Personal Jurisdiction - DOC by v143d0S9

VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 8

									                                               Personal Jurisdiction
Specific
 International Shoe
         - Established guidelines for specific jurisdiction when defendant’s minimum contacts in a state are
         directly related to the issue at trial. Casual or isolated contacts are insufficient.
 Hanson
         - No jurisdiction unless defendant purposely availed it self of the privilege of conducting activities
         within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws.
 Shaffer
         - Eliminated quasi in rem jurisdiction; presence of property alone does not support it;
         sequestration of property solely to bring a party into court is impermissible. Minimal contacts
         must exist.
 World-Wide Volkswagon
         - Foreseeability alone is not grounds for jurisdiction, especially when defendant has no other
         minimum contacts there. Defendant must actively serve the market.
 Keeton v Hustler
         - Continuous availment of opportunity to engage in in-state activities support jurisdiction even
         though defendants acts had greater impact elsewhere.
 McGee
         - Jurisdiction can be based on one contact when defendant sought out that contact and its dealings
         with that contact are the subject matter of the claim,
 Calder
         - If defendant should have known that an action made in one state would have a significant
         detrimental impact on a person in another state, he is subject to jurisdiction in that state even if no
         other minimum contacts are present.
 Asahi
         - Mere awareness that goods produced will end up in the state through he stream of commerce
         does not constitute purposeful availment; defendant must seek to serve the market there. In
         addition, even if minimum contacts were met, other factors such as interest of the forum state and
         the extent of the inconvenience to the defendant can make it unreasonable to exercise jurisdiction
         and would violate fair play and substantial justice.
 Burger King
         - Continuous but limited activity in a state such as ongoing contractual relationship supports
         jurisdictional claims arising out of that activity.
 Carnival
         - Forum selection clauses in contracts are sufficient for establishing jurisdiction.
 Burnham
         - Transitory jurisdiction for individuals based on tagging in which case the defendant need not
         have any minimum contacts with the state.
 Wynam
         - Tagging does not count if it was obtained by fraud.

General
 Bryant v Finnish National Air
        - If a defendant does enough business in a state they can be subject to jurisdiction in that state even
        for matters not arising out of that business.
 Helicopteros
        - Merely purchasing things in the forum state that are not related to the claim does not suffice even
        if continuous; this contact is not significant.
 Nehemiah
        - Tagging of an agent of an unincorporated association is insufficient for establishing jurisdiction;
        minimum contacts must be established as well.

Miscellaneous
 Corporations are domiciled where incorporated and where principal place of business.
  General jurisdiction not likely for an individual; not necessary because of tagging.
  First, must look at the state long arm statute and then determine whether it is constitutional under due
 process. Rule 4(k)(1).
 With a conspiracy case jurisdiction over only one defendant is needed for jurisdiction over all
 defendants.

                                         Challenging Jurisdiction
  Default Judgment and Collateral Attack
       - Forfeit case on merits and can only challenge jurisdiction in enforcing state.
 Special Appearance (minority of states)
       - Can appear in the state only to challenge juris (if raise any other issue juris is consented to)
       - If lose challenge, can default on merits and appeal juris or defend on the merits and forfeit right
       to appeal on juris.
       - Cannot collaterally attack
 Rule 12 attack (majority)
       - Appear to challenge juris and if lose defend on the merits and retain the right to appeal on either
       jurisdiction or the merits.
 Regardless of method, jurisdiction must be challenged in either the answer or a Rule 12(b)(2)
 pretrial motion; otherwise defendant will be deemed to have consented. Any argument or issue
 raised before jurisdiction has been challenged is a forfeit of the right to challenge it.

                                                  Notice
    Mullane v Central Hanover
        - The best, most practicable means of notice possible is required in all circumstances; mail is
        sufficient when address is known, otherwise publication is sufficient when no other means is
        available.

Pertinent Rules
4(c) – (j): establish standards for service of process.
12(b)(5): motion for insufficiency of service of process.

                                                      Venue
   Piper v Reyno
        - Forum non conveniens: court can dismiss a case and allow it to e heard somewhere else if it
        would be more convenient as a whole. Factors taken into account:
                   - Location of the witnesses
                   - Adequacy of alternative forum
                   - Fairness to parties
                   - Can require the party requesting removal to waive the statute of limitations there and
        consent to personal jurisdiction there.
 Established by statute for efficiency among the courts. 28 U.S.C. §1391
 Defendant can file a notice of removal to have a state court case removed to the federal court for that
 jurisdiction if the federal court had original jurisdiction over the claim. 28 U.S.C. §1441
 Plaintiff or Defendant can ask for transfer of a federal case to another federal court where the case
 could have been heard originally. The judge can condition the transfer. 28 U.S.C. §1404
 A judge can transfer a case where venue is improper to a court where it is without dismissing the
 action. 28 U.S.C. §1406; the law of the transferee court will apply.
 Van Duesen: the court where the case is transferred to must apply the law that the original court was
 going to apply, so must look at two things:
                   1. The law in the original forum state as to choice of law.
                   2. The law of the state that the original forum state would have applied.
        - 28 U.S.C. §1631 states that if a case is transferred where personal jurisdiction was lacking in the
        original forum, Van Dusen does not apply, and the law of the transferee state will apply to the
        case.
 Williams v Huron Valley School District
        - If a case includes both federal and state claims arising out of the same controversy, all of the
        claims can be removed and heard under supplemental jurisdiction; federal court can only remand
        the case if the state issue poses a novel or complex issue of law; all defendants must agree to a
        removal.

   Powell v Zoning Board of Appeals… Chicago
       - If a claim involves law that is identical under both federal and state law, the plaintiff can decide
       which one she is suing under , so if she says she is only bringing her claim under state law than the
       case can not be removed.

                                          Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal Question
 State courts can hear just about all cases – general jurisdiction – except for those which are strictly
 federal as set out in §1338 such as patent and copyright cases.
 28 U.S.C. §1331 gives the federal courts original jurisdiction over cases arising under the constitution,
 laws, treaties of the United States.
 Louisville RR v Mottley
         - Plaintiff must seek relief on a federal law; the defendant claiming a defense based on a federal
         law is insufficient; plaintiff’s claim must arise under federal law itself. Plaintiff claiming a federal
         issue in anticipation of a defense is insufficient as well because the defendant might not
         necessarily bring that defense.
 A suit for declaratory judgment under 28 USC §2201 does not qualify for subject matter juris diction
 for this reason alone. The original claim must be reviewed to determine whether jurisdiction. If a
 substantial part is federal in nature than this is sufficient.

Diversity Jurisdiction
 28 USC §1332 lays out standards
        - Complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and defendants and,
        - Claim of more than $75,000
 Mas v Perry
        - Domicile is based on the intent of the person. In order to change domicile, must change
        residence AND intend to remain there. Can change residence but not domicile if move to different
        place but don’t intend to stay for an indefinite period of time like going to college. Court also
        mentions that when one spouse has established diversity, the other spouse’s claim can be heard as
        well for efficiency reasons.
 Diversity jurisdiction is generally construed as narrowly as possible.
 Corporations are considered domiciled where it is incorporated and where it has its principal place of
 business.
 Unincorporated associations are domiciled in every state in which a member is domiciled.
 Each plaintiff must seek to recover the minimum amount according to most courts but some have held
 that as long as one plaintiff alone has a claim for 75K than the other plaintiff’s claims could acquire
 supplemental jurisdiction.
 Plaintiff’s individual claims need not be 75K, just the total amount of all of his claims.
 At anytime during the proceeding, the defendant can move to dismiss based on lack of subject matter,
 or the judge can dismiss it on his own.

                                        Supplemental Jurisdiction
   28 USC §1367
   Ancillary – fed court has jurisdiction over mandatory claims and counter claims that do not have an
 independent subject matter jurisdiction.
 Pendant – jurisdiction over additional claims arising out of the same incident
 UMW v Gibbs
        - If federal and state issues are derived out of the same nucleus of fact and an ordinary plaintiff
        would be expected to bring both claims together, then the federal courts can hear both; if one
        claim is made with two grounds, one fed and one state, the federal courts can hear both.
      Fed court can use discretion to decide whether or not to hear a state law case; like if the state law
    predominates or the fed issues will be resolved early in the case than the judge can dismiss.

                                         Choice of Law in Diversity Cases
     Erie v Tompkins
          - Established what substantive law federal courts are to use.
          - The federal courts are supposed to use the same law as the state court would have used if the case
          were brought there.
  Guaranty Trust v York
          - Laid out the outcome determinative rule that federal court cannot apply any law, substantive or
          procedural that would allow for a different outcome of the case than if it were tried in the state
          court, the state law must be used. This meant using state law even though a federal rule existed to
          handle the situation. Essentially eliminated the FRCP in diversity cases.
  Byrd v Blue Ridge
          - Upholds the outcome determinative test but adds that the court must look at countervailing
          federal policies that arise out of the federal court’s status as a separate judicial system. Only
          applies to unwritten custom
  Hanna v Plumer
          - Set current standard for the application of federal procedural law over state law
                    1) Whether a procedural decision is outcome determinative must be looked at in light of
                           policy behind Erie, to prevent forum shopping and inequitable administration of the
                           law.
                                a. This test is to be used when the conflict is between the state statute and the
                                    Federal judicial practice
                    2) If the conflict is between a federal constitutional provision and a state law, the fed
                    provision applies whether it is substantive or procedural.
                    3) When the conflict is between a federal statute and state law, the federal statute applies
                    if it is valid, meaning that it is arguably procedural. The federal statute applies even if
                    the state court would decide differently.
                    4) When the conflict is between a FRCP and state law, the federal rule applies if it is
                    valid. As long as the rule is procedural, it is valid unless it “abridges, enlarges, or
                    modifies” a substantive right.
          - None of these analyses are necessary unless there is a direct conflict between the federal and
state rules or laws.
  Walker v Armco Steel
          - When there is no conflicting federal rule, the state law applies. In this case, FRCP 3 was not
          broad enough to cover a disputed point about when a case is considered filed for statute of
          limitations reasons, so the state rule was applied.

                                                   Pleadings
     FRCP Rule 7 -- definitions
     FRCP Rule 8
         - Short and plain statement of jurisdiction
         - Short and plain statement of claim for relief
         - Demand for judgment for relief
         - When plaintiff does not speak English, some leeway is allowed
     FRCP Rule 11
         - Must not be used to harass
         - Non-frivolous
         - Must have evidentiary support
     FRCP Rule 9(b)
         - Must be more specific when alleging fraud or mistake
         - Does not make sense because it is particularly difficult to get details of fraud w/o discovery
     FRCP Rule 9(g)
         - Special damages like those that wouldn’t normally be expected must be specifically stated if they
        are to be part of the claim.
   Gomez v Toledo
        - Plaintiff does not have to allege affirmative defenses and the way he is going to overcome them
        in his complaint. Affirmative defenses only need to be included in the answer.
 Affirmative Defenses – burden is on def to plead them and to prove their validity at trial. FRCP Rule
 8(c)
 Heightened Pleading – when suing a government organization or an individual in his official capacity,
 must assert the existence of a policy in pleading. Leatherman, court is split on whether it should be
 required for officials sued in their individual capacity
 Responses to complaints
        - Answers
        - Rule 12 - Motion to Dismiss
                   - Rule 12(a)(4) allows for 10 days after denial of the motion to file an answer
 Schultea
        - In cases where def raises qualified immunity as an affirmative defense, judge should require
        plaintiff to reply to an answer by Rule 7 to show how it will be overcome.
 Zielinski v Philadelphia Piers
        - Defendant must deny each allegation not just entire paragraphs Rule 8(b).
 Layman v SW Bell
        - The affirmative defense of an easement must be mentioned in the answer; a general denial does
        not fulfill the requirement; the defense is therefore waived if plaintiff relied on this waiver.
 Four ways to amend pleadings
        1) As a matter of course within 20 days of original filing
        2) By motion or permission of court
        3) By consent of the other party
        4) In order to conform to the evidence Rule 15(b)
 Beeck v Aquaslide
        - Defendant moved to amend their complaint because thought the evidence they discovered that
        they did not manufacture the slide in question; plaintiff resisted because they had relied on this
        info but the court allowed the amendment because the plaintiff could sue the original defendant for
        fraud or contract breach so court was within its discretion.
 Moore v Baker and Bonerb v Caron Foundation
        -By rule 15(c)(2) an amendment to claim after the statute of limitations has run will relate back to
        the original pleading if it arises out of the same set of facts as the original claim and the original
        pleading should have alerted the defendant that the new claim might be brought.
 Implied consent – if evidence arises that is not within the scope of the pleadings and no objection is
 made, can amend the pleading and consent is implied.

                                                    Joinder
   FRCP Rule 20 – permissive joinder of parties when claims against them arise out of common
 transaction or occurrence and have question of law or fact in common.
 FRCP Rule 13 and 18– authorizes parties, once they are properly joined in a suit, to bring additional
 claims against opposing parties. 13 – counterclaims and cross claims; 18 – allows any party to join
 additional claims with original claim regardless of whether they arise out of a common transaction or
 occurrence.
 Plant v Blazer
        - One test for compulsory counterclaim is the logical relation test meaning it arises from the same
        aggregate of operative facts; since this claim was compulsory, supplemental jurisdiction applied; if
        it had been permissive it would have had to have its own jurisdictional basis which it did not and
        the defendant would have had to bring it separately.
 Mosley v General Motors Corp
        - Since Rule 20 is meant to promote judicial economy, it should be interpreted in the broadest way
        possible; the common series of occurrences do not have to be connected by time as much as by
        logical relationship; in addition not all questions of law or fact have to be the same, just one.
 Watergate v Wiss
        - In order for a def to bring a third party claim under rule 14, the third party’s liability must be
                                                       rd
        derivative of the defendants, can’t bring a 3 party in and say you are not liable at all but they are;
                                                          rd
        if claim is not derivative can still blame the 3 party as a defense to your claim
 Derivative liability can be based on:
        1) Contribution
        2) Implied warranty
        3) Express warranty
        4) Other methods allowed by statute
 Must at state substantive law controls in determining derivative liability.
 Factors favoring impleader: efficiency of hearing related claims together and avoidance of repeated
 suits or inconsistent judgments
 Factors against: Undue delay in seeking it, complication of the main action, and prejudice to plaintiff
 from impleading sympathetic third party.
 The third party does not affect diversity or venue.

                      Jurisdiction Over Joinder (Supplemental Jurisdiction con’t)
   Owens v Kroger
        - Courts do not have jurisdiction over an amended claim brought by the plaintiff against a party
        already introduced to the suit as a third party defendant where diversity does not lie; otherwise
        plaintiffs could circumvent diversity requirements by only suing diverse parties and waiting for
        them to implead the non-diverse defendants. Judicial economy cannot justify supplemental
        jurisdiction in case between 2 citizens of the same state.
   Indispensable parties – FRCP Rule 19
   Helzberg v Valley West (notes 10-21-98 & supp prob 13)
   Three part analysis laid out in Glannon p 243
   FRCP Rule 24 – Third party intervention in a suit.
   National Resources Defense Council v USNRC
        - The intervener’s interest in a case does not have to be direct 24(a)(2)
        - Adequate representation should be construed very broadly
        - Even though the party could still sue separately if an adverse decision in this suit will render
        their suit worthless then that is sufficient for intervention. Interest being impaired as a practical
        manner is sufficient.
   Martin v Wilks
           rd
        - 3 parties are never bound to intervene in a suit; it is the responsibility of the parties to control
                       rd
        the suit and 3 parties should not have to look out for all suits that might affect their rights.

                                               Class Actions
   Hansberry v Lee
        - A prior decision by the court cannot be binding on a party who was not represented in that suit;
        in order to be bound by a class action decision, must be adequately represented in the suit.
 Prerequisites are laid out in FRCP Rule 23(a) (Numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy)
 and also must meet one of the three requirements in 23(b)
 Policy – judicial economy, avoiding having to hear numerous individual cases
           - Makes one ruling binding, not merely a precedent
           - Allows the court to hear cases of wrongdoing that would not normally be brought because the
        individual dollar amounts would be too small
 Phillips Petroleum v Shutts
        - Notice requirements for plaintiffs are not as strict as for defendants, opt out clause is enough; it is
        okay to use the choice of law of the forum court for each plaintiff even though they might be
        dispersed throughout the country.
 It is not clear today whether in diversity federal class action cases, each plaintiff must meet the dollar
 amount or only the named plaintiff; 2 circuits have held that §1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over
 the other members of the class, but most have held that §1332 expressly prohibits it or that §1367 only
 applies to joinder and intervention and therefore does not apply to class actions.
   Diversity only need be present with named plaintiff
   Class action cases can be brought under federal law
        - Federal securities law
        - Environmental law
        - Civil rights
        - Sherman antitrust suits
   Eisen v Carlisle & Jacquelin
        - Rule 23(c)(2) requires individual notice when reasonable, in other words if all members of the
        class are known. Plaintiff must bear the cost of this notice. 23(c)(4) allows plaintiff to designate a
        smaller class to make these costs more reasonable. This notice requirement is based on a federal
        rule so state could have their own requirement. This case made it very difficult to bring a class
        action in federal court

                                                Discovery
   FRCP Rules 26-37, 45
   Model Rules on ethics in supplement
   Hickman v Taylor
        - Laid out the foundation of the work product rule now embodied in Rule 26(b)(3)
        - Three exceptions to work product
                 - Underlying facts
                 - Investigative reports
                 - Substantial needs
   Pressey v Patterson
        - Court makes a bad faith standard that must be met for the imposition of the most stringent
        sanctions under Rule 37, striking pleadings or dismissal.
   Two sorts of sanctions
        1) Federal Rules administered by the court in which the case is pending
             - Rules 37, 26(g), and 30(d)
        2) State Rules issued through complaints to the bar.

                                             Pre-trial Termination
   6 ways to terminate a suit without a trial:
        1) Settlement
        2) Default Judgment
        3) 12(b) Motion to Dismiss
        4) Voluntary dismissal
        5) Involuntary dismissal
        6) Summary Judgment
   Peralta v Heights Medical Center
        - It is not necessary that a party that is protesting a default judgment has had a meritorious defense
        against the claim; to require this would be a violation of due process
   Kalinauskas v Wong
        - Confidentiality agreements that go along with settlements do not prohibit the settling party from
        giving a deposition in another case with the exception of revealing the details of the settlement
        itself
   Celotex v Catrett
        - A party moving for summary judgment merely must assert that the plaintiff does not any
        evidence to support the claim; once this showing has been made, the plaintiff must produce some
        evidence that could allow a jury to find in their favor
   Visser v Packer
        - In opposition to a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff only produced affidavits based on the
        affiants opinions, not their personal knowledge of the matter; since only expert opinions are
        allowed at trial, these affidavits do not meet the plaintiffs burden of production
                                             Pre-trial Activities
  McKey v Fairburn
        - An amendment of a pretrial order should be denied when manifest injustice would result, even if
        doing so is unfair to one party
 Request for admission: like an interrogatory it a question posed to the opposing party for a yes/no
 answer in order to settle an issue of fact before the trial. Rule 36
 Pretrial conference: allow the judge to manage the case and avoid squabbling later on among the
 parties; Rule 16(b) requires the judge to make a scheduling order for each case, setting limits for certain
 procedures. An order is made after each conference which governs the proceedings. There orders are
 much more difficult to amend than the pleadings.

                                               Trial Procedures
   Beacon v Westover
        - Equity (a judge) can only hear a case when there is no adequate legal remedy; there is a strong
                                        th
        presumption for jury trials. 7 amendment requires trial by jury in common law cases.
   4 methods to select a jury:
        1) Community attitude survey
        2) Jury panel investigation
        3) Direct observation in the courtroom
        4) Voir dire
   Burden of Proof
        - Production: if plaintiff does not produce anything by which the jury could find in his favor than
        JMOL for defendant
        - Persuasion: each side must attempt to persuade the jury that their version of the facts is correct.
                 - Generally, even if plaintiff testifies to their damages and defendant does not rebut, the
                 case will still go to the jury because they might not have been persuaded that the
                 testimony was truthful.
   Alternative Dispute Resolution
                        rd
        - Mediation – 3 party helps to reach an agreement, no power
                         rd
        - Arbitration – 3 party hears both sides and renders judgment like a trial judge
   Three objectives in making case at trial
        1) Get the story out
    2)       Persuade the judge or jury that your version of the facts are true
        3) Make the client’s case sympathetic
   Judgments As A Matter of Law
        - Rule 50
   Order of New Trial
        - Rule 59
   Standards for objecting to jury instruction
        - Rule 51

								
To top