- IN REM action affects the INTERESTS OF ALL PERSONS
Seminal Case on Pers. Juris IN DESIGNATED PROP.
GETTING TO THE RIGHT COURT - QUASI IN REM action affects the interests of
Pennoyer v. Neff: HELD- there is NO PERSONAL JURIS
PARTICULAR PERSONS in DESIGNATED PROP.
over D UNLESS D is SERVED WHILE PHYSICALLY QIR “Type I:” Property IS associated w/ cause of
WITHIN THE STATE (Transient Personal Jxn – not Does the Court have action (e.g. quiet title)
req. Min. Contacts or have to be related to the PERSONAL JURIS. over the
litigation - Burnham), and in order for the ct to have QIR “Type II:” Property is NOT associated w/ cause of
QIR juris over the prop., the prop. needs to be
defendant? action, but rather is used to bring people to court
attached b/f entry of the judgment
Juris Over the PERSON (i.e. in Juris. Over PROPERTY (i.e. In Rem/
personam) Quasi in Rem) Juris?
PHYSICAL PRESENT? Ct has pers. juris. Prop. Used to Substitute for Lack of Physical Presence
CONSENT (e.g. appearing at ct; forum in State? YES IF comports w/ DUE PROCESS
selection cl.)? Ct. has pers. juris
Seminal Case on Pers. Juris
NO
(1) Where, in a QIR action, the prop.serving as the
Substitute for Lack of Physical Presence or Consent? Inte’l Shoe Co. v. Wash.: HELD- Where D is not basis for state-ct juris. is unrelated to P's cause of
YES IF (1) STATUTORILY authorized (i.e. long arm present in the state, due process allows the action, the presence of the prop. alone would not
stat.) & (2) comports w/ DUE PROCESS state's cts to exercise pers juris over that D support the state's juris.
ONLY IF it had certain MIN. CONTACTS w/ the (2) When "min. contact" that is a SUBSTITUTE for the
state such that a suit would not offend D’s physical presence in a forum state, consists solely
CONTINUOUS & SYSTEMATIC contacts of prop. ownership, unrelated to the cause of action,
'traditional notions of fair play and substantial
b/w D and the forum state? Perkins. it must satisfy the FP&SJ requirements of Int’l Shoe.
justice Shaffer v. Heitner
YES NO AND
Sufficient MIN. CONTACTS b/w D and forum state
General Juris A proceeding in rem, dealing w/ a tangible res, may be
AND the suit would be consistent w/ notions of
juris. over D for ALL matters, even if instituted W/O PERS. SERVICE upon claimants within
FAIR PLAY and SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE? Int’l Shoe.
they do not relate to or arise out of the the state, OR NOTICE to those outside of it.
forum state
YES
TESTS for Sufficient MIN CONTACTS:
(1) Did P's action ARISE OUT OF or RELATE TO the D's forum-related contacts?
(Divorce w/children living in diff. state not sufficient min. contact –Kulko)
FACTORS in Determining FAIR PLAY & SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE:
(2) Did D PURPOSELY DIRECT its activities toward the forum state? Burger King.
(1) FORUM STATE'S INTEREST in adjudicating the dispute
(3)D PURPOSELY AVAIL itself of the PRIVILEGES and BENEFITS of conducting
(2) P'S INTEREST in obtaining convenient and effective relief
activities therein? Hanson.
(3) The JUDICIAL SYSTEM'S INTEREST in obtaining the most efficient
(4) D's connection w/ the forum is such that it should REASONABLY ANTICIPATE
resolution
BEING HAILED into ct. there? World Wide Volkswage; Asahi
(4) Shared INTEREST OF THE SEVERAL STATES in furthering fundamental
(5) Intentional act (usu. tort), committed by D, expressly aimed at forum state,
substantive social policies
and caused harmful EFFECTS in the forum state? Calder v. Jones
World Wide Volkswagen
(6) Asahi STREAM OF COM- (i) did D place product into mkt w/ INTENT and
PURPOSE to serve mkt in forum state?(O’Conner); (ii) Did the products enter the Challenging Juris.
forum mkt through the REGULAR and ANTICIPATED FLOW of goods? (Brennan)
STAGES AT WHICH JURIS CAN BE CHALLENGED:
Pers. Juris Reach of Fed Cts Specific Juris - The COMPLAINT- 12(b)(2), (4) or (5) motion
SERVICE ON OUT OF STATE D TO EXERT PJ IN FED CT (4k1) Juris. over D for matters that ARISE - The ANSWER- affirmative def. lack of PJ
– Fed ct can serve out of state D ONLY IF the state ct, where OUT of or RELATE to D’s activity IN NOTABLE CASES:
fed ct sits, has PJ over the person; e.g., fed ct in TX can only the forum state (Hess/Calder) - Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assoc. (HELD- D may move,
serve guy in NM if state ct in TX could do so– so look at prior to trial, to dismiss for lack of pers. juris., and b/c there
state (TX) long arm state to see if out-of-state service is ok. is no stat. method for resolving this issue, determination is
Note: can serve if he’s within 100 miles ONLY if it’s a left to the tr. ct.).
defendant being JOINED to case under rule 14 or 19.
Was Notice Properly Served? - Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Ass'n (prohibits
1. Requirement of due process is collateral attks on pers. juris. when ct determines that pers.
NOTICE REASONABLY CALCULATED juris. is proper)
Service on INDIVIDUAL (4e2) – 3 options: (1) PERS. SERVICE under ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES to NOTE: D who makes no appearance remains free to
w/n forum state (Pennoyer); (2) SUB. SERVICE: leave copy apprise INTERESTED PARTIES of the challenge a default judgment for want of PJ.
pendency of the action and afford Example: D stays out of the forum and allows def. judg. to
at “DWELLING/PLACE OF ABODE” w/ person of “SUITABLE
them an OPPORTUNITY TO BE be entered and then attacks judg. when P comes to D’s
AGE and DISCRETION” who “RESIDES” there (Rabinowitz); HEARD (Mullane- Reas. req)(MD state to enforce it
(3) AUTHORIZED AGENT – someone auth. by law to receive Fire Assoc – Notice via postal mail)
service. 4e2C (Szukhent); (4)Service on BUSINESS (4h1)–
can serve: (1) officer –identity of officers filed w/ state; (2) 2. The NOTICE MUST be of such
nature that it REASONABLY
managing or gen. agent (2) agent auth. by law (Ins. Co. of N.
CONVEYS THE REQUIRED INFO, and
America) affords a REASONABLE TIME for
those interested to MAKE AN
APPEARANCE (Aguchak-writ appr)
