Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Civ Pro Question  (Read 822 times)

dft

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
    • View Profile
Civ Pro Question
« on: December 11, 2005, 07:12:46 PM »
I realize that a court can exercise general jurisdiction over a defendant if he is domiciled in that state. However, is there any other way to exercise general jurisdiction over an individual defendant (not a corporation)? What if that person has a summer home there -- can someone serve process at the person's doorstep and get general jurisdiction over him that way?

Or -- (I'm guessing this would work too) can they exercise general jurisdiction over the defendant by serving him personally in that state? Am I just confusing service of process with general jurisdiction now? (We barely covered service of process so that could be whats hurting me here.)

DutchessA

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2005, 07:59:31 PM »
The case that I read, Kashoggi...(has another name, but the name of the defendant is Kashoggi)...the defendant was able to be served at his humble $2.5 million New York apartment because he was staying there (even though he had about five other homes across the world) because he was presently staying at the New York residence, service was proper on his maid...

The case of Mullane states the accepable forms of service (notice) for federal court, i.e., personal service, service at the home presently occupied and you can leave it with a person of suitable age and discretion, etc. 

Remember Pennoyer v. Neff and its all about thereness (not fairness) or the territoriality rule: a forum state has the power and sovereignty to enforce a binding judgment over people and property found within their territory. 

Or another good example is the guy from New York who went to go visit his future ex-wife in California and to see his kids out there, he was served with divorce papers while in California and went he contested personal jurisdiction it was held that it was a deep tradition to give states the power to enforce judgment over people found within the forum state.

Hopefully this helps!!!

dft

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2005, 09:05:13 PM »
I guess I am just unclear on service of process/notice because we spent literally once class on it.

So as long as you serve process in one of the acceptable formal methods (delivering right to the person, leaving at the house with a person of suitable age and discretion, and delivering it to an agent) then you get general jurisdiction over the defendant? He doesn't even have to have any minimum contacts with the state (and those contacts don't have to be related to the cause of action)?


autodidactguy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2005, 02:08:33 PM »
No, that's not right. Service of process doesn't determine, or is a precondition for, general jurisdiction.

jimmyjohn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2005, 04:20:53 PM »
You can obtain general jurisdiction over an individual defendant by serving them while they are in the state or if they are domiciled in the state.

If you serve them at a house considered to be their residence, there would be general jurisdiction in that state based on the fact that they are domiciled there.

slacker

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 949
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2005, 04:49:27 PM »
Residing in the state is not necessarily domiciled in the state. They could be a law student, for example, from another state with the intent to return to that state after earning a JD.

However, if they are residing and you serve them at home, yeah, jurisdiction isn't a problem.

jimmyjohn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2005, 05:01:24 PM »
Sorry, I should have been more precise.

blocked

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2005, 05:38:57 PM »
There were three ways to establish jurisdiction over someone prior to International Shoe.
1. D is domiciled in the state
2. Service of process within the state (even if presence within the state was transatory)
3. Consent to forum.

With International Shoe, the "Minimum Contacts" such that "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" are not offended notion was established. This allowed to court to exercise jurisdiction over people and corporations not currently in the forum.

McGee v. Int'l Life the concept of jurisdiction based on a single activity is established. (ie. Specific Jurisdiction) If the suit is about the single activity that establishes D's contacts, then the suit is proper. If it the limited activity is NOT the topic of the suit, the suit is improper (see the "purposeful availment" arguement from Hanson v. Denkla)

I look at it like a matrix of sorts...

Systematic and Continuous ActivitySingle Activity
Suite Arises From ActivityGeneral JurisdictionSpecific Jurisdiction (McGee v Int'l Life)
Suit is unrelated to ActivityGeneral Jurisdiction (Perkins v. Benquet)No Jurisdiction (Hanson v. Denckla)

(for some reason I couldn't make lines in the table, so you'll just have to imagine them...
St. Mary's bound

dft

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2005, 12:50:39 AM »
Heres a question about challenging personal jurisdiction:

OK, so suppose a plaintiff brings a lawsuit in NY state court. The defendant files a notice of removal (of course, to federal court).

Following that, the defendant files a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (or at least tries to). Under both the Federal rules approach and the "special appearance" approach, the rule is that objections to personal jurisdiction must be raised immediately or they will be lost. So, hasn't the defendant waived his objection to personal jurisdiction by filing the notice of removal, which is a subject matter jurisdiction related objection?

I just want to make sure this is correct.

jacy85

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6859
    • View Profile
Re: Civ Pro Question
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2005, 08:38:28 AM »
I don't think removing to a fed court doesn't effect the 12(b) motions.  A def can remove, and then file his 12(b) waivable motions in federal ct, although I'm not willing to say I'm 100% sure, and the issue didn't come on my final in this form.