Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Tues. Sept. 25. aggregation v. supplemental jurisdiction.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Tues. Sept. 25. aggregation v. supplemental jurisdiction."— Presentation transcript:

1 Tues. Sept. 25

2 aggregation v. supplemental jurisdiction

3 P (NY) sues D1 (CA) and D2(CA) in federal court in CA under state law battery P asks for $40K from each P (NY) sues D1 (CA) and D2(CA) in federal court in CA under state law battery P asks for $80K from D1 and $40K from D2

4 PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN STATE COURT

5 Pennoyer v Neff (US 1878)

6 Amendment XIV. Section nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

7 Amendment V. No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

8 The Pennoyer Framework

9 in personam – source of PJ is presence of D at initiation of suit (NOT at time of event being adjudicated) tagging

10 in rem – source of PJ is presence of Ds property at initiation of suit suit concerns ownership of property (e.g. quiet title action) binding upon all possible claimants

11 quasi in rem source of PJ is Ds property in state at initition of suit, but suit does not have to concern property although if P wins, Ds property may be used to execute judgment

12 challenging PJ

13 direct (e.g. motion to dismiss for lack of PJ) collateral attack

14 - P sues D in state court in Oregon - Service on D is in hand in Oregon - D defaults - P sues on the judgment in state court in California - Why does the California court have to give the Oregon judgment any respect at all?

15 Art IV, § 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

16 - P sues D in state court in Oregon - Service on D is in hand in Oregon - D defaults - P sues on the judgment in federal court in Oregon - Why does the federal court have to give the Oregon judgment any respect at all?

17 28 U.S.C. § State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit... The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form. Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

18 - P sues D in federal court in Oregon - Service on D is in hand in Oregon - D defaults - P sues on the judgment in state court in Oregon - Why does the state court have to give the federal judgment any respect at all?

19 - Mitchell, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyers fees that Neff incurred in Oregon while he was a resident of Oregon. Neff now lives in Cal. - Service of the summons and complaint are delivered to Neff in hand in California. PJ?

20 - Mitchell, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyers fees that - Neff incurred in Oregon while he was a resident of Oregon. Neff now lives in Cal. - There is in-hand service of the summons and complaint upon Neff while he is in Oregon on a brief business trip

21 - Mitchell, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyers fees that - Neff incurred to Mitchell in California – Neff was never an Oregon resident - There is in-hand service of the summons and complaint upon Neff while he is in Oregon on a brief business trip

22 § 78. Individual Voluntarily Within The State A state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction over an individual voluntarily within its territory whether he is permanently or only temporarily there.

23 - Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court in order to quiet title to property in Oregon that each claims he owns. - Service on Neff is in-hand in California

24 § 101. Jurisdiction Over Land A state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction over land situated within the territory of the state, although a person owning or claiming an interest in the land is not personally subject to the jurisdiction of the state.

25 Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, brings a suit to quiet title to Oregon property that he claims he owns. He brings an action in Oregon state court that he hopes will bind everyone in the world, in the sense that after there is a decision in his favor, everyone will be claim precluded from bringing a new suit claiming ownership of the property. Service is by publication.

26 - Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for breach of a contract Neff entered into to sell Pennoyer property in California - Pennoyer gave Neff the money but Neff has not given Pennoyer the property - Pennoyer asks for an injunction ordering Neff to transfer title to Pennoyer - Service is in hand on Neff in Oregon.

27 Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for breach of a contract Neff entered into to sell Pennoyer property in California - Pennoyer gave Neff the money but Neff has not given Pennoyer the property - Pennoyer asks the court to transfer title to him - Service is in hand on Neff in Oregon.

28 - Mitchell brings an action against Neff in Oregon state court concerning $ in legal fees that were incurred in Alaska. - Neff resides in California. - The Oregon state court attaches property in Oregon owned by Neff worth $300 at the beginning of the suit. Service is by publication.

29 - Mitchell brings an action against Neff in Oregon state court concerning $ in legal fees. - The personal jurisdictional basis for the suit is $200 property in Oregon owned by Neff. - Neff defaults. - The property is sold and the money given to Mitchell. - Mitchell then brings a suit on the Oregon judgment in California state court to recover the remaining $ Service on Neff is in-hand on California. - What result?

30 - Mitchell brings an action against Neff in Oregon state court concerning $ in legal fees. - The personal jurisdictional basis for the suit is $200 property in Oregon owned by Neff. - Neff defaults. - The property is sold and the money given to Mitchell. - Mitchell then brings a suit in California state court to recover the remaining $ The suit is not to enforce the Oregon judgment but is a new suit on the merits. - Is Mitchell claim precluded?

31 - Mitchell lures Neff to Oregon with a story that Neff has won a contest. - While he is in Oregon, Neff is served for a suit brought by Mitchell in Oregon state court concerning unpaid lawyers fees. Neff chooses to default. - Under Oregon law, someone can be submitted to personal jurisdiction on the basis of tagging in the state even when the tagging is the result of fraudulent inducement. - Mitchell then brings a suit in California state court to execute the Oregon judgment. - Under California law someone cannot be submitted to personal jurisdiction on the basis of tagging in the state when the tagging is the result of fraudulent inducement. - Neff argues that the earlier Oregon judgment is void. - What result?

32 Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon state court. Neff has no connection to the state but does not want to default. He appears solely for the purpose of challenging personal jurisdiction. May the Oregon court nevertheless take Neff's presence (including through his lawyer) to create in personam jurisdiction?

33 special appearance

34 Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon state court. Neff has no connection to the state but does not want to default. He appears for the purpose of challenging personal jurisdiction but also adds the defense of failure to state a claim. What result?


Download ppt "Tues. Sept. 25. aggregation v. supplemental jurisdiction."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google