Personal Jurisdiction: Understanding Minimum Contacts and Fair Play in US Courts, Slides of Civil procedure

Download Personal Jurisdiction: Understanding Minimum Contacts and Fair Play in US Courts and more Slides Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity! Agenda for 17th Class • Name plates out • Personal Jurisdiction: – International Shoe – General and Specific Jurisdiction – Challenging jurisdiction – McGee; Hanson v Denkla • Next Class – Yeazell, 103-112 – Questions to think about / Writing assignment • Briefly summarize World Wide Volkswagen • Yeazell pp. 109ff 1c, 4e • Did the plaintiffs in World-Wide Volkswagen sue in federal or state court? How can you tell from the opinion itself (not Yeazell’s notes)? • What is a writ of prohibition? Why did the defendants seek one? • Who is Woodson? How did he get in the case? • Questions on next page Docsity.com 2 Next Class (continued) • Questions to think about (continued) – There were four defendants in the original action. Which of them challenged jurisdiction? What if anything, did the U.S. Supreme Court decide about jurisdiction over each of the four defendants. If there were some defendants for whom the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on personal jurisdiction, how would you argue that the trial court had jurisdiction over them? How would you argue that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over them? – Would the case have come out differently if the Robinsons had gotten into an accident in New Jersey and sued in a New Jersey court, but the facts were otherwise the same? – Suppose the Robinsons had purchased their Audi in California from Pacific Audi in Torrance, had gotten into an accident in California, and sued Audi, Volkswagen of America, Pacific Volkswagen (the regional distributor, based in Nevada) and Pacific Audi in a California court. Would the California court have jurisdiction over all, some, or none of the defendants? Note that there is a passage in the opinion which directly addresses this question. Is it dicta? Docsity.com Rules before International Shoe (1945) • Pennoyer v Neff (1877) • 3 bases for personal jurisdiction – In personam. If defendant is citizen or resident of state, or present in state, or consented to jurisdiction • For individuals, limit was service of process in airplane over Arkansas. Grace v. MacArthur (1959) • Corporations are citizens in state where incorporated (e.g. Delaware) • Difficult to determine where corporation is “present” – Where headquartered. Clearly yes – Where has plant or office and lots of employees. Clearly yes – What if only has a few employees? Not clear – Where does business? Unclear what means to “do business” – In rem. In dispute about property, personal jurisdiction is proper where property is located – Quasi in rem. If suit is NOT about property, but defendant has property in state, plaintiff can sue in that state for whatever cause of action, but recovery is limited to value of property in state Docsity.com International Shoe (1945) • International Shoe, incorporated in Delaware with principal place of business in Missouri, employed salesmen who resided in Washington to sell shoes there. Salesmen show samples and solicit orders, which are then transmitted and fulfilled from Missouri. State of Washington sued in Washington state court for unemployment compensation contribution. • Held. Defendant could constitutionally be subject to jurisdiction in Washington state, because it had “minimum contacts” with Washington state and exercise of jurisdiction would not “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” – Corporation is fiction, so not proper to base jurisdiction on presence Docsity.com 7 Questions on International Shoe – If the Supreme Court had not decided to change the rules in International Shoe, would jurisdiction have been proper under the prior rules? If your answer is “yes,” why do you think the Supreme Court changed the rules? If you answer is “no,” why was the outcome under the new rules better? – Yeazell pp. 86ff. Qs 1b, 3 Docsity.com