Civil
Procedure Class Notes
Today,
we’ll start World-Wide
Volkswagen and take a peek at Harrods (handout).
McGee again
The
insurance company didn’t pay out a claim.
The beneficiary sued in
Mere
contracting is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction. There must be more in the way of
contacts. As we move beyond McGee and Hanson, we’ll see the Court sort of back off
from having such limited contacts constitute jurisdiction.
Hanson as the evil twin of McGee
We’ve
gone over the facts. Mrs. Donner enjoys
the benefits of her
Is
this “stuff”, the transacting of business and sending of money between the
The
Court concludes that it is not enough.
The Court concludes there is no personal jurisdiction in
Justice
Warren suggests that the defendant must act to “purposefully avail”
himself of the “privilege of conducting activities within that state”.
There’s
a 5-4 split on Hanson, but it goes against jurisdiction for
What’s
the difference? The key distinction
is the fact that the insurance company solicited business in
At
least one justice flips between the two sides between McGee and Hanson.
These
are “bookends” of personal jurisdiction.
Remember the defendant’s purpose in their contacts in a new state. Are they active or passive?
Harrods
These
cases apply even today. This case was in
the 4th Circuit. It involved
a federal “anti-cybersquatting” act (15 U.S.C. § 1125). Harrods sued for control of “harrods.everything”. The statute says you can file an in rem
action if you can’t get in personam jurisdiction.
Is it
constitutional to allow jurisdiction under this statute?
The
court cites Shoe and
says the “minimum contacts” rule applying to in rem and quasi in rem
actions as well as in personam actions (according to the 4th
Circuit, not the Supreme Court).
States
and federal district courts have the same jurisdiction.
The
domain names are registered in
Looky! Shaffer,
Shoe, and Hanson are cited!
The
court argues that by registering domain names in
The
court claims that this is not quasi in rem Type 2. The court says that the controversy directly
involves the property in question, so
The
bottom line: these seemingly old, stale cases are still the foundation upon
which you’re going to make arguments, even on the appellate level.
What
was not mentioned in Harrods?
Foreseeability. Note that
we never get a clear definition of minimum contacts. Contrast this with the clear definition of “traditional
notions of substantive justice and fair play” we’ll get soon.
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.
Woodson
This
is a classic case. From a
jurisprudential standpoint, this is contemporary.
The
Robinsons bought their Audi in
The
Robinsons sue everybody. “This is
a good strategy, future plaintiff’s lawyers.
If you’re going to sue anybody, sue everybody that can possibly be
liable.”
“We’ve
sued all the way up the food chain here for this defective product.”
Where
did we sue them? In
Why
didn’t the manufacturer challenge jurisdiction?
Did the manufacturer have contacts in
Factually,
the case is about jurisdiction over the distributor and the dealer.
Who
is Woodson??? Woodson was the trial judge
in
Some
judges take it personally when you try to challenge a judge’s ruling in the
middle of a proceeding. Judges don’t
like to be reversed.
Also,
why didn’t the plaintiffs sue the dude who actually ran into them? The guy was an old drunk. He’s judgment-proof! He didn’t have insurance.
This
is one of the practical things you have to decide in litigation: if there’s
nothing to recover, there’s no reason to add them as a party (except for some
strategic reasons).