Tues., Sept. 23

PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN STATE COURT

Amendment XIV. Section 1.  . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Court?

5th Amendment contact between D and United States as a whole

P sues D, a citizen of New York, in federal court in Alaska concerning a brawl the two got into in New York. D is served in New York and has never been to Alaska. As a constitutional matter, there is PJ.

Rule 4. Summons. (k) Territorial Limits of Effective Service Rule 4. Summons. . . (k) Territorial Limits of Effective Service. (1) In General. Serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant: (A) who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located;... (C) when authorized by a federal statute. (2) Federal Claim Outside State-Court Jurisdiction. For a claim that arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if: (A) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction; and (B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws.

Pennoyer v Neff (US 1878)

1) dicta: the matter going forward will be governed by the 14th A 1) dicta: the matter going forward will be governed by the 14th A. - but not in the present case, because the 14th A. had not been ratified when Mitchell v. Neff occurred - the question must be answered according to international law on the recognition of foreign judgments (as interpreted by federal courts) 2) there was no PJ, despite the fact that Neff had property in Oregon, because the property was not attached at the outset of the suit - the requirement has subsequently been abandoned, provided that the property is identified at the outset

preliminary relief: attachment preliminary injunctions

why due process?

- Anne Wallice wishes to sue Mariel Echemendia for $10,000 concerning a brawl the two got into in Virginia. - She approaches Michael Green, who agrees, without Mariel’s consent, to act as the adjudicator. - Green will conduct the trial exactly as a Virginia state court would. - Mariel defaults and Green takes $10,000 of her property and gives it to Anne.

challenging PJ

direct. - motion to dismiss for lack of PJ direct - motion to dismiss for lack of PJ - motion to set aside judgment indirect - collateral attack

- state ct has constitutional duty to respect valid sister state judgments - FF&C Clause

Art IV, § 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

- federal courts have statutory (not constitutional) duty to respect valid state court judgments - FF&C statute

28 U.S.C. § 1738. - State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit ... The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form. Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

- state courts have constitutional duty to respect valid federal court judgments - Supremacy Clause?

Art. VI This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Pennoyer Framework

distinguish federal constitutional limits (under the 14th A distinguish federal constitutional limits (under the 14th A.) on a state’s assertion of PJ over a defendant - what a state can do what a state has chosen to do under its own law

in personam – source of PJ is presence of D at initiation of suit (NOT at time of event being adjudicated) tagging

in rem – source of PJ is presence of property at initiation of suit suit concerns ownership of property (e.g. quiet title action) binding upon all possible claimants

quasi in rem two types: 1) source of PJ is D’s property in state at initiation of suit, but suit does not concern ownership of property although if P wins, D’s property may be used to execute judgment

2) suit concerns ownership of property (e. g 2) suit concerns ownership of property (e.g. quiet title action), BUT binding only on certain named parties

the Pennoyer framework in action

- Mitchell, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyer’s fees that Neff incurred in Oregon while he was a resident of Oregon. - Service of the summons and complaint are delivered to Neff in hand in California. - PJ permissible?

- Mitchell, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyer’s fees that - Neff incurred in Oregon while he was a resident of Oregon - There is in-hand service of the summons and complaint upon Neff while he is in Oregon on a brief business trip - PJ permissible?

- Mitchell, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyer’s fees that - Neff incurred to Mitchell in California – Neff was never an Oregon resident - There is in-hand service of the summons and complaint upon Neff while he is in Oregon on a brief business trip - PJ permissible?

§ 78. Individual Voluntarily Within The State A state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction over an individual voluntarily within its territory whether he is permanently or only temporarily there.

- Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court in order to quiet title to property in Oregon that each claims he owns. - Service on Neff is in-hand in California

§ 101. Jurisdiction Over Land A state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction over land situated within the territory of the state, although a person owning or claiming an interest in the land is not personally subject to the jurisdiction of the state.

- Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, brings a suit to quiet title to Oregon property that he claims he owns. - He brings an action in Oregon state court that will bind everyone in the world - Service is by publication.

- Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for breach of a contract Neff entered into in California to sell Pennoyer property in California - Pennoyer gave Neff the money but Neff has not given Pennoyer the property - Pennoyer asks for an injunction ordering Neff to transfer title to Pennoyer - Service is in hand on Neff in Oregon.

- Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for breach of a contract Neff entered into in California to sell Pennoyer property in California - Pennoyer gave Neff the money but Neff has not given Pennoyer the property - Pennoyer asks the court to transfer title to Pennoyer - Service is in hand on Neff in Oregon.

- Mitchell, an Oregon resident, brings an action against Neff in Oregon state court concerning $253.14 in legal fees that were incurred in Alaska. - Neff resides in California. - The Oregon state court attaches property in Oregon owned by Neff worth $300 at the beginning of the suit.

- Mitchell, an Oregon resident, brings an action against Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court concerning $253.14 in legal fees. - The personal jurisdictional basis for the suit is $200 property in Oregon owned by Neff. - Neff defaults. - The property is sold and the money given to Mitchell. - Mitchell then brings a suit on the Oregon judgment in California state court to recover the remaining $53.14. - Service on Neff is in-hand on California. - What result?

- Mitchell, an Oregon resident, brings an action against Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court concerning $253.14 in legal fees. - The personal jurisdictional basis for the suit is $200 property in Oregon owned by Neff. - Neff defaults. - The property is sold and the money given to Mitchell. - Mitchell then brings a suit in California state court to recover the remaining $53.14. - The suit is not to enforce the Oregon judgment but is a new suit on the merits. - Is Mitchell claim precluded?

- Mitchell lures Neff to Oregon with a story that Neff has won a contest. - While he is in Oregon, Neff is served for a suit brought by Mitchell in Oregon state court concerning unpaid lawyers fees. Neff chooses to default. - Under Oregon law, someone can be submitted to personal jurisdiction on the basis of tagging in the state even when the tagging is the result of fraudulent inducement. - Mitchell then brings a suit in California state court to execute the Oregon judgment. - Under California law someone cannot be submitted to personal jurisdiction on the basis of tagging in the state when the tagging is the result of fraudulent inducement. - Neff argues that the earlier Oregon judgment is void. - What result?

Full Faith and Credit: The recognizing jurisdiction must give the judgment the same preclusive effect it would have in the rendering jurisdiction’s courts. e.g. a California court must give the Oregon judgment the same preclusive effect it would have in Oregon state court.

Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon state court Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon state court. Neff has no connection to the state but does not want to default. He appears solely for the purpose of challenging personal jurisdiction. May the Oregon court nevertheless take Neff's presence (including through his lawyer) to create in personam jurisdiction?

special appearance

- Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon state court - Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon state court. - Neff has no connection to the state but does not want to default. - Oregon allows special appearances. - Neff appears for the purpose of challenging personal jurisdiction but also adds the defense of failure to state a claim. - What result?

- Mitchell brings an action against Neff in Oregon state court concerning $253.14 in legal fees. - The personal jurisdictional basis for the suit is $200 property in Oregon owned by Neff. - Neff appears, but solely to litigate liability up to the value of the property attached. - May the Oregon court nevertheless take Neff's presence (including through his lawyer) to create in personam jurisdiction?

limited appearance

P(NY) sues D(Germany) in federal court in NY under German law concerning a brawl they got into in Germany. P asks for $80,000 in damages. The source of PJ is $50,000 in a bank account D has in NYC. Is there SMJ under 1332(a)?

- Mitchell has Neff tagged in Ore - Mitchell has Neff tagged in Ore. while he is there for a business trip. Mitchell’s suit is in Ore. state ct and concerns unpaid lawyers fees. Neff appears to litigate the merits. - While Neff is there Pennoyer has him served in connection with another unrelated suit, brought in Ore. state ct, concerning a brawl in Cal. Neff chooses to default. - Under Ore. law, someone can be submitted to PJ on the basis of tagging in the state even when in the state for litigation. - Pennoyer then brings a suit in Cal. state ct to execute the Ore. judgment. - Under Cal. law someone is immune from service (in other words, cannot be submitted to PJ) while in the state for litigation activities. - Neff argues that the earlier Ore. judgment is void. What result?