Agenda for 17th ClassNext Class (continued)Last Class: German ProcedureIntroduction to Personal JurisdictionRules before International Shoe (1945)International Shoe (1945)Questions on International ShoeGeneral and Specific Jurisdiction2 Ways to Challenge JurisdictionMcGee; Hanson1Agenda for 17th Class•Name plates out•Personal Jurisdiction: –International Shoe–General and Specific Jurisdiction–Challenging jurisdiction–McGee; Hanson v Denkla•Next Class–Yeazell, 103-112–Questions to think about / Writing assignment•Briefly summarize World Wide Volkswagen•Yeazell pp. 109ff 1c, 4e•Did the plaintiffs in World-Wide Volkswagen sue in federal or state court? How can you tell from the opinion itself (not Yeazell’s notes)?•What is a writ of prohibition? Why did the defendants seek one?•Who is Woodson? How did he get in the case?•Questions on next page2Next Class (continued)•Questions to think about (continued)–There were four defendants in the original action. Which of them challenged jurisdiction? What if anything, did the U.S. Supreme Court decide about jurisdiction over each of the four defendants. If there were some defendants for whom the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on personal jurisdiction, how would you argue that the trial court had jurisdiction over them? How would you argue that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over them?–Would the case have come out differently if the Robinsons had gotten into an accident in New Jersey and sued in a New Jersey court, but the facts were otherwise the same?–Suppose the Robinsons had purchased their Audi in California from Pacific Audi in Torrance, had gotten into an accident in California, and sued Audi, Volkswagen of America, Pacific Volkswagen (the regional distributor, based in Nevada) and Pacific Audi in a California court. Would the California court have jurisdiction over all, some, or none of the defendants? Note that there is a passage in the opinion which directly addresses this question. Is it dicta?3Last Class: German Procedure•Key differences–No jury–Judge chooses witnesses to question and questions them herself–Judge chooses experts–Judge chooses documents to request–No trial•Just sequence of hearings•No duplication of testimony between discovery and trial•Judicial control over sequence–Coaching of witnesses not allowed–No transcript of depositions / trial•Judge summarizes–De novo appellate review–Career judiciary•Judges selected right out of law school•Judges promoted through bureaucratic process4Introduction to Personal Jurisdiction•Court must have statutory or rule authority AND statute or rule must be constitutional–State statutes are generally called “Long Arm Statutes”•Enumerated Act statutes–E.g. statute says, State court has jurisdiction over defendant if it is a citizen of the state, if it committed a tort in the state, if it was a party to a contract to be performed in the state…•To the Limit of the Constitution statutes (CA)–Federal rule is FRCP 4(k)(1)(A)•Federal courts generally apply state long-arm statute–Course will focus on constitutional limitations•Due Process clause5Rules before International Shoe (1945)•Pennoyer v Neff (1877)•3 bases for personal jurisdiction–In personam. If defendant is citizen or resident of state, or present in state, or consented to jurisdiction•For individuals, limit was service of process in airplane over Arkansas. Grace v. MacArthur (1959)•Corporations are citizens in state where incorporated (e.g. Delaware)• Difficult to determine where corporation is “present”–Where headquartered. Clearly yes–Where has plant or office and lots of employees. Clearly yes–What if only has a few employees? Not clear–Where does business? Unclear what means to “do business”–In rem. In dispute about property, personal jurisdiction is proper where property is located–Quasi in rem. If suit is NOT about property, but defendant has property in state, plaintiff can sue in that state for whatever cause of action, but recovery is limited to value of property in state6International Shoe (1945)•International Shoe, incorporated in Delaware with principal place of business in Missouri, employed salesmen who resided in Washington to sell shoes there. Salesmen show samples and solicit orders, which are then transmitted and fulfilled from Missouri. State of Washington sued in Washington state court for unemployment compensation contribution.•Held. Defendant could constitutionally be subject to jurisdiction in Washington state, because it had “minimum contacts” with Washington state and exercise of jurisdiction would not “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”–Corporation is fiction, so not proper to base jurisdiction on presence7Questions on International Shoe–If the Supreme Court had not decided to change the rules in International Shoe, would jurisdiction have been proper under the prior rules? If your answer is “yes,” why do you think the Supreme Court changed the rules? If you answer is “no,” why was the outcome under the new rules better?–Yeazell pp. 86ff. Qs 1b, 38General and Specific Jurisdiction•General jurisdiction–Court which has general jurisdiction over a defendant can hear any case against the defendant•Even if case has nothing to do with forum–Bases for general jurisdiction•Citizenship/incorporation, residence, presence, quasi-in-rem (but no longer constitutional)•Corporation with lots of contacts: headquarters, large plant or office, etc. But not clear how large contacts need to be–Do not confuse with “court of general jurisdiction”•Court of general jurisdiction = non-specialized trial court, such as LA Superior Court•See FRCP 4(k)(1)(A). •Specific Jurisdiction–Jurisdiction only over cases related to contacts–Most cases we will read for class–In rem can be thought of as specific jurisdiction–Consent can also be thought of as specific jurisdiction92 Ways to Challenge Jurisdiction•In court where sued–Make 12(b)(2) motion or state equivalent–“Special appearance” means defendant appears in court solely to challenge jurisdiction•Otherwise, appearance in court could be construed as consent to jurisdiction•Collateral attack–Only possible where defendant does not have assets in forum•So plaintiff would have to enforce judgment in state where defendant has