Civil Procedure

CASE BRIEF: Kulko v. Superior Court of California (55)

5) Fairness: This single act is surely not one that a reasonable parent would expect to result in
Chapter 1: PERSONAL JURISDICTION
sub financial burden and personal strain of litigating childsupport 3k miles away it would
Section A: CALIFORNIA LONG
impose an ARM burden
unreasonable STATUTESon family relations.
a. 6) The state has interests in protecting welfare of its minor residents and in promoting possible
healthy fam environment
-but center of gravity is no grounds for PJ (Hanson)
NAME: KULKO V. SUPERIOR
7) Theres another method COURT OF CALIFORNIA
for civil recourse for the[U.S.S.C. 1978]
P (this distinguishes this case from Mcgee
and Ps severe disadvantage in out of state insurance claims)
FACTS: 8) State court
Appellant, Ezra failed
Kulko,tomarries
heed admonition that the
appellee Sharon flexible
Kulko Horn standard
in Cali,ofthey
Shoe doestonot
move NY,herald the
separate,
andeventual
Sharondemise
moves of all restrictions
to Cali. Per agreement,on PJ (Hanson)
kids stay with Ezra during school yr in NY, and with
9) There
Sharon are evolving
on vacation. Then,standards
kids want of due
to goprocess,
to Cali but a mere act
for longer, dadof sending
agrees. Moma child
suesdoes not bring
for more
aboutand
money a corresponding benefit
full custody. Cali long that
armwould
allows make it fair
for pj in allforinstances
PJ. not inconsistent with
10) Effectsand
constitution Test: Derivedreasonable..
whenever from Restatement of Conflict of Laws: A state has power to exercise
judicial jurisdiction over an individual who causes effects in the state by an act done elsewhere
PROCEDURE: withappears
Ezra respectspecially
to any cause
to move of action arising
to quash from
service ofthese
summonseffectsonunless
ground thethat
nature of the
he was noteffects and
a resident
of of theand
cali individuals
lacked suff relationship
min contacts to the
withstate
the makes
state tothe exercise
warrant of such
states jurisdiction
assertion unreasonable
of pj. TC denies
motion,-Intended
cali courttoofreach
appealwrongful
affirms,activity
reasoning outside
that of
by state causingtoinjury
consenting within the
his childrens stateini.e.
living cali,
appshooting bulletanfrom
had caused effectonein state into warranting
the state another, or exercise
commercial activity affecting residents so all
of jurisdiction.
court needs to do is talk about how its unreasonable (which they do by comparing it to all other
ISSUE: cases with
Whether CaliPJ studied
state courtsthus
may far.exercise
And also in talking
personam about posing unreasonable
jurisdiction over nonresident,burden on family
non-domiciliary
relations.
parent of minor children domiciled within state under due process clause.

HOLDING: No PJ in this case because it would violate Due Process Clause of 14th amendment and offend
DISPOSITION: traditional
Concludednotions of fair playmotion
that appellants and substantial
to quash justice
service(shoe).
on lack of PJ was erroneously denied by
cali courts, Judgment of cali supreme court is reversed.

Dissent: 1) Justice
REASONING: Brennan
Essential essentially
criterion saysis the
in all cases SC may
whether thehave gotand
quality it right, butofhe
nature thethinks the connection
Ds activity withit
is such that
is State of caliand
reasonable is not
fairtoo attenuated
to require himand may be reasonable
to conduct his defenseto
indefend in cali.
that state.
2) The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident D cannot
satisfy the req of contact with the forum State. It is essential in each case that there be some
act by which the D purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within
the forum State (Hanson v Denckla).
-this would cause unwanted impact in families
3) Kid purposefully avails, not the father
4) PJ based on The Circs in this case are unreasonable distinguish from Hess & physical injury,
no commercial transactions, no insurer over state, instead this action involves an agreement that
was entered into with virtually no connection with the forum state.

CLASS NOTES:
***Kulko had a broad long arm statute, not one that expressly indicates what the Cali interest is specifically by a statute*
In other words Effects test flies as long as its not unreasonable and having a statute in advance helps make it reasonable*
Also, for effects to work (westlaw), you need intent, effect, and reasonable foreseeing that the effect could have occurred
(mcgee)
So why does she sue in Cali? Convenient for her, P friendly state, long arm statute is broad
Special (not consenting to PJ) v. General (consenting to judgement, which is good according to Penn) appearance
Min contact was developed for orporations in Intl shoe
1st, SC looks at cali long arm statute then applies min contacts test to make sure it doesnt interfere w/ due process
Ps effects test from tort law, when non resident causes an effectin another state, PJ.
-applied to these facts, dad consents to kids going from ny to cali causes a negative effect/injry on mom (she needs to take care
of them) SC does not like the effects test for establishing PJ
Center of gravity and unilateral activity dismissed as well someone who asks unilaterally and invokes J cannot get PJ overD
Is McGee still good law? Distinguish by insurance Co vs person prob more regulates on Incs co than on families
Yes McGee still good law bc its actually upheld here- mcgee talked about evolving standards of due process, and this case of
mere act of sending child is not fair.