1 / 22

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 35

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 35. Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 11, 2005. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985). recap. Asahi v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987). Another “stream of commerce” case

keitaro-rin
Download Presentation

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 35

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 35 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 11, 2005

  2. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) • recap

  3. 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?

  4. Asahi- A Badly Divided Court: Count the Votes

  5. 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)

  6. 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?

  7. 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)

  8. A BIT OF HISTORY • Remember that the Pennoyer case established a strict, formalistic rule of physical presence within the forum before the forum could exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. • If the defendant was non-resident, there was personal jurisdiction over him if he could be personally served in the state (or, as an exception, if he consented) • In rem jurisdiction: another choice

  9. IN REM JURISDICTION • What is in rem jurisdiction?

  10. IN REM JURISDICTION • Pennoyer v. Neff, the Supreme Court held that a state court could exercise indirect jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant by finding and seizing property that the defendant owned that was located in the state. • The attachment of the property amounted to the assertion of the state’s power over property as well as served the purpose of notice to the D

  11. SOVEREIGNTY CONCERNS • Under Pennoyer, states only had power to exercise jurisdiction in rem over property located within their borders.

  12. IN REM ACTIONS ARE BROUGHT AGAINST PROPERTY • Where action requires the court in the forum state to determine the status of, interests in, or title to property itself. • If the property has been attached and thus subjected to the control of the forum, due process doesn’t obligate the court to identify and notify everyone whose interest might be affected by its judgment. • In rem judgments are effective against all the world

  13. SOME EXAMPLES • Probate proceedings • eminent domain • confiscation of property • registration of title to property • ownership of corporate shares • declare bankruptcy

  14. QUASI IN REM ACTIONS • What’s a quasi in rem action?

  15. QUASI IN REM ACTIONS • What’s a quasi in rem action? A quasi in rem action is brought against persons, not property. • 2 kinds: • 1. Where P seeks to secure a preexisting claim in the property and extinguish other claims in the property (like setting aside a fraudulent conveyance, suit for specific performance of real estate contract)

  16. QUASI IN REM ACTIONS • 2. P seeks to get jurisdiction over D’s property within the forum as a SUBSTITUTE for in personam jurisdiction over the D. • This is sometimes called “attachment jurisdiction” • P is not challenging rights in property itself.

  17. Relation of Property to Claim • In Pennoyer the Court did not require that the property that was seized was related to the P’s claim. • However, the P could not recover more than the value of the property in an action where there was in rem jurisdiction against the Defendant.

  18. DEFENDANT: SOPHIE’S CHOICE? • Once property has been attached as a jurisdictional vehicle,D must choose between • 1. General appearance • 2. Default judgment and sacrifice of property

  19. PLAINTIFF: ADVANTAGES • Puts D to the “Sophie’s choice” described above. • The seized property is security for the judgment

  20. PLAINTIFF: DISADVANTAGES OF QUASI IN REM • Amount of recovery is limited to value of property

  21. PENNOYER, IN REM, AND FAIRNESS • Quasi in rem jurisdiction, according to the Pennoyer Court, was not based on fairness or the D’s contacts with the forum but just the presence of the D’s property with the forum.

  22. Shaffer v. Heitner • Quasi in rem jurisdiction will satisfy due process only if it meets International Shoe minimum contacts test; presence of property alone is not enough to support the State’s jurisdiction. • The result of this is to cause quasi in rem jurisdiction to lose its appeal for many Ps.

More Related