Civil Procedure Outline | Priscilla Shelby Bullitt

I.
Jurisdiction Overview/ Intro
There are two types of jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction involves the
courts power over a given type of case. Personal jurisdiction refers to the courts
authority over the particular defendant, item or property
II.
Personal Jurisdiction p. 65-76
A.
Mechanics of Jurisdiction p. 15-17, 76-78
1.
Collateral attack on jurisdiction (p. 76 example Abe & Barbara)
a)
The simplest but riskiest course of action is to do nothing,
assuming you are very sure that the court lacks jurisdiction, you
may simply decline to appear, suffer a default judgment, and
attack the judgment when the plaintiff seeks to enforce it
B.
Rule 12(b)
(b) How to Present Defenses. Every defense to a claim for relief in any
pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is
required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:

III.

(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;

(2) lack of personal jurisdiction;
(3) improper venue;
(4) insufficient process;
(5) insufficient service of process;
(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted; and
(7) failure to join a party under Rule 19.
B.
Modern p. 79-91 (powerpoint 3)
Absorbing In Rem (powerpoint 4)
1
International Shoe Co. v. Washington (p. 80)
Setting: Washington levy of unemployment tax on salesmen
working for MO corp.
International Shoe challenges:
1) Substantive due process prohibits collection of tax
under these circumstances
Court rejected argument: constutional to levy tax
2) Even if it doesnt, the WA courts have no jurisdiction
over defendant.
Held: jurisdiction (Big question: why?)
This is a departure from Pennoyer under which there
would have been jurisdiction. Under Pennoyer, the
presence of the person in the jurisdiction would be
enough for jurisdiction. However International Shoe
adopts a new rule that minimum contacts such that the
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Intl Shoe creates sliding scale
Light contacts support jurisdiction only over claims related
to those contacts (specific jurisdiction)

Civil Procedure Outline | Priscilla Shelby Bullitt

Heavy contacts support jurisdiction over unrelated claims

(general jurisdiction)
Sohow heavy is heavy enough?
o Easy cases:
o For individuals: permanent residence
Can be sued on all claims.
o For corporations: principal place of business, state
of incorporation
Can be sued on all claims
2. The reach of jurisdiction
i. What is the reach of Intl Shoe? Many believed the sliding scale
approach extended jurisdiction in a number of thin contacts
cases.
ii. McGee v. Intl. Life:
1. Dicta: trend discernible toward expanding permissible
scope of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations and
other nonresidents
2. Texas Corp: No office, agents, etc. in CA.; no provision of
policy spoke to choice of forum.
3. Sent Franklin a letter asking him if he wanted to continue
his insurance with them, and sent him subsequent
premium notices.
4. Can his beneficiary sue in CA to enforce policy?
a. Holding: Yes

Hanson v. Denckla (p. 90)

Hanson suggests a limiting principle to McGees expansive view
of personal jurisdiction:
Jurisdiction requires purposeful availment of protection,
laws, economy of forum state.
McGee would have same result: insurance company sought
Franklins business in CA and the claim arose from that
business (thus purposeful availment)
How is Hanson distinguishable from McGee?
o Trustor resided in PA when she established trust;
trustee hadnt sought business in FL, just continued
existing relationship.

1.

Shaffer v. Heitner (p. 93)

The standard for determining whether an exercise of jurisdiction
over the interests of persons is consistent with the Due Process
Clause is the minimum contacts standard elucidated in
International Shoe.
We therefore conclude that all assertions of state court
jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set
forth in International Shoe and its progeny.
Define In rem and Quasi in rem jurisdiction
In rem:
Quasi in rem:

Civil Procedure Outline | Priscilla Shelby Bullitt

2.

IV.

Pennoyer after Shaffer

After Shaffer does Oregon have jurisdiction over Neff in Mitchell

v. Neff (assuming no personal service or attachment of land)?
Neff agreed to pay Mitchell for legal services (to be
performed in OR).
Neff has land in OR, acquired as a result of those legal
services.
Yesbut its contacts, not seizure that produce this result.
Personal jurisdiction - Specific Jurisdiction ( powerpoint 5)
1. World-Wide Volkswagon Co. v. Woodson
a. Does VW have a better argument after Nicastro?
b. WWVW is the first real indication of a serious split in the Court over
what constitutes sufficient minimum contacts. The split stems from
two different views on what the most important concern should be
in exercising personal jurisdiction: the due process rights of the
defendant, or the interests of the forum state in the litigation. Here,
the winning side focused more on the latter.
2. Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz
3. Federal rules of civ pro
a. Rule 4. Summons COPY FROM SLIDE
i. (k) territorial limits of effective service
1. (1) in general .
a.
b.
c.
4. Pavlovich v. Superior Court
5. McIntyre v. Nicastro
a. Purposeful availment
b. Minimum contacts
c. Stream of commerce
d. Fairness and foreseeability
6. Daimler Chrysler v. Bauman
a. No specific jurisdiction for anyone either MB Argentina or Daimler
Chrysler in the U.S., because the actual harm occurred in Argentina
7. Burnham v. Superior Court
a. Holding (unanimous): there is jurisdiction in California
i. Scalia (4 votes): because weve always done it that was and
Shaffer didnt change the way we think about this
ii. Brennan (4 votes): Shaffer changed the way we think about
this, but there are contacts and its fair
iii. Stevens (1 vote): its an easy case, but I wont tell you why
8. Carnival Cruise Line v. Shute
a.
9. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust
a.
10.Gibbons v. Brown
a.
FORUM NON CONVENIENS
11.Piper Aircraft v. Reyno

Civil Procedure Outline | Priscilla Shelby Bullitt

V.

VI.
I

III.

a.
12.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley
Personal jurisdiction - General Jurisdiction ( powerpoint 7)
Never use nerve center for personal jurisdiction, it has to do with
whether the corporation is at home
F.
Gen. Transient Jurisdiction
G.
Consent as substitute for power
Constitutional Notice (powerpoint 8)
C.
Constitutional Notice Formulation
D.
Rule 4 and Service of Process
Long Arm Statutes, Forum non-conveniens ( powerpoint 9)
A
Long-Arm statutes
E.
Venue
F.
Forum Non Conveniens
Subject Matter Jurisdiction ( powerpoints 10 and 11)
A.
Federal question
B.
Diversity
28 USC 1332 diversity jurisdiction
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between

(1) citizens of different States;

(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign
state [except permanent residents domiciled in the same
State];
(c) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title

(1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every

State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated
and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal
place of business
Rule 12
(b) How to Present Defenses. Every defense to a claim for relief
in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if
one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses
by motion:
(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
Note requirement for complete diversity under the statute
C.

Supplemental jurisdiction
Under 28 U.S.C. 1367, in any action in which the federal court has
jurisdiction over a federal claim, it has supplemental jurisdiction over
state claims that are so related to claims in the action within such
original jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution

Civil Procedure Outline | Priscilla Shelby Bullitt

When the plaintiffs state law claims substantially predominate over
the federal claims or raise complex or novel issues of state law, the
federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims

D.
IV.
V.
VI.

Removal

Choice of Law
A.
Erie
Remedies
A.
Temporary remedies
B.
Provisional remedies and due process
Respect for judgments
A.
Claim preclusion
1.
Precluding the same claim
2.
same claim
3.
same parties
4.
Is the decision final
5.
Is the judgment on the merits
6.
Interjurisdictional issues
B.
Issue preclusion
1.
Same issues of fact or law
2.
Actually litigated and determined
3.
Essential to the judgment
4.
Between which parties
C. Repose: Collateral Attack and Reopened Judgments
1
Full faith and Credit
5.
The reopened judgment
A
Joinder of Claims
6.
By plaintiff and review 28 USC 1367
7.
By defendants counterclaims and cross-claims
C.
Joinder of parties
1.
Permissive joinder
2.
Third-party claims
3.
More complex joinder