Mon Sep 24 Pennoyer v Neff US 1878

Mon. , Sep. 24

Pennoyer v Neff (US 1878)

Mitchell v. Neff - Mitchell sues Neff for unpaid legal services in Oregon state court - Neff has moved to Cal. - service was by a publication that had practically no circulation outside Oregon - Neff defaults - the Ore. state court attaches Oregon land sells it in payment of the debt to. . . Mitchell himself - Mitchell sells it to Pennoyer

Neff v. Pennoyer - Neff sues Pennoyer in ejectment in federal court in Ore. - diversity case - Pennoyer claims it is his, because he bought it from Mitchell, who got it pursuant to the enforcement of a valid Ore. state ct judgment - so Neff is attacking the validity of the judgment in Mitchell v. Neff - US SCt holds the judgment is invalid due to lack of PJ

but don’t federal courts have a duty to give state court judgments full faith and credit?

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.

28 U. S. C. § 1738. - 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.

Art. VI This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

why was there no jurisdiction over Neff’s person?

why was there no jurisdiction over Neff’s property?

did Justice Field conclude that the Oregon state court judgment in Mitchell v Neff violated the 14 th Amendment?

challenging PJ

direct - motion to dismiss for lack of PJ brought before the court that is wrongly asserting PJ - motion to set aside judgment brought before the court that wrongly asserted PJ indirect - collateral attack - a challenge of the validity of the judgment of different proceedings on the ground that the court in the proceedings lacked PJ

effect of limits on PJ being read into the 14 th Amendment. . .

Amendment XIV. Section 1. . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

direct attack - P sues D in Oregon state court - D has no connection with Oregon, but Oregon law allows the assertion of PJ over D Pre-Pennoyer: D has no grounds for a direct attack that could ultimately be entertained by the US SCt – only question is Oregon state law or international law (as interpreted by Oregon state courts) Post-Pennoyer: D has grounds for a direct attack as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14 th Amendment and can appeal to the US SCt.

collateral attack - P sues D in Oregon state court - D has no connection with Oregon, but Oregon law allows the assertion of PJ over D - D defaults - P sues D on the judgment in California state court Pre-Pennoyer: D has no grounds for a collateral attack that could ultimately be entertained by the US SCt – only question is Oregon state law or international law (as interpreted by California state courts) Post-Pennoyer: D has grounds for a collateral attack as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14 th Amendment and can appeal to the US SCt

The Pennoyer Framework

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

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

quasi in rem two types: 1) suit concerns ownership of property (e. g. quiet title action), BUT binding only on certain named parties

2) source of PJ is D’s property in state at initiation of suit, but suit does not concern ownership of property although if P wins, D’s property will be used to execute judgment

the Pennoyer framework in action

- Mitchell, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyer’s fees that Neff incurred in Oregon while he was a resident of Oregon - service of the summons and complaint are delivered to Neff in hand in California - PJ?

- Mitchell, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyer’s fees that Neff incurred in Oregon while he was a resident of Oregon - there is in-hand service of the summons and complaint upon Neff while he is in Oregon on a brief business trip - PJ?

- Mitchell, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyer’s 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 - PJ?

§ 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.

- 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 - PJ?

§ 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.

- 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 - service is by publication - it is determined that Pennoyer owns the property - is Neff, a Californian in California, who has a claim on the property bound by the judgment?

- 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 the Cal. property to Pennoyer - service is in hand on Neff in Oregon

§ 94. Decree To Be Carried Out In Another State A state can exercise jurisdiction through its courts to make a decree directing a party subject to the jurisdiction of the court to do an act in another state, provided such act is not contrary to the law of the state in which it is to be performed.

- Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for breach of a contract Neff entered into California 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 Pennoyer - service is in hand on Neff in Oregon

- Mitchell, an Oregon resident, brings an action against Neff in Oregon state court concerning $253. 14 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

§ 106. Application Of Things To Payment Of Claims [A] state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction to apply to the satisfaction of a claim, interests in things subject to the jurisdiction of the state, belonging to the person against whom the claim is asserted, although the state has no jurisdiction over him.

- Mitchell, an Oregon resident, brings an action against Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court concerning $253. 14 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 $53. 14 - service on Neff is in-hand on California - what result?

§ 106. Comment: a. The jurisdiction stated in this Section is commonly exercised through a proceeding begun by an attachment or by a bill in equity. A judgment rendered in such a proceeding is effective solely against interests in tangible things which are within the state. It is not effective against interests in tangible things not within the state, nor is it effective to impose a personal liability upon the person against whom the claim is asserted, if he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the state.

- 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?

Full Faith and Credit: the recognizing jurisdiction must give the judgment the same preclusive effect it would have in the rendering jurisdiction’s courts e. g. a California court must give the Oregon judgment the same preclusive effect it would have in Oregon state court.

- Mitchell has Neff tagged in Ore. while he is there for a business trip - Mitchell’s suit is in Ore. state ct and concerns unpaid lawyers fees - Neff appears to litigate the merits - While Neff is there Pennoyer has him served in connection with another unrelated suit, brought in Ore. state ct, concerning a brawl in Cal. - PJ?

- Mitchell sues Neff (a California resident) in Oregon state court concerning lawyers fees Mitchell performed for Neff in California - Neff has never been to Oregon and has no property there - Neff appears to argue that the court has no PJ over him - does the court have PJ over him?

- Neff is domiciled in Oregon, but is on an extended trip in California - Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyers fees incurred in Alaska - He has Neff served in California PJ?

§ 79. Individual Domiciled Within The State A state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction over an individual domiciled within the state, although he is not present within the state.

- Neff is domiciled in California, but is spending the summer residing in Oregon - Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyers fees incurred in Alaska - he has Neff served in California, while he was there for a brief trip home - PJ?

this is the big problem: Neff, a domiciliary of California, enters Oregon, kills Mitchell’s family, and returns to California Neff owns no property in Oregon Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon state court for wrongful death PJ?

can Hess v. Pawloski (U. S. 1927) fix things?

U. S. Const. Art. IV, Sect. 2 The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

corporations

- the D Corp. , incorporated in California, has an agent go to Oregon where he sells a product to P - the product harms P - P seeks to sue the D Corp. in California state court - is there PJ?

- the D Corp. , incorporated in California, has an agent go to Oregon where he sells a product to P - the product harms P - P seeks to sue the D Corp. in Oregon state court - is there PJ?

- would it be enough that P has the CEO of the D Corp. tagged in Oregon?

- the D Corp. , incorporated in California, wishes to do business in Oregon - to do so, Oregon requires the D Corp. to appoint the Sect. of State of Oregon as its agent for service of process - the D Corp. does - P is harmed by a D Corp. product and sues the D Corp in Oregon state court, serving the Sect. of State of Oregon - is there PJ?

- the D Corp. , incorporated in California, wishes to do business in Oregon - Oregon takes doing business in Oregon to constitute appointment of the Sect. of State of Oregon as its agent for service of process - P is harmed by a D Corp. product and sues the D Corp in Oregon state court, serving the Sect. of State of Oregon - is there PJ?

- the Neff Corp. is incorporated and has its principal place of business in California - but it does substantial business in Oregon, selling close to 3 million pairs of shoes a year; it also has 8 employees in Oregon - it has not appointed an agent for service of process, nor does Oregon have a statute claiming that by doing business in the state an agent for service is impliedly appointed - Mitchell sues the Neff Corp. in Oregon state court for breach of contract (the shoes he bought in Oregon fell apart) - is there PJ under a Pennoyer theory?

- the Neff Corp. is incorporated and has its principal place of business in California - it used to do substantial business in Oregon, selling close to 3 million pairs of shoes a year. It also had 8 employees in Oregon - Mitchell sues the Neff Corp. in Oregon state court for breach of contract (the shoes he bought in Oregon during the time the Neff Corp. was doing business there fell apart) - but the Neff Corp. no longer has a presence in Oregon - PJ under a Pennoyer theory?