Personal Jurisdiction When Party is Joined Under Rule 14/19 Forum

[hangnail]

Usually, personal jurisdiction analysis begins with whether there's a state long-arm statute providing for pj.

But what happens when a party is joined under Rule 14 or 19? Rule k(1)(B) doesn't seem to say that a state long-arm statute is necessary here...

And if not...what about parties joined under the other joinder rules? I assume the state long-arm statute "rule" doesn't apply to them?

[sanjola]

This was on my exam yesterday and I'm curious to see what others say. Hopefully I didn't completely mess up.

[ggocat]

My two cents:

If your exam asks whether there is PJ over a party, you certainly do the long-arm/minimum-contacts analysis, regardless of what rule authorized or required joinder.

Technically, you don't need PJ before joining somebody. PJ can be waived by appearing. So a party can be joined, then PJ is satisfied by waiver/consent/appearance. If the party so joined moves to dismiss for lack of PJ, however, and PJ is not established (by satisfying state long arm; minimum contacts, etc.), then the joined party will be dismissed. Then, under Rule 19(b) for example, the court can decide whether to dismiss the whole action or proceed.

In other words, the FRCP joinder rules do not "create" personal jurisdiction over the joined party; full PJ analysis would include state long arm and minimum contacts.

[Nelson]

My two cents:

If your exam asks whether there is PJ over a party, you certainly do the long-arm/minimum-contacts analysis, regardless of what rule authorized or required joinder.

Technically, you don't need PJ before joining somebody. PJ can be waived by appearing. So a party can be joined, then PJ is satisfied by waiver/consent/appearance. If the party so joined moves to dismiss for lack of PJ, however, and PJ is not established (by satisfying state long arm; minimum contacts, etc.), then the joined party will be dismissed. Then, under Rule 19(b) for example, the court can decide whether to dismiss the whole action or proceed.

In other words, the FRCP joinder rules do not "create" personal jurisdiction over the joined party; full PJ analysis would include state long arm and minimum contacts.

That's not correct. The bubble provision establishes personal jurisdiction (but not venue). See the committee note to subdivision f here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4

[arklaw13]

Usually, personal jurisdiction analysis begins with whether there's a state long-arm statute providing for pj.

But what happens when a party is joined under Rule 14 or 19? Rule k(1)(B) doesn't seem to say that a state long-arm statute is necessary here...

And if not...what about parties joined under the other joinder rules? I assume the state long-arm statute "rule" doesn't apply to them?

Pretty sure for rule 14/19 parties the state long arm statutes don't matter. You could actually end up bring issued summons in a separate state under k(1)(B)

Under k(1)(A), which is normal stuff other than 14/19, you need PJ for the state court, which is supplied by some kind of statute, whether "long arm" or not.

[Swimp]

I don't totally understand all this discussion about long arm statutes applying or not applying. It seems like you guys are making it more complicated than it needs to be (unless I'm just wrong about how this works).

You always need to get personal jurisdiction over someone in order to pull them into court. Federal courts have jurisdiction over anybody within reach of the courts of their state (including via the state's long arm statute). In addition, since Rule 14 and 19 parties are considered especially important to efficient resolution of claims brought in federal courts, the feds get an extra tool not available to state courts--they can serve process across state lines as long as the party is within 100 miles of the federal courthouse.

[fundamentallybroken]

I don't totally understand all this discussion about long arm statutes applying or not applying. It seems like you guys are making it more complicated than it needs to be (unless I'm just wrong about how this works).

You always need to get personal jurisdiction over someone in order to pull them into court. Federal courts have jurisdiction over anybody within reach of the courts of their state (including via the state's long arm statute). In addition, since Rule 14 and 19 parties are considered especially important to efficient resolution of claims brought in federal courts, the feds get an extra tool not available to state courts--they can serve process across state lines as long as the party is within 100 miles of the federal courthouse.

TITCR.

You need personal jurisdiction to join a party. If you can't get that jurisdiction, then you can't join them, and the court must make determination as to whether the case can proceed (under 19, at least.)

ETA: Also, PJ begins with minimum contacts, not the long-arm.

[hangnail]

So under Swimp's reasoning, k(1)(B) gives you an extra tool for these joined parties..and thus you don't need the statute. That's what I figured.

fundamentallybroken, I always thought you had to acknowledge if there was a statute or not first. Most of the times, statutes grant jurisdiction up to the due process limit so then the constitutional analysis comes into play (minimum contacts and fair/substantial justice). However, if a state statute off -the-bat doesn't grant their courts jurisdiction over a matter, then the court doesn't have jurisdiction...no matter the minimum contacts. Wrong?

[fundamentallybroken]

So under Swimp's reasoning, k(1)(B) gives you an extra tool for these joined parties..and thus you don't need the statute. That's what I figured.

fundamentallybroken, I always thought you had to acknowledge if there was a statute or not first. Most of the times, statutes grant jurisdiction up to the due process limit so then the constitutional analysis comes into play (minimum contacts and fair/substantial justice). However, if a state statute off -the-bat doesn't grant their courts jurisdiction over a matter, then the court doesn't have jurisdiction...no matter the minimum contacts. Wrong?

Edited: It's been too long for me to opine intelligently! Checked my old outline: You're right, start with the long-arm, then go to minimum contacts.