Right to Notice: Greene v. Lindsey (SC 1982) [eviction notices nailed to doors, never received them in building where notice were frequently torn down. If posted notice does not work, mail should be used instead]. Holding: Fundamental requisite of due process is the opportunity to be heard. Without proper notice, there is no opportunity to be heard.
By not affording appellees adequate notice, appellees were deprived of property without due process as prescribed by the 14th Amendment. Court held in Mullane that an elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections
Right to Counsel: Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services (SC 1981) [NC revokes parental rights of indigent mother without presence of counsel at hearing]. Holding: there was no right to counsel. Termination hearing is simple procedure with no technical questions of evidentiary or substantive law. Social services often represented by social workers, not attorneys.
Court applies Matthews v. Eldridge 3-part balancing test to determine what process is due (test applies best when government is being asked to do something)
Interest of claimant
Risk of error in proceedings
12(b)(4) motion—insufficiency of process
12(b)(5) motion—insufficiency of service of process
Basis for district court jurisdiction: FRCP 4(k)(1)(A) grants district courts with the power to serve summons on a defendant “who could be subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state in which the district court is located”
Long-arm statutes provide the basis for exercising this jurisdiction for people out of state.
General jurisdiction: D subject to general jurisdiction when his activities in a state are so substantial and continuous that he would expect to be hailed into court there on any claim even if that claim is unrelated to that state and would suffer no inconvenience defending there
Individual: jurisdiction over a person domiciled within the forum state, even if temporarily absent from the state. Domicile is the place where he has his current dwelling place, an intention to remain for an indefinite period, or an intention to return to. Pennoyer holding: each state limited to jurisdiction over person present within its borders.
Tag jurisdiction: Burnham v. Superior Court (SC 1990): in-state service of a non-resident when present within the state. Physical presence is sufficient to establish minimum contacts, even if D had no contact w/state at time of the events giving rise to the suit
Corporation: corporation is incorporated in that state OR systematic and continuous activities such that it expects to be hailed into court there. Enjoyed benefits and privileges of doing business in the state.
Specific jurisdiction: 2-part test: are there minimum contacts, and does exercising jurisdiction offend notions of fair play and substantial justice?
International Shoe v. Washington (SC 1945): D or property not essential to jurisdiction. D will be subject to suit in another state if he has certain minimum contacts with that state and the claim in question arises out of those contacts. Specific jurisdiction limited to cases arising out of D’s relation with that state.
Only appropriate where D has minimum contacts with the forum state such that exercising jurisdiction doesn’t offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Where D has enjoyed the privileges and protections of doing business in a state, it is not fundamentally unfair to subject him to suit there for claims arising out of those contacts.
Casual or isolated contacts not sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction.
McGee v. Int’l Life Insurance (SC 1957): No substantial contacts but cause of action related to modest activities in the state; fair and reasonable under notions of justice and fair play.
Purposeful availment test: D must have voluntarily established a relation with the forum state and purposefully availed himself of doing business in the state to be subject to jurisdiction there
Hanson v. Denckla (SC 1958): in analyzing minimum contacts, have to analyze what D does; unilateral activities of P never enough to subject D to jurisdiction in forum. D didn’t purposefully avail himself of privilege of conducting activities within the forum state.
WWV v. Woodson (SC 1980): D car dealer never purposefully availed himself of OK; no advertising, sales, agents in the state, or shipping of car there. D’s contact with forum state must be such that he should reasonably anticipate being hailed into court there. P’s driving to OK was a unilateral act that should not subject D to suit there.
Foreseeable that product will be taken into state does not equal purposeful availment. Key is whether it’s foreseeable that D would be haled to court there.
Burger King (SC 1985): First case to break down the International Shoe gestalt into 2 part-analysis: 1) are there minimum contacts and 2) is it reasonable to assert jurisdiction given the 5 factors? Minimum contacts need not necessarily be physical entry; when K with someone in another state you have purposeful contact with another state.
Asahi v. Superior Court (SC 1987): Forcing foreign D to litigate in CA once the CA plaintiff was out of the case is substantially unfair. Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice are not met. 5 factors
Fairness factors (first seen in WWV, then BK, then Asahi)
Burden on defendant
Burger King says the burden is on the defendant to prove inconvenience if the defendant has purposefully directed activities to the forum state. Wealth of the parties is not a consideration.
P’s interest in obtaining relief, interest in choosing his own forum, and the burden of litigating elsewhere
Forum state’s interest in regulating the activity involved
In Asahi P had already dropped out, so minimum interest. In Burger King FL had interest in protecting its corporate citizens.
Shared interest of several states in furthering substantive social policies
Stream of commerce. Asahi court splits over whether entering products into a state is sufficient for minimum contacts if its foreseeable that products will end up on the state. O’Connor: mere awareness in not enough. Brennan: sending goods into the stream of commerce constitutes purposeful availment.
Digital Equipment Corp v. Altavista (D. Mass 1997): Personal jurisdiction and the internet: Evaluated jurisdiction by traditional approaches in this case: minimum contacts analysis. Sales and advertising (related to K signed with Mass. company) on website. Comparable to telex, mail, telephonic transmission directed at Mass. ATI knows its website reaches residents of Mass and intended to market in Mass. Plainly solicits business in Mass. Continuing contacts w/state b/c sells advertising space and software through the website to Mass. residents
Zippo (W.D. Penn. 1997): Sliding scale: likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet.
D clearly does business over the Internet; enters into Ks w/residents of another jurisdiction that involves knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet (jurisdiction) --> interactive websites where a user can exchange info w/the host computer (jurisdiction determined by level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of info) --> D has simply posted info on Internet website accessible to users in other jurisdictions (no jurisdiction)
3 types of personal jurisdiction
In personam jurisdiction: court’s jurisdiction over the D himself
In rem jurisdiction: court’s power over property under dispute
Shaffer v. Heitner (SC 1997): applies Int’l Shoe to property-based jurisdiction. All assertions of jurisdiction to be evaluated by Int’l Shoe standards. (Overruled Pennoyer). Extended the due process analysis of Shoe to quasi in rem jurisdiction. First time minimum contacts provided the basis for limiting, rather than expanding, jurisdiction.When property is “completely unrelated to P’s cause of action,” its presence alone will not suffice to support jurisdiction. Minimum contacts test must be applied to attachment of property.
12(b)(2) motion can be made to argue lack of jurisdiction over the person.
If motion is not made in D’s first answer or pleading, the right is waived. So court can acquire jurisdiction over a silent defendant where it might not have otherwise had it.