3
WHAT WILL WE DO TODAY?

• Continue our study of personal jurisdiction by
• 1. Learning about general and specific
  jurisdiction
• 2. Discussing a case applying International
  Shoes minimum contacts test, World-Wide
  Volkswagen v. Woodson (1980).

4
THE SUPREME COURT MODERN STANDARD FOR PERSONAL
JURISDICTION

• According to Chief Justice Stone in
  International Shoe, the modern standard for a
  states assertion of personal jurisdiction over a
  non-resident defendant is that due process
  requires only that in order to subject a
  defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not
  present within the territory of the forum, he
  have certain minimum contacts with it such that
  the maintenance of the suit does not offend
  "traditional notions of fair play and substantial
  justice. citation omitted.

5
MINIMUM CONTACTS

• Does Stone articulate any criteria for assessing
  a corporations contacts or activities in the
  forum state?

6
MINIMUM CONTACTS

• It is evident that the criteria by which we mark
  the boundary line between those activities which
  justify the subjection of a corporation to suit,
  and those which do not, cannot be simply
  mechanical or quantitative. The test is not
  merely, as has sometimes been suggested, whether
  the activity, which the corporation has seen fit
  to procure through its agents in another state,
  is a little more or a little less. Whether due
  process is satisfied must depend rather upon the
  quality and nature of the activity in relation to
  the fair and orderly administration of the laws
  which it was the purpose of the due process
  clause to insure.

7
CONTACTS Under International Shoe Can a state
validly assert personal jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant if

• Such D has no contacts with the forum state?
• There is a single act or contact by D with the
  forum state?
• D has business activities within the state that
  (a) give rise to the claim for which suit is
  brought in the forum state? (b) are unrelated to
  the claim for which suit is brought in the forum
  state?

8
SPECIFIC JURISDICTIONGENERAL JURISDICTION

• What is general jurisdiction? (see, e.g. Perkins
  v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. CB p. 671)
• What is specific jurisdiction? (see,e.g., McGee
  v. International Life Insurance Co. CB p. 671)

9
PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT

• What is purposeful availment? (See Hanson v.
  Denckla CB pp. 674-75)

10
Stone in International Shoe

• 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.

11
APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE FACTS

• Why does Stone find that there was personal
  jurisdiction over International Shoe?
• To what extent does Justice Black disagree with
  Justice Stone?

12
IMPORTANT NOTE PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN FEDERAL
COURT

• The 14th Amendment due process clause only limits
  state power.
• Although there are no CONSTITUTIONAL constraints
  on a federal courts exercise of jurisdiction
  over a defendant with an appropriate relationship
  to the US as a whole who is not resident in the
  state where the court sits, Congress has limited
  the jurisdiction of federal courts
• See FRCP 4(k) purpose to eliminate
  forum-shopping. NB 100 mile bulge rule.

13
World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson (1980)

• For the whole story of the lawsuit, see Charles
  W. Adams, World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson The
  Rest of the Story, 72 Neb. L. Rev. 1122 (1993).
  The article is a fascinating read.

14
The Accident (1977)

• 1976 Audi 100 LS

15
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN V. WOODSON

• Who are the plaintiffs? Where are plaintiffs
  resident at the time of the accident?
• Where were the plaintiffs citizens for the
  purposes of diversity at the time of filing the
  lawsuit?

16
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN

• Who are the defendants?
• Which Ds challenge personal jurisdiction?
• Where is each D who contests jurisdiction
  incorporated at the time of filing the action?
• Where does each such Defendant have its principal
  place of business at the time of filing the
  action?