← Civil Procedure Test
5 Written Questions
5 Matching Questions
- PJ - In rem
- Consent: Express or by Contract
- Original Standard for PJ: Pennoyer v. Neff rulings on in personam and in rem
- Modern Standard for PJ: SOC - The Asahi Case
- Modern Standard for PJ: Reasonableness Standard Prong (Burger King Test) 5 Factors
- a 1. in personam = need personal service on D within forum state 2. in rem = Jurisdiction obtained by attaching property at beginning of suit
- b Jurisdiction over property. Can have constructive service
- c Court could not agree as to whether or not the SOC theory constitutes minimum contacts only that California's assertion of PJ over Asahi could not pass the reasonableness test
- d 1) Burden on D 2) Forum's interest in adjudicating the dispute 3) P's interest in obtaining relief 4) Interstate judicial system's interest in resolving disputes efficiently 5) Interest of all the states in furthering social policies
- e Party may agree to jursidicion before claim arises. Often part of commercial contract in the form of a "forum selection clause." never overturned
5 Multiple Choice Questions
- 1. Determine if Defendant has waived personal jurisdicion by consent 2. **Federal Courts look to Rule 4k1a and 4k1b 3. Examine state long arm statute 4. Perform due process analysis using Burger King for core analysis
- Dispute is unrelated to the property. The property is attached to assert the court's jurisdiction over the property. *must be attached at the outset (Pennoyer)
- if there are over 100,000 units in the SOC than Minimum contacts is met.
- Putting product in SOC with expectation it may be sold in forum establishes minimum contact. Even indirect efforts to market in forum establish min. contacts
- Resolves dispute about the property
5 True/False Questions
Consent: Filing an Action → P submits to a court's jurisdiction by filing an action. Never overturned.
Modern Standard for PJ: SOC - O'Connor Decision in Asahi - 5 ways to avail yourself → Placing a product in SOC is insufficient for minimum contacts.
Original Standard for PJ: Presence Standard of PJ (Pennlyer v. Neff) → 1. If D is present in state or wons property in state, state has PJ 2. State can't exercise jurisdicion over persons or property outside of its territory 3. State must ahve jursidiction at the outset 4. Judement void if court doesn't have jurisdiction
Modern Standard for PJ: Purposeful Availment - Effect of Unilateral Activity → a. P's unilateral activity of bringing product into forum doesn't satisfy minimum contacts b. D's foreseeability that product might make it into forum doesn't create jurisdiction c. D must reach out to forum to establish minimum contacts
Modern Standard for PJ: Stream of Commerce (SOC) Theory Applied - Asahi → A minimum contacts theory - you place a product in a stream of commerce and you are subject to PJ wherever that stream may take it.