Top Law Schools

so after shaffer v heitner

to assert Quasi In Rem does

1) we need a state long arm statute?

2) or do we just need minimum contacts?

3) the property itself doesnt have to arise out of P's claim right? cuz that would make it in rem?

thx all

You need to meet all the same requirements as personal jurisdiction (i.e., International Shoe, Hanson v. Denckla, Worldwide Volkswagen)

think about mortgage foreclosures. they're purposefully availing themselves to a bank kinda like burger king with rudewiecz or watever. i can't think of anything else where it happens. nobody gets outta mortgages under personal jurisdiction.

I agree with all of the above posters. In my civ. prov. class, our teacher stressed that Schaffer established the principle that UNLIKE pennoyer v. neff, the mere existence of property located within the forum state is not enough. Under Schaffer, ALL assertions of PJ, whether quasi in rem, in personam, ect, must be evaluated under the minimum contacts test.

I should review my notes, but wasn't a large part of schaffer that the people he sued just accepted leadership positions within a company that was incorporated in DE, and that all they owned was stock? Still, all they owned was stock. If they sued the corporation, they would've been able to sue em in DE.

Civ pro is my worst class. I just never feel confident at all. In my other classes, I can skim the reading and ace hypos.

uvabro wrote:they're purposefully availing themselves to a bank kinda like burger king with rudewiecz or watever

I thought purposeful availment related to the forum state not parties?

Blessedassurance wrote:

uvabro wrote:they're purposefully availing themselves to a bank kinda like burger king with rudewiecz or watever

I thought purposeful availment related to the forum state not parties?

that's correct. i thought that implied the state the bank's incorporated and/or has its principle place of biz in. i'm sorry - clarity is my downfall.

in real life, this almost always mean we're all purposefully availed to deleware.

uvabro wrote: in real life, this almost always mean we're all purposefully availed to delaware.

Delaware is relevant when suing most banks (i.e. when a bank incorporated there is the D), not for most plaintiffs. Purposeful availment just describes/rationalizes a defendant's contacts with a forum state, I think. As such, any bank incorporated in Delaware can be sued in Delaware on issues related or unrelated to the contacts (under general jurisdiction) but we can't be sued in Delaware on the basis of the bank being incorporated there.

I think the take away from Shaffer is that the standards set forth in International Shoe (and its progeny) extends to in rem and quasi in rem.

Blessedassurance wrote:

uvabro wrote: in real life, this almost always mean we're all purposefully availed to delaware.

Delaware is relevant when suing most banks (i.e. when a bank incorporated there is the D), not for most plaintiffs. Purposeful availment just describes/rationalizes a defendant's contacts with a forum state, I think. As such, any bank incorporated in Delaware can be sued in Delaware on issues related or unrelated to the contacts (under general jurisdiction) but we can't be sued in Delaware on the basis of the bank being incorporated there.

Under the Burger King ruling, can't a bank technically sue you for breach of K in DE.... in specific jurisdiction for your terms in signing a K with them?

This is how I think about the constitutional question:

In rem and narrow quasi in rem—That the defendant owns property located in the forum is a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction when the lawsuit seeks to quiet title in that property as to all the world (in rem) or seeks to challenge the defendant’s title in that property (narrow quasi in rem). Tyler (Mass. 1900).

Broad quasi in rem (not valid)—That the defendant owns property located in the forum is not a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction when the action does not relate to defendant’s title in that property. Shaffer (U.S. 1977).

uvabro wrote: Under the Burger King ruling, can't a bank technically sue you for breach of K in DE.... in specific jurisdiction for your terms in signing a K with them?

Depends on many other factors. If I sign an ATT contract at a a retail store in Montana, I doubt DE has PJ over me because ATT is incorporated in DE (hypothetical). It's easy to see how that offends "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"...

Blessedassurance wrote:

uvabro wrote: Under the Burger King ruling, can't a bank technically sue you for breach of K in DE.... in specific jurisdiction for your terms in signing a K with them?

Depends on many other factors. If I sign an ATT contract at a a retail store in Montana, I doubt DE has PJ over me because ATT is incorporated in DE (hypothetical). It's easy to see how that offends "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"...

that's a good point. in burger king he knew he was talking to florida. you're good at this stuff bro. sure hope ur not a 1l, otherwise I'm sunk.

uvabro wrote:

Blessedassurance wrote:

uvabro wrote: Under the Burger King ruling, can't a bank technically sue you for breach of K in DE.... in specific jurisdiction for your terms in signing a K with them?

Depends on many other factors. If I sign an ATT contract at a a retail store in Montana, I doubt DE has PJ over me because ATT is incorporated in DE (hypothetical). It's easy to see how that offends "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"...

that's a good point. in burger king he knew he was talking to florida. you're good at this stuff bro. sure hope ur not a 1l, otherwise I'm sunk.

I'm a 1L...I got cold called on this crap. That thing burns forever in your memory.