Class 10 Preparation Document-Civil Procedure
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
A court must have the authority to require the defendant to appear in the forum and
defend the action there.
Even though a court may have subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit, they may not have the
right to “exercise personal jurisdiction” over a defendant.
The U.S. constitution imposes important restriction on a court’s authority over a defendant.
Specifically, the 14th amendment provides that a state may not deprive a person of property
without due process of law (fair procedure). Unfortunately, the 14th amendment speaks only in
general terms; it does not explain when a court can require an out-of-state defendant to appear
and defend an action in the state.
One element of procedural fairness is ensuring that the court has an appropriate
relationship to the claims OR the parties.
Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution:
-requires state courts to recognize in personam judgements of another state’s courts.
-defendant can take the in personam judgement into any other state and enforce the
judgement in state where plaintiff had property.
Questions to ask: how have courts interpreted the Due Process Clause?
What principles currently limit a court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction?
The real issue with Pennoyer is that Mitchell’s judgement is that he did not provide the court
with any basis for jurisdiction before the court purported to exercise it.
In Pennoyer, BEFORE A COURT CAN EXERCISE IN REM JURISDICTION, IT MUST
FIRST ATTACH THE DEEFENDNATS PROPERTY.
Pennoyer also states that personal service of process-proper notice- did not suffice to establish
personal jurisdiction. PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN THE STATE IN WHICH A TRIAL
WILL TAKE PLACE HAS TO TAKE PLACE.
Key holding of Pennoyer: A COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER PEOPLE OR THINGS
WITHIN THE COURT’S TERRITORY.
The court developed a different approach to personal jurisdiction in International Shoe v.
Washington.
-“Due Process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgement 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.” Milliken v. Meyer, International Shoe v. Washington.
Established General Jurisdiction & Specific Jurisdiction.
General Jurisdiction: In personam jurisdiction exists if the claim does not arises out of the
defendants deliberate contact with the state, as long as the defendant has ongoing contacts with
the state.
Contacts are important because they imply that the defendant has taken advantage of the
benefits and protections of a state’s laws and defendants can control where they direct their
activities. 1`
Specific Jurisdiction: In personam jurisdiction exists if the claim arises out of the
defendants deliberate contact with the state.
1. What is the principle of jurisdiction established in Pennoyer?
2. How could Mitchell, in the first suit, have obtained a valid judgment for his
money, under the jurisdictional rules expounded in Pennoyer?
3. Does Shoe supersede Pennoyer, or does it simply add a separate, alternative basis
for state assertions of jurisdictional power? Is it still valid after Shoe to serve the
defendant in the state in order to obtain personal jurisdiction over her?
4. Does the test described in Shoe apply to natural persons as well as corporate,
fictional persons? The court's discussion, read carefully, suggests an answer to this
question.
5. Suppose it would not be inconvenient for the defendant to come into the state to
defend (e.g., D lives in West Memphis, AR, and is sued in a court in Memphis,
TN, a few miles away), but he still lacks minimum contacts with Tennessee. Could
the Tennessee courts, under International Shoe, assert jurisdiction over him?
Types of Personal Jurisdiction
 In Personam: Jurisdiction over the actual person; judgements are against the person and
his/her assets (whenever those assets may be)
o Defendant has either done something in the forum state or has a connection there
o Any of the defendant’s property/assets, located anywhere, can be seized
o Pennoyer Framework: (a) served personally and (b) residence (PRESENCE)
within the state
HYPO: under the Pennoyer framework, would the OR state court have had in personam
jurisdiction over Neff if Neff had been served personally at his home in California prior to the
state of the case? NO, b/c he must be served in OR
 In Rem: Jurisdiction over property for purposes of declaring ownership or interests in
property with respect to the world.
o Subject matter is the property itself, not necessarily over the owner
o Only the specific property located within the state can be seized.
o Ex. probate, bankruptcy
o Pennoyer Framework: (a) must attach the land within the state, and (b) attachment
must occur before the suit begins
 Quasi In Rem: A court’s assertion of control over a defendant’s specific property, that is
located within the state where the defendant is sued.
o subject is “interest” that may be related to property but between limited
stakeholders (e.g., foreclosure: homeowner versus creditor) or unrelated to
property
o Pennoyer Framework: (a) must attach the land within the state, and (b) attachment
must occur before the suit begins
Attachment
 Jurisdictional attachment: bringing property into the action itself from in rem
jurisdiction
 Pretrial attachment: attaches property to prevent defendant from getting rid of property
before judgement can use it from damages
 Post- judgement attachment: garnishment—defendant doesn’t pay damages so court
garnishes D’s property to satisfy a judgment.
Personal Jurisdiction Case Evolution
Pennoyer v Neff: Shady lawyer tries to get client’s property. Court claimed to have personal
jurisdiction in Oregon; however, it was later found that the state did not because the client was
domiciled in California.
 RULE: For individuals, in order to gain in personam jurisdiction, the individual must
be served within the state seeking jurisdiction.
o State has personal jurisdiction only on people served in the state, or if they had
property in the state, they could attach that to the suit. Power of state over
everything in its boarders.
o State has personal jurisdiction over everyone in their state. No matter duration of
visit, if you are present in the state, you are subject to jurisdiction (very broad)
 RULE: for in rem and quasi in rem, the property must be attached to the suit, and it must
be attached before the suit begin.
 RULE: Defendant could consent to jurisdiction in the forum or waive the right to object
o *Pennoyer became more problematic as the country became more
mobile/interdependent between states.
o A court may enter a judgment against a non-resident only if the party…
 Is personally served while within the state
 Has property within the state and that property is attached before litigation
begins (as in quasi rem jurisdiction)
 “Reciprocal Duties”: If you are taking advantage of state benefits, you
have a duty to the state.
Hess v Pawloski: P and D got into an accident in MA. D went back home PA. P brought suit
in MA. The court incorporated the non-present motorist act to est. personal jurisdiction over D,
despite D not being present in MA. LONG-ARM STATUTE EST. that non-resident D
automatically consented to jurisdiction in MA by driving on the roads and appointed in-state
person (clerk) for service of process for D.
Fictious Consent Theory:
-pg. 163
 RULE: Receive benefits of the state, then you can possibly be liable to the state’s laws
o This is an example of implied consent and specific jurisdiction
International Shoe v Washington: International Shoe had a handful of salesmen in the
state of Washington for 3 years. D tried to claim there was no personal jurisdiction b/c they were
not based in Washington, but court found that they had “Minimum contacts” in the state. This
case defined specific and general jurisdiction.

RULE: The D is not present within the forum state, it must have certain “minimum
contacts” with state, such that, assertion of jurisdiction would not offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice.
o Minimum Contact test:
 Contacts must be either (1) continuous and systematic with or (2) cause of
action must arise out of D’s contact with the state.
 Look at quality and nature of the contact (how long you were there, how
much money etc.)/ Connection of contacts to the dispute (there for
business, contract dispute, etc.)
 Personal jurisdiction cannot offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.
 Changes: made it possible to serve the D outside the forum state.
 Applies to cases where D is not in the forum state. Doesn’t overrule
Pennoyer’s personal service rule.
McGee v International Life: P’s son had an insurance policy through D. It began in another
state, but later, the son moved to CA. the son sent the insurance payments from CA, and D sent a
letter to CA to the son at one point. The court found these were sufficient contacts to grant
personal jurisdiction.
 RULE: When a company intentionally reaches out to P in a different state and seeks
business (even if it is just one transaction), the company is subject to in personam
jurisdiction there.
o Ex. of specific jurisdiction—cause of action arose from D’s activity with CA.
o 3-part test:
1. Minimum contact
2. Claim has to arise out of the contact
3. Fairness and reasonableness
o Policy: CA had interest to protect its citizens from dealing with non-present
companies.
Hanson v. Deckla: to establish specific jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claim has to arise out of the
defendant’s contacts with the forum.
 Hanson states: “It is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant
purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum
State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. “What intentional act did she
make to go into the forum state?”
 The defendant has to have initiated a contact in the forum state. Absent such a contact,
specific jurisdiction does not exist.
 Purposeful Availment Test
World-Wide Volkswagen v Woodson: P bought car from dealership in NY. D was entirely
located within NY, NJ, and a neighbor state. P was driving to new home in Phoenix when the car
malfunctioned and caught on fire in OK. P brought suit against D in OK where they had to live
temporarily while P was hospitalized. Court held that OK had no personal jurisdiction over D b/c
there were no minimum contacts between D and OK. D had never purposefully availed
themselves to OK.



RULE: it is not enough that a product ends up in a state; the business must personally
avail themselves to the state to an extent that its reasonably foreseeable that they will be
asked to legally defend themselves in that state.
RULE: D’s contact with forum state is still an essential requirement, even if PJ would be
fair and reasonable in the case
Foreseeability is not enough.
o Factors for determining if contact is reasonable: REASONABLE TEST:
 Most important factor: the burden placed on the defendant
 Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
 P’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
 Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient result
 The shared interest in several states in furthering fundamental substantive
social policies
-Policy: D must have some control over where they subject themselves to
litigation, otherwise PJ would be unfair to D.
Burger King Corp v Rudzewicz- Rudzewicz applied for a franchise from FL based BK.
Franchise in MI. Rudzewicz have never set foot in FL, but the K he signed had a forum,
selection clause for FL. And he had a long-term business relationship with Burger King which
was a citizen of FL. Rud failed to make payments. Bk terminated franchise and sued in FL. Court
found that this was enough to grant PJ in FL over D. D also said litigating in FL would be unfair
to them, but court did not think it was unfair enough.
 RULE: determining if a def satisfies min contact, court must look to the purposefully
directed activates of the defendant toward the forum state.
 RULE: Burden on D to show that a forum is not just inconvenient, but unconstitutionally
inconvenient
 RULE: A contract with someone in another state is not enough for min contact. Regular
and systematic contacts must be created within the K to qualify for general jurisdiction.
o Ex. if performance will take place in the forum state or if there a choice of law
provision.
Asahi Metal Industry Co. V Superior Ct of CA: Stream of commerce cases; both parties
were international. Court split. Half found that putting the product into the stream of commerce
was not enough for CA to have PJ, some found that it was and still others found that more was
needed, but it was enough that a significant number of products were in the forum state.
 Stream of commerce ex. Widget maker in state A sells part to machine manufacturer in
state B who sells product to consumers in states C, D, E
o Machine manufacturer has final control over where widget maker’s parts end up
 RULE: Pure stream of commerce (BRENNAN/GINSBURG)- just putting the product in
the stream of commerce means that you have personally availed yourself of any state in
which it ends up
o Plaintiff Friendly
 RULE: Stream of Commerce Plus (O’CONNOR/KENNEDY)- it is not enough to put it
into the stream of commerce; company must intentionally avail themselves to the forum
state in some additional way.
o Ads, Channeling, Directing, Sales rep for state Plaintiff friendly

RULE: Modified Stream of Commerce- same as steam of commerce plus, BUT this
theory finds that if enough of the product ends up in a state, you’ve availed yourself
o Volume of sale
o Stream of commerce plus alternative
o Alternative b/c there’s less intentionality. You don’t necessarily control where the
volume of the sales go
In a stream of Commerce fact pattern a single isolated sale in the forum is not sufficient for
personal jurisdiction.
Specific Jurisdiction:
 Minimum Contacts
o Purposeful Availment (Hanson/Worldwide)
 Arise out of the Contact
 Fairness/Reasonableness Test (McGee/World-wide)
o Most important factor: the burden placed on the defendant
o Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
o P’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
o Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient result
o The shared interest in several states in furthering fundamental substantive social
policies
Stream of Commerce:
Does the stream of commerce constitute minimum contacts?