Civil Procedure

1. Jurisdictional Power: A Two-Step Process

Thus, every personal jurisdiction issue involves a two-step analysis.

Statutory and Constitutional Authority. Before a court can hear a case, it must have both the statutory power granted by the legislature and the constitutional power permitted by the Due Process Clause. These are distinct inquiries.

California's Broad Approach. Some states, like California, grant their courts the full scope of personal jurisdiction permissible under the Constitution, collapsing the two inquiries into one. If it's constitutional, it's automatically statutory.

Long-Arm Statutes. Other states use "long-arm" statutes, which enumerate specific types of contacts that allow the court to exercise jurisdiction. Even if a long-arm statute seems to authorize jurisdiction, it must still be constitutional under the Due Process Clause.

2. Personal Jurisdiction: Tailored to the Defendant

As this conclusion suggests, the personal jurisdiction rules are defendant-oriented.

Defendant's Contacts Matter. Personal jurisdiction is about the defendant's relationship to the forum state, not the plaintiff's. The court must find a basis for forcing the defendant, the unwilling litigant, to appear before it.

Fairness and Expectations. The rules aim to ensure that defendants are not unfairly hauled into court in distant states with which they have no meaningful connection. Defendants should have some veto power over unreasonable forum choices by the plaintiff.

Specific vs. General Jurisdiction. The extent of the defendant's in-state activities determines the scope of jurisdiction. Limited contacts support jurisdiction only for claims arising from those contacts (specific jurisdiction), while substantial and continuous activity allows jurisdiction for any claim (general jurisdiction).

3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: A Court's Inherent Authority

Subject matter jurisdiction, by contrast, concerns the court’s authority to hear generic types of cases.

Power to Hear the Case. Subject matter jurisdiction is about the court's power to hear a particular type of case, regardless of the parties involved. It's a question of whether the court has the authority to adjudicate that kind of dispute.

State Courts' Broad Authority. State courts of general jurisdiction can hear a wide range of cases, including torts, contracts, and property disputes. They also have concurrent jurisdiction over many federal law claims, unless Congress has made federal jurisdiction exclusive.

Federal Courts' Limited Authority. Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, primarily over cases involving federal law or diversity of citizenship. They cannot hear most state law claims unless they fall under these specific categories.

4. Venue: A Balancing Act of Convenience

Personal jurisdiction is the price defendants pay for deliberate efforts to derive benefits from or conduct activities in a state.

Geographical Convenience. Venue rules further restrict the plaintiff's choice of forum, ensuring that suits are tried in a location that has a sensible connection to the claims or the parties. It's about geographical convenience within a court system.

Federal Venue Options. In federal court, venue is proper in a district where any defendant resides (if all defendants reside in the same state) or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Defendant's Privilege. Venue is a privilege of the defendant, who can waive it by failing to object. The court can also transfer a case to a more convenient forum, even if the plaintiff's initial choice was technically proper.

5. The Plaintiff's Initial Forum Choice: A Qualified Right

The plaintiff’s contacts with the forum state will not do; the court must find some basis for forcing the defendant, the unwilling litigant, to appear before it.

Plaintiff's Power, Limited by Rules. The plaintiff has the initial power to choose the forum, but this choice is not absolute. It's subject to the constraints of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue.

Defendant's Options. The defendant can challenge the plaintiff's choice by objecting to personal jurisdiction, moving to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or seeking a transfer of venue to a more convenient forum.

Balancing Interests. The rules aim to balance the plaintiff's interest in a convenient forum with the defendant's right to be sued in a place that has a meaningful connection to the dispute.

6. Federal Courts: Navigating the Overlap of State and Federal Law

The toughest problem in applying the minimum contacts test has been defining the “quality and nature” that makes a contact sufficient to support jurisdiction.

Concurrent Jurisdiction. State courts have concurrent jurisdiction over many federal law claims, meaning the plaintiff can choose to sue in either state or federal court.

Diversity Jurisdiction. Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states, even if the claim is based on state law. This is a key exception to the general rule that federal courts only hear cases involving federal law.

Federal Long-Arm Statute. Federal courts generally exercise personal jurisdiction to the same extent as the state courts in the state where they sit, unless a federal statute authorizes broader jurisdiction.

7. Erie's Core Principle: State Law in Diversity Cases

In diversity cases federal courts must apply the law that would be applied by the courts of the state in which they sit.

No Federal Common Law. In diversity cases, federal courts must apply state law on substantive issues, rather than creating their own "federal common law." This is the central command of Erie.

Choice of Law Rules. Federal courts must also follow the choice-of-law rules of the state in which they sit, to determine which state's substantive law applies to the case. This is the Klaxon doctrine.

Uniformity Within a State. Erie and Klaxon aim to ensure "vertical uniformity" between state and federal courts within a state, but they can lead to "horizontal disuniformity" among federal courts in different states.

8. The Three Rings: A Holistic View of Forum Selection

The goal of this book is to demystify civil procedure by providing concrete examples of procedural doctrines and rules in operation, together with full explanations of how these abstract concepts apply to each example.

Interrelated Requirements. A proper forum must satisfy all three requirements: personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue. A case can fail if it misses any one of these rings.

Distinct Legal Sources. Each ring has a different legal source: personal jurisdiction from the Due Process Clause, subject matter jurisdiction from Article III and federal statutes, and venue from federal statutes.

Overlapping Concepts. Despite their differences, the three rings share some common concepts, such as domicile, which can be relevant to all three inquiries.

9. The Three Rings: A Checklist for Choosing a Proper Court

There is no place to start like the beginning, and the usual beginning for the defendant is the receipt of a summons from the court with an order to appear and defend a lawsuit.

Personal Jurisdiction:

• Does the defendant have minimum contacts with the forum state?
• Did the defendant purposefully avail themselves of the benefits and protections of the forum state's laws?
• Does the long-arm statute of the forum state authorize jurisdiction?

Subject Matter Jurisdiction:

• Does the case arise under federal law (federal question jurisdiction)?
• Are the parties diverse, and does the amount in controversy exceed $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction)?

Venue:

• Does any defendant reside in the judicial district (if all defendants reside in the same state)?
• Did a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occur in the judicial district?

10. The Three Rings: A Framework for Analysis

Everyone comes to law school with some idea of what a contract is or of the meaning of assault and battery, but who ever heard of supplemental jurisdiction, impleader, or res judicata?

Sequential Analysis. Always analyze personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue in that order. If any one is missing, the court cannot hear the case.

Defendant-Centric Focus. Personal jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the defendant's contacts and fairness to the defendant.

Claim-Specific Inquiry. Personal jurisdiction and venue must be assessed for each claim asserted in the lawsuit.

Last updated: April 8, 2025