Quick Civ Pro Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Korematsu
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Quick Civ Pro Question

Postby Korematsu » Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:18 pm

This probably sounds stupid to you guys but I am studying and I am having trouble determining if the court would have jurisdiction over the defendant on this hypo:

P (Alaska domicile) v. D (Massachusetts domicile)
Claim for battery occurring in Colorado in California state court.
D owns a residence in California & employs California residents to maintain the property.

Assuming D receives proper service in California, Does California have jurisdiction over the D as a result of his California "residence," even though he is domiciled in Massachusetts and the battery happened outside of California?

User avatar
dietcoke0
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 2:46 pm

Re: Quick Civ Pro Question

Postby dietcoke0 » Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:51 pm

Dude got served in Cali? Should be all you need bro. Doesn't matter about his residence (which would usually not be a factor if I remember correctly.

User avatar
hephaestus
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:21 pm

Re: Quick Civ Pro Question

Postby hephaestus » Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:55 am

I don't think there's PJ in this situation post Connecticut v. Doehr. This is a quasi in rem type 2 action unrelated to a claim from the property, so Dubin v. Philadelphia doesn't apply.
This is for a long arm statute. Didn't see in person service in the OP.
Last edited by hephaestus on Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Redamon1
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Quick Civ Pro Question

Postby Redamon1 » Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:05 am

dietcoke0 wrote:Dude got served in Cali? Should be all you need bro. Doesn't matter about his residence (which would usually not be a factor if I remember correctly.


My recollection as well.

Korematsu
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Quick Civ Pro Question

Postby Korematsu » Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:37 am

Okay. Thanks for the replies. If there wasn't service of process in California - lets say D was served by the California court via certified mail in Massachusetts - would D's second "residence" there be sufficient to establish general jurisdiction over him in California making him amenable to the suit for battery occurring outside the state?

kykiske
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: Quick Civ Pro Question

Postby kykiske » Mon Apr 22, 2013 5:09 pm

The test for general jurisdiction is "continuous and systematic" contact.

So, I suppose P's argument would be that through the maintenance of the house in CA, D met the standard.

But, that's pretty weak. You'd other forms of evidence to prove that D had "continuous and systematic contact."

The simple maintenance of a house may not cut it for some courts.

Benjamin1987
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:42 am

Re: Quick Civ Pro Question

Postby Benjamin1987 » Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:24 pm

Korematsu wrote:Okay. Thanks for the replies. If there wasn't service of process in California - lets say D was served by the California court via certified mail in Massachusetts - would D's second "residence" there be sufficient to establish general jurisdiction over him in California making him amenable to the suit for battery occurring outside the state?


No way, Jose. To satisfy PJ in California for an action arising in CO defendant individual would have to be subject to general jursidiction in CA. He is propertly domiciled in MA not CA.

Substantial and pervasive contact with the forum is only relevant to corporations.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Fed_Atty, LawHammer and 3 guests