CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 31
Professor Fischer
Columbus School of Law
The Catholic University of America
November 6, 2002
WRAP-UP OF LAST CLASS
We wrapped up our study of subject matter
jurisdiction by finishing up our study of 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
1. Learning about general and specific
jurisdiction
2. Discussing a case applying
International Shoe’s minimum contacts
test, World-Wide Volkswagen v.
Woodson (1980).
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]”.
MINIMUM CONTACTS
Does Stone articulate any criteria for
assessing a corporation’s contacts or
activities in the forum state?
MINIMUM CONTACTS
It is evident that the criteria by which we mark
the boundary line between those activities
which justify the subjection of a corporation to
suit, and those which do not, cannot be
simply mechanical or quantitative. The test is
not merely, as has sometimes been
suggested, whether the activity, which the
corporation has seen fit to procure through its
agents in another state, is a little more or a
little less. Whether due process is satisfied
must depend rather upon the quality and
nature of the activity in relation to the fair and
orderly administration of the laws which it was
the purpose of the due process clause to
insure.
CONTACTS: Under International Shoe Can a
state validly assert personal jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant if:
Such D has no contacts with the forum state?
There is a single act or contact by D with the
forum state?
D has business activities within the state that
(a) give rise to the claim for which suit is
brought in the forum state? (b) are unrelated
to the claim for which suit is brought in the
forum state?
SPECIFIC JURISDICTION
GENERAL JURISDICTION
What is general jurisdiction? (see, e.g.
Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining
Co. CB p. 671)
What is specific jurisdiction? (see,e.g.,
McGee v. International Life Insurance
Co. CB p. 671)
PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT
What is purposeful availment? (See
Hanson v. Denckla CB pp. 674-75)
Stone in International Shoe
But to the extent that a corporation exercises
the privilege of conducting activities within a
state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of
the laws of that state. The exercise of that
privilege may give rise to obligations; and, so
far as those obligations arise out of or are
connected with the activities within the state,
a procedure which requires the corporation to
respond to a suit brought to enforce them
can, in most instances, hardly be said to be
undue.
APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE
FACTS
Why does Stone find that there was
personal jurisdiction over International
Shoe?
To what extent does Justice Black
disagree with Justice Stone?
IMPORTANT NOTE: PERSONAL
JURISDICTION IN FEDERAL COURT
The 14th Amendment due process clause
only limits state power.
Although there are no CONSTITUTIONAL
constraints on a federal court’s exercise of
jurisdiction over a defendant with an
appropriate relationship to the US as a whole
who is not resident in the state where the
court sits, Congress has limited the
jurisdiction of federal courts
See FRCP 4(k) – purpose: to eliminate forumshopping. NB “100 mile bulge rule”.
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?