1 / 29

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 32

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 32. Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 8, 2002. WRAP-UP OF LAST CLASS.

Antony
Download Presentation

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 32

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 32 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 8, 2002

  2. WRAP-UP OF LAST CLASS • We finished our discussion of the modern International Shoe, a landmark case setting out the modern theory of personal jurisdictionin cases involving non-resident defendants. • By examining another major Supreme Court case, World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, we began to consider how the Court has applied the International Shoe test applies to a situation where a non-resident defendant allegedly commits a harmful act outside the forum state that causes harm within the forum state.

  3. WHAT WILL WE DO TODAY? • Continue our study of this issue by analyzing 3 significant Supreme Court cases:World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson (1980), Asahi(1987), and Calder v. Jones (1984)

  4. MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST IS FACT-SPECIFIC • Since courts must pay careful attention to facts in applying the minimum contacts test (remember that Justice Stone said in International Shoe that it is not a “mechanical or quantitative” test, you must be familiar with the facts of the cases we are reading in this unit on personal jurisdiction, as well as case names for all Supreme Court cases.

  5. REVIEW: MINIMUM CONTACTS • State the minimum contacts test that the Court in International Shoe held was required by the Due Process clause.

  6. THE SUPREME COURT: MODERN STANDARD FOR PERSONAL JURISDICTION • According to Chief Justice Stone in International Shoe, the modern standard for a state’s 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]”. • le”.

  7. REVIEW: GENERAL AND SPECIFIC JURISDICTION • What is GENERAL jurisdiction? How does it differ from SPECIFIC jurisdiction?

  8. World-Wide Volkswagen: Flow Chart

  9. WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN: PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS • Where do plaintiffs file their action against defendants? • Why do plaintiffs choose this forum?

  10. Who’s Woodson? • A puzzle: Charles S. Woodson is a respondent in the U.S. Supreme Court, but he is not a defendant. Please explain.

  11. Another Puzzle • Why didn’t the plaintiffs sue Lloyd Hull, the drunk driver of the vehicle that hit their car?

  12. WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN: CLAIMED BASIS FOR JURISDICTION • What is the source of law for plaintiffs’ claimed assertion of jurisdiction over defendants?

  13. Oklahoma Long-Arm Statute, Tit. 12 §1701.03(a)(4)(1971) • A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action or claim for relief arising from the person’s . . causing tortious injury in this state by an act or omission outside this state if he regularly does or solicits business or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in this state . . . “

  14. BACK TO WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN • How does the Oklahoma Supreme Court rule on the writ of prohibition? • What is the legal issue for decision by the U.S. Supreme Court? • How does the U.S. Supreme Court rule?

  15. REASONING OF U.S. SUPREME COURT MAJORITY OPINION IN WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN • The U.S. Supreme Court endorses the “minimum contacts” test set out in International Shoe • According to Justice White (1962-93), who delivers the Court’s opinion, what are the two functions of the minimum contacts test?

  16. Academic Debate:Federalism • Compare Martin H. Redish, Due Process, Federalism, and Personal Jurisdiction: A Theoretical Evaluation, 75 NW. U. L. Rev. 1112 (1981) with Allen R. Kamp, Beyond Minimum Contacts: The Supreme Court’s New Jurisdictional Theory, 15 Ga. L. Rev. 19 (1980) • Insurance Corp. of Ireland, 456 U.S. 694 (1982) – federalism is not a separate source or restriction on power of state courts to exercise personal jurisdiction. Federalism concerns are just a function of individual liberty interest preserved by due process clause which is the only source of the pj requirement.

  17. Justice White’s Majority Opinion in WWVW • According to Justice White, which prong of the International Shoe test should be examined first?

  18. APPLYING THE MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST TO THE FACTS OF WWVW • How does Justice White apply the International Shoe test to the facts of World--Wide Volkswagen? • Is it relevant that the NY defendants arguably could foresee that the Audi would enter Oklahoma? • Is the concept of “purposeful availment” important to Justice White? Why or why not?

  19. WORLD-WIDE: DISSENTS • Please explain the basis for Justice Marshall’s (1967-91) dissent.

  20. World-Wide Dissents • Please explain the basis for Justice Brennan’s (1957-90) dissent.

  21. World-Wide Dissents • Please explain the basis for Justice Blackmun’s (1970-94) dissent • Do you agree with the majority or with any of the dissents? Why?

  22. Justice Blackmun’s puzzlement • What about this case caused Justice Blackmun to be puzzled? • Could you dispel his confusion?

  23. WWVW • Case indicates that to exercise pj over a non-resident D, the court must find purposeful conduct either by direct acts of the D in the forum or by conduct outside the state that the D could have foreseen could result in suit being brought in the state • Forum injury is not enough by itself to confer jurisdiction.

  24. Asahi v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) • Another “stream of commerce” case • What is the issue that the Supreme Court must decide in Asahi?

  25. Asahi- A Badly Divided Court: Count the Votes • Part I - unanimous • Part IIA • Minimum contacts lacking 4 (O’Connor) Rehnquist, Powell, Scalia) • Part IIB • “Reasonableness” prong not met: Fairness 8 (all but Scalia) • Part III (O’Connor, Rehnquist, Powell, Scalia)

  26. Asahi • Asahi status is uncertain given that there is no majority opinion on the issue of minimum contacts • Court found no jurisdiction based on due process alone (separate from minimum contacts analysis) • How often will defendants have minimum contacts with a forum but the exercise of personal jurisdiction will offend notions of fair play and substantial justice?

  27. Asahi on Minimum Contacts • Is some “additional” conduct required other than placing goods in the stream of commerce and being that the goods will end up in the forum state (such as advertising, marketing) • O’Connor – yes (says World-Wide court held mere foreseeability not enough) • Brennan – no (says World-Wide court carefully limited its holding to situation where consumer took goods to state)

  28. Calder v. Jones: Personal Jurisdiction in Libel Actions • Libel action in California over 1979 National Enquirer article that claimed that actress Shirley Jones had a drinking problem.

  29. Calder v. Jones • Which defendants contested the jurisdiction of the California court? Why?

More Related