CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 32
Professor Fischer
Columbus School of Law
The Catholic University of America
November 8, 2002
WRAP-UP OF LAST CLASS
We finished our discussion of the modern
International Shoe, a landmark case setting
out the modern theory of personal jurisdiction
in 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.
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)
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.
REVIEW: MINIMUM
CONTACTS
State the minimum contacts test that
the Court in International Shoe held
was required by the Due Process
clause.
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”.
REVIEW: GENERAL AND
SPECIFIC JURISDICTION
What is GENERAL jurisdiction? How
does it differ from SPECIFIC
jurisdiction?
World-Wide Volkswagen: Flow
Chart
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN:
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
Where do plaintiffs file their action
against defendants?
Why do plaintiffs choose this forum?
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 source of law 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 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.
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?
WWVW
Case indicates that to exercise pj over a nonresident 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.
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?
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)
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?
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)
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.
Calder v. Jones
Which defendants contested the
jurisdiction of the California court?
Why?