CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 27
Professor Fischer
Columbus School of Law
The Catholic University of America
November 27, 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Another review class will be held on
Wednesday, December 5 at the usual
class meeting time (6:20 to 8:10).
Exam is completely open book.
WRAP-UP OF LAST CLASS
We wrapped up our study of subject matter
jurisdiction by learning about when cases can
be removed from state court to federal court.
Removal is a limit on the ability of a plaintiff
to choose the forum.
We discussed International Shoe, a landmark
case setting out the modern theory of
personal jurisdiction. International Shoe’s
minimum contacts test significantly expands
personal jurisdiction beyond Pennoyer’s
power rationale, which had become
outmoded.
WHAT WILL WE DO TODAY?
Continue our study of personal jurisdiction by
discussing a case applying International
Shoe’s minimum contacts test, World-Wide
Volkswagen v. Woodson (1980).
Learn about the venue requirement and the
the federal venue statute
Time permitting, discussing a case applying
the common law doctrine of forum non
conveniens and the change of venue
provisions at 28 U.S.C. § 1404, Piper Aircraft
Co. v. Reyno (1981)
A Review Hypo
Keanu is a citizen of Hawaii who travels to
New York City on business. While here, he
steps off the curb into the path of a taxi
driven by Moe, a lifetime citizen of New York
state. Keanu receives medical treatment in
New York, returns to Hawaii and files suit
against Moe there. Moe does no business in
Hawaii, owns no property there, and has
never visited the state.
Can a Hawaii state court entertain this case?
Can a Hawaii federal court entertain this
case?
COLLATERAL ATTACK
Can Moe take no part in the Hawaii
proceedings and successfully resist
enforcement of the Hawaii judgment in
New York?
World-Wide Volkswagen v.
Woodson (1980)
For the whole story of the lawsuit, see
Charles W. Adams, World-Wide
Volkswagen v. Woodson – The Rest of
the Story, 72 Neb. L. Rev. 1122 (1993).
The article is a fascinating read.
The Accident (1977)
1976 Audi 100 LS
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN
V. WOODSON
Who are the plaintiffs? Where are
plaintiffs resident at the time of the
accident?
Where were the plaintiffs citizens for
the purposes of diversity at the time of
filing the lawsuit?
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN
Who are the defendants?
Which Ds challenge personal jurisdiction?
Where is each D who contests jurisdiction
incorporated at the time of filing the action?
Where does each such Defendant have its
principal place of business at the time of filing
the action?
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN:
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
Where do plaintiffs file their action
against defendants?
What claim(s) do plaintiffs make against
defendants?
Why do plaintiffs choose this forum?
World-Wide Volkswagen: Flow
Chart
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.
Another Puzzle
Why didn’t the
plaintiffs sue Lloyd
Hull, the drunk
driver of the vehicle
that hit their car?
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN: CLAIMED
BASIS FOR JURISDICTION
What is the legal basis for plaintiffs’
claimed assertion of jurisdiction over
defendants?
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 .
..“
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?
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?
Academic Controversy
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)
Justice White’s Majority
Opinion in WWVW
According to
Justice White,
which prong of
the International
Shoe test should
be examined
first?
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?
WORLD-WIDE: DISSENTS
Please explain the
basis for Justice
Marshall’s (1967-91)
dissent.
World-Wide Dissents
Please explain the
basis for Justice
Brennan’s (1957-90)
dissent.
World-Wide Dissents
Please explain the
basis for Justice
Blackmun’s (197094) dissent
Do you agree with
the majority or with
any of the dissents?
Why?
Justice Blackmun’s puzzlement
What about this case caused Justice
Blackmun to be puzzled?
Could you dispel his confusion?
HYPOS ON “STREAM OF
COMMERCE”
Change the facts of World-Wide. What if the
Robinsons were from Oklahoma but were
temporarily in New York, where they
purchased an Audi from Seaway, informing
Seaway that they planned to return to
Oklahoma. Should Seaway have foreseen
being sued in Oklahoma and thus be subject
to suit there?
What if the facts were basically the same as
the real case except that the Robinsons were
from NY and had their accident in NJ?
ANOTHER HYPO
Assume the driver of the car that hit the
Robinsons’ Audi was from Texas and
had no contacts with Oklahoma other
than driving into the state and getting
into an accident. Could an Oklahoma
court have exercised personal
jurisdiction over the driver for a claim in
negligence brought by the Robinsons?
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
WWV: The Aftermath
Case remanded to Oklahoma state trial court
Audi and VWA removed case to federal
district court for Northern District of
Oklahoma – possible now (case filed 1978)?
Case tried to a jury who found for defense
Appeal to 10th Circuit, which reversed and
remanded for a new trial
VWA is granted summary judgment
Grant of summary judgment is affirmed by
10th Circuit 9 years after accident occurs!
Cont’d on next slide
WWV: The Aftermath
Continued
New AZ lawyer moves for a rehearing;
motion is denied
New suit filed in AZ, against different
defendants – Volkswagen of Germany (parent
co.) and previous attorneys. Sep. action filed
in which moved to reopen judgment under
FRCP 60(b)(3).
Audi lawyers respond with 12(b)(2) and
12(b)(6) motions. Denial of 12(b)(6) motion
but order of transfer from AZ to OK.
Unsuccessful appeal of denial of 12( b)(6)
motion under “death knell doctrine”
WWV: The Aftermath
Continued
Bench trial of fraud claims, product claims,
and Rule 60(b) motion
Judge (same judge as in original trial)
acknowledged that based on evidence, memo
was admissible. But he denies Rule 60(b)
motion and fraud claims, as well as products
claim.
10th Circuit affirms in May, 1995
U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari in Jan.
8, 1996, 19 years after the accident took
place
On to Venue
What is venue and why is it required?
VENUE REQUIREMENTS ARE
PURELY STATUTORY
What is the general federal venue
statute?
VENUE IN FEDERAL
DIVERSITY ACTIONS
Under 28 U.S.C. §1391, where can
venue lie in a federal diversity action
where the defendant(s) is/are natural
person(s)?
MEANING OF RESIDENCE
Should “residence” for venue purposes
be equated with domicile or citizenship
for diversity purposes?
Compare ex parte Shaw, 145 U.S. 444,
447 (892) (dictum) with convenience
rationale for venue
VENUE IN FEDERAL
QUESTION ACTIONS
Under 28 U.S.C. §1391, where can
venue lie in a federal question action
where the defendant(s)s is/are natural
person(s)?
How do the venue rules for federal
question actions differ from diversity
actions?
VENUE FOR CORPORATIONS
Where does venue lie if a defendant is a
corporation?
What if the state, like Virginia or New
York, but unlike Maryland, has more
than one judicial district?
VENUE FOR ALIENS
Where does venue lie for alien
defendants?
FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES
Parties may select a venue that is not a
statutory venue by including a forum
selection clause in a contract.
In Bremen v. Zapata, 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972),
Supreme Court held that federal courts sitting
in admiralty should enforce such clauses
absent showing that doing so “would be
unreasonable or unjust, or that the clause
was invalid for such reasons as fraud or
overreaching”
Non-negotiable forum selection clauses have
been enforced by the Supreme Court.
PIPER AIRCRAFT CO. V.
REYNO (1981)
Landmark decision
Who is the plaintiff?
Who is plaintiff suing?
What is the cause of action?
Where does plaintiff bring the action?
Why does plaintiff choose that forum?
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS
Describe the motions made on behalf of
Hartzell and Piper after the action is
commenced.
What is the outcome of these motions?
What is forum non conveniens?
FNC: For transfer to Foreign Forum or
between state judicial systems
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) permits court to
dismiss if venue has improperly been
laid “or if it be in the interest of justice,
transfer [the] case to any district or
division in which it could have been
brought”
IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Describe Justice
Marshall’s reasoning.
Scottish Legal System
See student webpage on my Spring
2001 Comparative Law site:
http://law.cua.edu/classes/comparative
_law/grant/
See also Kevin F. Crombie’s useful site:
http://www.scottishlaw.org.uk/