Civil
Procedure Class Notes
We
will go through Washington
Equipment and Helicopteros
today. Tomorrow, we’ll start Burnham.
Washington Equipment Manufacturing Co. v. Concrete Placing Co.
What’s
happening? Where are we? Washington Equipment is in
Washington
Equipment sues in
How
come this isn’t a case of specific jurisdiction? What is Washington Equipment suing for? It’s a breach of contract.
How
does Washington Equipment’s cause of action relate to the state of
Specific
jurisdiction is the easy route; general jurisdiction is the hard route. The procedural posture below tells us
something about the issues in the present case.
When
you have general jurisdiction over Concrete Placing, you may sue them in the
state of
But
why might
However,
the appeals court says that there is no general jurisdiction over Concrete
Placing in
What
if the legislature did have intent?
Would such a statute be constitutional?
Would it offend notions of fair play and substantial justice?
General jurisdiction is
usually easy! It’s hard to find hard cases
on general jurisdiction.
You
must have more of a relationship with a forum to constitute general
jurisdiction than to be subject to specific jurisdiction.
Think
of general jurisdiction as “super contacts”.
The
result of this case is right, however, the court’s explanation is wrong. That’s part of why the case is in the
book. The case is wrong, wrong, wrong though with the right result.
Yeazell
dislikes the next case. He didn’t
include it.
Helicopteros Nacionales
de Colombia S.A. v. Hall
We’re in Peru.
We’re doing oil stuff. Helicol is
in Colombia. Consorcio is the “alter ego” of some
companies in the U.S. Helicol has a relationship with Texas.
·
The CEO of Helicol
negotiated a contract in
·
Helicol bought helicopters from
·
Helicol’s pilots trained in
·
Helicol paid with checks from a
Houston Bank.
The
decedents file suit in
Helicol makes a special appearance to challenge personal jurisdiction. The trial court says noooo…we
have personal jurisdiction over you!
What about the other defendants? Consorcio and
Helicol loses and is found liable to the tune of about $1,000,000.
Having
made the special appearance, Helicol can’t appeal the
jurisdictional issue until the trial is complete. They do!
The
Texas Court of Appeals reverses the trial court, saying Helicol
isn’t subject to
Then,
the United States Supreme Court ends up reversing and saying that
The
big question: why isn’t this a case of specific
jurisdiction? These are the helicopters
that they bought in
The
practical reason that they don’t argue for specific jurisdiction is that the parties
allegedly waived it. That’s unbelievable. The parties concede that Helicol’s
contact were not related or did not arise out of Helicol’s activities in
What
does the record of the oral argument show?
Counsel seems to have retreated to general jurisdiction through a “Perkins”-style
argument, which is to say, they claim “systematic and continuous contacts” with
the forum state.
Perkins
v. Benguet
This
is a case that arose out of World War II.
While the Japanese were occupying the
Blackmun looks at the contacts individually and determines that each one in
isolation is not continuous and systematic.
Fairman suggests that he should have looked at the contacts in toto.
Blackmun says that one visit doesn’t constitute minimum contacts. He says that buying stuff is not enough,
citing
Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co.
The
defendant in this case was located in
Brennan
objects: this case is from 1923! It’s
old!
What
about the pilots? Blackmun
says that’s it’s part of the package of the
helicopters and training, so, citing
What
about the bank checks? You’re not likely
to get general jurisdiction over writing
We’re
got crap! Nothing left to support
jurisdiction at all. Therefore, there’s
no jurisdiction.
Fairman
is troubled by the way Blackmun does this. He creates a framework for how to look at
contacts in the future.
Here’s
the problem: you can look at the contacts apart or together, and depending on
how you do it, you’ll get to a different result.
Tomorrow,
we will start with two thoughtful questions and go over Burnham.