Personal jurisdiction (United States)
Encyclopedia
Personal jurisdiction, in the law of civil procedure in the United States, refers to a court's jurisdiction over the parties to a law suit, as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction (jurisdiction over the determinations of law and fact to be made in the case or controversy). If a court does not have personal jurisdiction over a party, its rulings and decrees cannot be enforced as to that person. Exercise of personal jurisdiction by a court must both comport with Constitutional limitations, and be authorized by statute.
. Civil suits are not initiated by third parties, but must be filed by the party who seeks initial redress. The filing of a complaint or prayer for relief is a voluntary action by the plaintiff, and as a necessity of this request, the plaintiff consents to be bound by the judgment of the court. The doctrine of consent is also extended to defendants who attend and litigate actions without challenging personal jurisdiction. Consent may also derive from a pre-litigation agreement by the parties, such as a forum selection clause
in a contract (not to be confused with a choice of law clause
). Doctrines such as claim preclusion
prevent re-litigation of failed complaints in alternative forums.
over the affairs within its territory.
and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution preserve the due process rights of individuals. Due process requires that notice be given in a manner "reasonably calculated" to inform a party of the action affecting them. Originally, notice (and power) manifested more viscerally, where the defendant in a civil case could be seized and brought before the court under the writ of capias ad respondendum
. Notice is inferred from consent, however when exercising power over an individual without consent, notice is most often effected by service of process
.
Three types of jurisdiction developed, collectively termed territorial jurisdiction
because of their reliance upon territorial control: in personam
jurisdiction, in rem
jurisdiction, and quasi in rem
jurisdiction. Some sources refer to all three types of territorial jurisdiction as personal jurisdiction, since most actions against property (in rem jurisdiction) bear, in the end, upon the rights and obligations of persons. Others continue to recognize the traditional distinction between personal jurisdiction and jurisdiction over property, even after Shaffer v. Heitner (discussed below).
In personam jurisdiction referred to jurisdiction over a particular person (or entity, such as a company). In personam jurisdiction, if held by a state court, permitted that court to rule upon any case over which it otherwise held jurisdiction. Under territorial jurisdiction, pure in personam jurisdiction could only be established by serving notice upon the individual while that individual was within the territory of the state.
In rem jurisdiction referred to jurisdiction over a particular piece of property, most commonly real estate or land. Certain cases, notably government suits for unpaid property taxes, proceed not against an individual but against their property directly. Under territorial jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction could be exercised by the courts of a state by seizing the property in question. Since an actual tract of land could not literally be brought into a courtroom as a person could, this was effected by giving notice upon the real property itself. In rem jurisdiction was thus supported by the assumption that the owner of that property, having a concrete economic interest in the property, had a duty to look after the affairs of their property, and would be notified of the pending case by such seizure. In rem jurisdiction was limited to deciding issues regarding the specific property in question.
Quasi in rem jurisdiction involved the seizure of property held by the individual against whom the suit was brought, and attachment of that property to the case in question. This form of territorial jurisdiction developed from the rationale of in rem jurisdiction, namely that seizure of the property was reasonably calculated to inform an individual of the proceedings against them.
Once a valid judgment was obtained against an individual, however, the plaintiff could pursue recovery against the assets of the defendant regardless of their location, as other states were obligated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution
to recognize such a judgment (i.e. had ceded their power to refuse comity
to fellow states of the Union). Violations by a rogue state could be checked via collateral attack: when a plaintiff sought recovery against a defendant's assets in another state, that state could refuse judgment on the grounds that the original judgment was invalid.
While determining the physical location of an individual for the purposes of in personam jurisdiction was easy enough, applying the same principle to non-physical entities became difficult. Courts were presented with the question of where a company was present and amenable to service for the purpose of in personam jurisdiction over the company.
Extension of quasi in rem jurisdiction led to extreme results that threatened the justification for the jurisdiction. Bearing in mind that territorial jurisdiction existed in a pre-industrial society where transportation across the country was difficult, long, and potentially treacherous, and consider the hypothetical wherein A owes B money, and B owes C, a resident of New York, money. C seeks to recover on B's debt to C, however cannot do so because B avoids C by travelling to California. A, however, happens to travel through New York. C serves notice upon A, and attaches A's debt to B (considered to be property within the state) to the proceeding. A can no more certainly provide notice to B in California than C could provide, and the transient and involuntary exposure of B to being haled into court in New York by this attachment seems to erode the original rationale of quasi in rem jurisdiction.
What constitutes sufficient "minimum contacts" has been delineated in numerous cases which followed the International Shoe decision. For example, in Hanson v. Denckla
, the Court proclaimed the "unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. The application of that rule will vary with the nature and quality of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege or conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws."
The additional requirement of "'purposeful availment' ensures that a defendant will not be hauled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of 'random, 'fortuitous,' or 'attenuated' contacts, [citations omitted] or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person [citation omitted] Jurisdiction may, however, be exercised, under some circumstances, even though the defendant never physically entered the forum State.
and personal jurisdiction are closely related for practical purposes. A lawyer
should usually perform joint analysis of personal jurisdiction and venue issues. Personal jurisdiction is largely a constitutional requirement, though also shaped by state long-arm statutes and Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, while venue is purely statutory.
It is possible for either venue or personal jurisdiction to preclude a court from hearing a case. Consider these examples:
Fundamental Principles of Personal Jurisdiction in the United States
Three fundamentals of personal jurisdiction constrain the ability of courts in the United States to bind individuals or property to its decisions: consent, power, and notice.Consent
The United States legal system is an adversarial systemAdversarial system
The adversarial system is a legal system where two advocates represent their parties' positions before an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, who attempt to determine the truth of the case...
. Civil suits are not initiated by third parties, but must be filed by the party who seeks initial redress. The filing of a complaint or prayer for relief is a voluntary action by the plaintiff, and as a necessity of this request, the plaintiff consents to be bound by the judgment of the court. The doctrine of consent is also extended to defendants who attend and litigate actions without challenging personal jurisdiction. Consent may also derive from a pre-litigation agreement by the parties, such as a forum selection clause
Forum selection clause
A forum selection clause in a contract with a conflict of laws element allows the parties to agree that any litigation resulting from that contract will be initiated in a specific forum...
in a contract (not to be confused with a choice of law clause
Choice of law clause
A choice of law clause or proper law clause is a term of a contract in which the parties specify that any dispute arising under the contract shall be determined in accordance with the law of a particular jurisdiction.-Explanation:...
). Doctrines such as claim preclusion
Res judicata
Res judicata or res iudicata , also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and may refer to two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine...
prevent re-litigation of failed complaints in alternative forums.
Power
Where a defendant challenges jurisdiction, courts may still exercise personal jurisdiction when they have independent power to do so. This power is founded in the inherent nature of state sovereigntySovereignty
Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided...
over the affairs within its territory.
Notice
The FifthFifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215...
and Fourteenth
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
Amendments to the United States Constitution preserve the due process rights of individuals. Due process requires that notice be given in a manner "reasonably calculated" to inform a party of the action affecting them. Originally, notice (and power) manifested more viscerally, where the defendant in a civil case could be seized and brought before the court under the writ of capias ad respondendum
Capias ad respondendum
In the common law legal systems, capias ad respondendum is or was a writ issued by a court to the sheriff of a particular county to bring the defendant, having failed to appear, to answer a civil action against him.Under the American legal system, this writ was replaced by the practice of...
. Notice is inferred from consent, however when exercising power over an individual without consent, notice is most often effected by service of process
Service of process
Service of process is the procedure employed to give legal notice to a person of a court or administrative body's exercise of its jurisdiction over that person so as to enable that person to respond to the proceeding before the court, body or other tribunal...
.
Historical Background: Territorial Jurisdiction
Originally, jurisdiction over parties in the United States adhered to strict interpretation of the geographic bounds of each state's sovereign power. In Pennoyer v. Neff, the Supreme Court discussed that though each state ceded certain powers (e.g. foreign relations) to the Federal Government or to no entity at all (e.g. the powers that are eliminated by the protections of the bill of rights), the states retained all the other powers of sovereignty, including the exclusive power to regulate the affairs of individuals and property within its territory. Necessarily following from this, one state's exercise of power could not infringe upon the sovereignty of another state. Thus, Constitutional limitations applied to the validity of state court judgments.Three types of jurisdiction developed, collectively termed territorial jurisdiction
Territorial jurisdiction
Territorial jurisdiction in United States law refers to a court's power over events and persons within the bounds of a particular geographic territory. If a court does not have territorial jurisdiction over the events or persons within it, then the court cannot bind the defendant to an obligation...
because of their reliance upon territorial control: in personam
In personam
In personam is a Latin phrase meaning "directed toward a particular person". In a lawsuit in which the case is against a specific individual, that person must be served with a summons and complaint to give the court jurisdiction to try the case, and the judgment applies to that person and is called...
jurisdiction, in rem
In rem
In rem is Latin for "against a thing." In a lawsuit, an action in rem is directed towards a piece of property rather than against a person . The action disputes or seeks to transfer title to property. When title to real estate In rem is Latin for "against a thing." In a lawsuit, an action in rem...
jurisdiction, and quasi in rem
Quasi in rem
Quasi in rem is a legal term referring to a legal action based on property rights of a person absent from the jurisdiction. In the American legal system the state can assert power over an individual simply based on the fact that this individual has property in the state...
jurisdiction. Some sources refer to all three types of territorial jurisdiction as personal jurisdiction, since most actions against property (in rem jurisdiction) bear, in the end, upon the rights and obligations of persons. Others continue to recognize the traditional distinction between personal jurisdiction and jurisdiction over property, even after Shaffer v. Heitner (discussed below).
In personam jurisdiction referred to jurisdiction over a particular person (or entity, such as a company). In personam jurisdiction, if held by a state court, permitted that court to rule upon any case over which it otherwise held jurisdiction. Under territorial jurisdiction, pure in personam jurisdiction could only be established by serving notice upon the individual while that individual was within the territory of the state.
In rem jurisdiction referred to jurisdiction over a particular piece of property, most commonly real estate or land. Certain cases, notably government suits for unpaid property taxes, proceed not against an individual but against their property directly. Under territorial jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction could be exercised by the courts of a state by seizing the property in question. Since an actual tract of land could not literally be brought into a courtroom as a person could, this was effected by giving notice upon the real property itself. In rem jurisdiction was thus supported by the assumption that the owner of that property, having a concrete economic interest in the property, had a duty to look after the affairs of their property, and would be notified of the pending case by such seizure. In rem jurisdiction was limited to deciding issues regarding the specific property in question.
Quasi in rem jurisdiction involved the seizure of property held by the individual against whom the suit was brought, and attachment of that property to the case in question. This form of territorial jurisdiction developed from the rationale of in rem jurisdiction, namely that seizure of the property was reasonably calculated to inform an individual of the proceedings against them.
Once a valid judgment was obtained against an individual, however, the plaintiff could pursue recovery against the assets of the defendant regardless of their location, as other states were obligated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution
Full Faith and Credit Clause
The Full Faith and Credit Clause is the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." According to...
to recognize such a judgment (i.e. had ceded their power to refuse comity
Comity
In law, comity specifically refers to legal reciprocity—the principle that one jurisdiction will extend certain courtesies to other nations , particularly by recognizing the validity and effect of their executive, legislative, and judicial acts...
to fellow states of the Union). Violations by a rogue state could be checked via collateral attack: when a plaintiff sought recovery against a defendant's assets in another state, that state could refuse judgment on the grounds that the original judgment was invalid.
Difficulties in Applying Pennoyer Territorial Jurisdiction
Following Pennoyer, extreme applications of territorial jurisdiction revealed imperfections in the doctrine, and societal changes began to present new problems as the United States' national economy became more integrated by increasingly efficient multi-state transportation technology and business practices.While determining the physical location of an individual for the purposes of in personam jurisdiction was easy enough, applying the same principle to non-physical entities became difficult. Courts were presented with the question of where a company was present and amenable to service for the purpose of in personam jurisdiction over the company.
Extension of quasi in rem jurisdiction led to extreme results that threatened the justification for the jurisdiction. Bearing in mind that territorial jurisdiction existed in a pre-industrial society where transportation across the country was difficult, long, and potentially treacherous, and consider the hypothetical wherein A owes B money, and B owes C, a resident of New York, money. C seeks to recover on B's debt to C, however cannot do so because B avoids C by travelling to California. A, however, happens to travel through New York. C serves notice upon A, and attaches A's debt to B (considered to be property within the state) to the proceeding. A can no more certainly provide notice to B in California than C could provide, and the transient and involuntary exposure of B to being haled into court in New York by this attachment seems to erode the original rationale of quasi in rem jurisdiction.
Modern Constitutional Doctrine: International Shoe Doctrine and Shaffer v. Heitner
In the modern era, the reach of personal jurisdiction has been expanded by judicial re-interpretation and legislative enactments. Under the new and current doctrine, a state court may only exert personal jurisdiction over an individual or entity with "sufficient minimal contacts" with the forum state such that the particular suit "does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and justice.'" The "minimum contacts" must be purposefully directed towards the state by the defendant. This jurisdiction was initially limited to the particulars of the Shoe holding, that is to jurisdictional inquiries regarding companies, but was soon extended to apply to all questions of personal jurisdiction. When an individual, or entity, has no "minimum contacts" with a forum State, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits that State from acting against that individual, or entity. The lack of "minimum contacts" with the owner of property also constitutionally prohibits action against that property (in rem jurisdiction) even when the property is located within the forum state.What constitutes sufficient "minimum contacts" has been delineated in numerous cases which followed the International Shoe decision. For example, in Hanson v. Denckla
Hanson v. Denckla
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding personal jurisdiction in the context of assets held in trust.-Factual background:...
, the Court proclaimed the "unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. The application of that rule will vary with the nature and quality of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege or conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws."
The additional requirement of "'purposeful availment' ensures that a defendant will not be hauled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of 'random, 'fortuitous,' or 'attenuated' contacts, [citations omitted] or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person [citation omitted] Jurisdiction may, however, be exercised, under some circumstances, even though the defendant never physically entered the forum State.
Statutory Authorization
While the Pennoyer and later Shoe Doctrines limit the maximum power of a sovereign state, courts must also have authorization to exercise the state's power; an individual state may choose to not grant its courts the full power that the state is Constitutionally permitted to exercise. Similarly, the jurisdiction of Federal courts (other than the Supreme Court) are statutorily-defined. Thus, a particular exercise of personal jurisdiction must not only be permitted by Constitutional doctrine, but be statutorily authorized as well. Under Pennoyer, personal jurisdiction was authorized by statutes authorizing service of process, but these methods of service often lacked because they required such service to be effected by officers of the state, such as sheriffs – an untenable method for defendants located outside of the state but still subject to jurisdiction due to their contacts with the state. Subsequent to the development of the Shoe Doctrine, states have enacted so-called long-arm statutes, by which courts in a state can serve process and thus exercise jurisdiction over a party located outside the state - subject, still, to the Constitutional limitations of the Shoe Doctrine.Relationship to venue
VenueVenue (law)
Venue is the location where a case is heard. In the United States, the venue is either a county or a district or division . Venue deals with locality of a lawsuit--that is, in which locale a lawsuit may be filed or commenced...
and personal jurisdiction are closely related for practical purposes. A lawyer
Lawyer
A lawyer, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person who is practicing law." Law is the system of rules of conduct established by the sovereign government of a society to correct wrongs, maintain the stability of political...
should usually perform joint analysis of personal jurisdiction and venue issues. Personal jurisdiction is largely a constitutional requirement, though also shaped by state long-arm statutes and Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, while venue is purely statutory.
It is possible for either venue or personal jurisdiction to preclude a court from hearing a case. Consider these examples:
- Personal jurisdiction is the limiting factor. In World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonWorld-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonWorld-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson, is a United States Supreme Court case involving strict products liability, personal injury and various procedural issues and considerations...
, the plaintiffs sued, in an OklahomaOklahomaOklahoma is a state located in the South Central region of the United States of America. With an estimated 3,751,351 residents as of the 2010 census and a land area of 68,667 square miles , Oklahoma is the 28th most populous and 20th-largest state...
state court, an automobile dealership based in New YorkNew YorkNew York is a state in the Northeastern region of the United States. It is the nation's third most populous state. New York is bordered by New Jersey and Pennsylvania to the south, and by Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont to the east...
for damages from an explosionExplosionAn explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion creates a shock wave. If the shock wave is a supersonic detonation, then the source of the blast is called a "high explosive"...
that occurred on June 11, 1977, as the plaintiffs drove the carČarČar is a village in the municipality of Bujanovac, Serbia. According to the 2002 census, the town has a population of 296 people.-References:...
through Oklahoma. Had the plaintiffs sued in U.S. federal court sited in Oklahoma, personal jurisdiction against the dealership would have been unavailable, as the dealership did not have minimum contacts with the forum state. Venue, however, would have been proper under , the general federal venue statute, because Oklahoma was a state in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. However, the United States Supreme Court found that the defendants (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.) did not have the minimum contacts with Oklahoma necessary to create personal jurisdiction there. [World-Wide Volkswagen was one of the "defendants"; the case cited is WWV Corp (original defendant) v. Woodson (the Oklahoma state judge) ]
- Venue is the limiting factor. Suppose Dale resides in California. Peter from NevadaNevadaNevada is a state in the western, mountain west, and southwestern regions of the United States. With an area of and a population of about 2.7 million, it is the 7th-largest and 35th-most populous state. Over two-thirds of Nevada's people live in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, which contains its...
wants to sue Dale for battery which Dale committed against Peter in California. Peter knows Dale is going to a week-long conference in South CarolinaSouth CarolinaSouth Carolina is a state in the Deep South of the United States that borders Georgia to the south, North Carolina to the north, and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. Originally part of the Province of Carolina, the Province of South Carolina was one of the 13 colonies that declared independence...
. Peter realizes that Dale would settle a suit that would take place in South Carolina, because it would be too expensive to defend. So, during Dale's trip, Peter serves Dale with process for an action filed in South Carolina federal court. The federal court has personal jurisdiction, based on Dale's presence in South Carolina at the time process was served (transient service of process). However, venue is improper under § 1391.