Civil Procedure Outline Personal Jurisdiction A. Personal Jurisdiction tells us which state a case can be brought. a. Rule 12(b)(2)= lack of personal jurisdiction B. Subject matter Jurisdiction depends on the location of both the partiesa. Rule 12(b)(1)= lack of subject matter jurisdiction C. venue tells us in which district a case can be brought a. Rule 12(b)(3) on improper venue -Gordon v. Steele: -Gordon was injured in an operation by Steele while in PA -Gordon then moved to ID for college. -Gordon filed in Federal Court citing personal jurisdiction because she claimed residency there. - filed for lack of diversity -motion denied, rule= Intent to remain is subjective, instead, rely on voting record, business practice, taxes paid, residence, etc. Intention at the time of arrival is what‘s important, not later circumstances -28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1): district courts shall have original jurisdiction over cases with citizens of different state II. Stating the Case A. The Lawyer‘s responsibility 1. Law: lawyers must know what type of law to base the case on (ie, common law, writs, federal/state cases). Also must recognize the law component of the case 2. Specific Fact Invoking: Plead the ultimate facts. Give enough information so u know what the claim is about. U don‘t need all the fact 3. Strategy: know which court to try the case in and why -Bridges v. Diesel Services -‘s atty submitted complaint without first filing a complaint w/EEOC - moved for sanction against atty, sanction were denied but atty‘s bad conduct was reinforced -Rule 11: by submitting a filing to court party is certifying that claims are warranted, not improper, based on factual merit, good faith legal merit B. The Complaint -Bell v. Novick Transfer Co. - moved for dismissal under Rule 12 (says basically that u don’t have a valid claim), saying the claim was too vague -How much does a plaintiff need to state about the nature of the claim? -Rule 8: a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief C. The Response: defense to the claim/action -2 ways to respond: 1) motion attacking the summons & complaint 2) an answer I.
-Preanswer motions: motions submitted to the court to take action 1) may claim that the case doesn‘t belong in the court or that the claim should not proceed 2) may claim that has no right to recover even though facts appear to be true 3) may be unaware of the claim and motion for a more definite statement -Answers: if does not make a preanswer motion, he must answer Rule 7(a), 12(a) -Counterclaim: can also answer in the form of a counterclaim: 1) Compulsory counterclaim: arise out of same transaction/occurrence as ‘s claim 2) Permissive counterclaim: does not arise out of the same transaction as ‘s claim D. Amendments to complaints: cases may be amended, not set in stone. Rule 15(a): basic amendment rules Rule 15(b): amendments introduced during trial to reflect new evidence Rule 15(c): amendments imposed after a Statue of Limitations (SOL) Parties to the Lawsuit E. Permissive Joinder: Rule 20; has a choice as to who to list as co-/co- F. Compulsory Joinder: court orders a party to join the suit Temple v. Synthes Corp. -Court ordered to join doctor and hospital as co- -a tortfeasor with the usual ―joint-and-several‖ liability is merely a permissive party to an action against another with like liability -Lower court erred in forcing the to join ‘s and in dismissing it because he failed to do so. III. Discovery -parties must reveal to each other certain basic information about the case, unless otherwise ordered -parties can use Rule 32 to demand specified document, which the opposing party must present -parties may request oral depositions: anyone w/info about the case may be deposed, and atty must serve a notice or subpoena upon the person. -Written Interrogatories, Rule 33: written questions to be answered by the opposing party (cant be used against non-party witness) -Physical and Mental Exams may be requested by atty and granted from court Rule 35 -Rule 26 governs discovery methods -Butler v. Rigby -medical company AMG/MHC moved for a protective order not to reveal some medical docs. claiming that they protected, irrelevant, and burdensome -Court ruled that some are permissible, protected docs aren‘t, and had to pay for some.
IV.
V.
-Rule 26: discovery may be limited if court determines that it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. -parties can get info from people not directly implicated in a case Summary Judgment: a mechanism for deciding cases where trials aren‘t necessary and wouldn‘t serve a purpose. -Rule 56: a party may make a motion for summary judgment at any point in the proceedings -Rule 56(f): decision for summary judgment will be delayed if an opposing party has not been able to complete discovery -Rule 56(c): if party moving for SJ shows there is no issue on any general material fact then the SJ should be granted -Houchens v. American Home - made motion for SJ. declared her husband dead, but assumed this, based on no facts/evidence -there was no unresolved facts, motion for SJ was affirmed - (opposing party to the motion) has burden of proof Celotex v. Catrett -P brought suit alleging that husband died from asbestos - sought motion for summary judgment based on lack of evidence in discovery that was the cause of death. showed evidence after motion was filed…too late -reversed lower courts allowance of motion, and remanded it based on the fact that there might have been disputed facts Visser v. Packer Engineering - brought suit alleging termination was age discrimination - brought motion 4 summary judgment, alleging brough no evidence that he was fired because of his age, just other factors. -Court agreed. showed burden of proof that would‘ve been fired anyways -Dissent said he might‘ve produced evidence that led to firing based on pension bonuses. Trial A. Judgment as a matter of Law (direct verdict): Rule 56(a): even if all evidence offers is true, there is no specific right to relief - usually makes thus motion claiming that has not satisfied burden of proof B. after verdict, party can again make a motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the verdict. C. Motion for a new trial must be made on error of the law, erroneous charge, or verdict being against the evidence Norton v. Snapper -Court issued a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because there was insufficient evidence presented to the jury to find a defect in the lawnmower
VI.
Pleadings -Pleadings contain 2 elements: 1) invokes some body of the law and 2) it relates the facts to the body of law -Pleadings often fail because: 1) they fail to relate the facts to the body of law or 2) the law doesn‘t afford a remedy kinds of pleadings: 1) common law: California form of pleading 2) code pleading: Cal. state courts -ultimate facts more detail and facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action 3) Notice of pleading: federal courts: short and plain statement of claim -People/Dept of Transportation v. Superior Court: - filed for a demurrer stating no reasons for circumstances -Court denied it because it was filed with a Judicial Council Form that did not give notice of the cause of action -Court reversed and remanded the demurrer w/leave to amend in order for to state a more specific cause of action -Haddle v. Garrison: - conspired w/federal criminal trial against , and claims he was terminated because of this and because he was an at will employee violating 42 USC1985 - filed for demurrer stating failure to state a claim Rule 12(b)(6), -lower court upheld demurrer but Supreme Court overruled and remanded because the termination may have caused injury to person/property -policy to protect intimidation against federal workers for testifying in fed. Court. A. Lawyer misconduct -Rule 11: determines punishment and explanation of misconduct -Business Guides v. Chromatic Comm. Enterprises -Court issued sanctions against ‘s lawyer for filing unresearched claims ( publishes directories) - said they were erroneous/accident, magistrate upheld, but District court dismissed actions w/prejudice and imposed sanctions - stated false information to the court which Sup. Court upheld -Rule 11(b): by signing the pleading, u assert that Representations to Court are -11(b)(1): filed for an improper purpose -11(b)(2): there is legal merit in the claims -11(b)(3): there is factual merit -11(b)(4): denials are based on factual merit -Rule 11(c): is a safe harbor which allows the atty to file sanctions against a motion, thereby allowing opposing counsel to withdraw the motion -Religious Technology Center v. Gerbode - argues that ‘s use of the RICO laws are frivolous and lave no legal merit under Rule 11(b)(2) -‘s lawyers didn‘t do research, and had the intent of making pay for frivolous matters. -Court issued sanctions on the atty, not the clients or co-counsel
-Olsen v. Pratt & Whitney - was terminated by employer who enticed him to take an early retirement program - filed a number of claims which were dismissed except for fraud claim. -fraud claims were conclusory and lacking particulars, which is against Rule 9(b): in averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud shall be stated with particularity. -the court agreed with dismissal of lower court, but remanded w/leave to amend VII. Civil Rights and Disfavored Claims A. necessities for a frima facie case under §1983 are: 1) every 2) whose federal rights are violated 3) by a public official 4) Acting under color of state‘s law 5) Is entitled to remedies eatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics -‘s house was broken into by Feds, who assaulted them and killed dogs -42 USC §1983 permits suits against officials if they deprive constitutional rights. -Gov officials have immunity in some areas, however, if they believe they acted under good faith of the law. -Issue here was if court could apply a heightened pleading standard to a case of municipal liability? NO, cant. Just a plain and short statement Gomez v. Toledo -Gomez worked for the police in Puerto Rico and was fired in bad faith for going along w/investigation -Gomez filed under §1983 -Should answer w/good faith as an affirmative defense? Burden is on (Rule 8c) to show good faith. -Should Gomez allege bad faith in the complaint to state a claim for relief? Rule 8 VIII. Responding to the Complaint A. ‘s possible reactions to a complaint include: 1) reasons why the court shouldn‘t proceed with the action 2) questions as to if the complaint, even if true, provides a basis for legal relief 3) denials 4) affirmative defenses 5) requests for clarification and/or more info B. Rule 8: -8(a): claim shall contain a short and plain statement and a demand for judgment for relief that pleader seeks -8(b) Negative Defenses: Admissions, denials, etc. must respond to the substance of the complaint, and they must be specific about the denials so can form an answer -8(c) Affirmative Defenses: (incl. SOL, contributory negligence, etc.): these must be raised by if they are to be an issue in the case
-8(d) Failure to Deny=Admission: if u don‘t deny something, then its admitted and treated as true -8(e) Consistency: litigants can be inconsistent with claims because lawyers and clients don‘t yet have all the facts C. Rule 12 -(a): addresses when the answer shall be served (20, 60, 90 days) -(b): Motion to Dismiss: authorizes as an alternative to pre-trial motion, a motion to dismiss -this helps retain valuable information, saves time/$, and may allow judge to enter an early ruling -Points and authorities have to be included w/factual support - often gets leave to amend -(c): Motion for Judgment on the pleadings -(d): Hearing requirements for motions -(e): Motion for a more definite statement -(f): Motion to Strike: for scandalous or other parts of the complaint -(g): allows for a consolidated motion -(h): Timing of raising defenses: 1. some have to be raised in 1 st appearance 2. some raised by the time of trial 3. some raised anytime before judgment Zeilinski v. Philadelphia Piers -forklift hit . Forklift was owned by Carload Contractors, not - answered complaint denying that their f-lift hit the man - thought they were denying negligence -Court said should file a more specific response, not just general denial - need to know how to prepare a proper response, and it might deny him a right to proper action Layman v. Southwestern Bell - alleges that trespassed on prop. to install cable lines - responds with easement defense which is affirmative -test for affirmative defense is whether the intends to rest his defense upon some fact not included in the allegations necessary to support the ‘s case. -most affirmative defenses need discovery, and are not usually easily dismissed IX. Amendments to Pleadings A. amendments are added as new facts come to light in a trial. B. Rule 15: 15(a): pretrial amendments: u can only amend pleading w/in 20 days -Leave to amend shall be given freely/liberally 15(b): Trial Amendments: addresses problem of varience -where proof at trial departs from the issues originally pled -court doesn‘t want to prejudice the opposing party 15(c): Relation back of amendments, SOL -SOL creates limitations to amendments -CTRO, conduct, transaction, occurrence
15(d): Supplemental Pleadings: post complaint facts Beeck v. Aquaslide - initially admitted that they did not manufacture the slide that was injured on - then sought leave to amend the answer to say that they did make it -Court granted even though ‘s objected because SOL ran on others that they could sue. -Rule 15(a): leave to amend granted liberally. -The court didn‘t want to prejudice the against a slide they didn‘t make, even though it might‘ve dispositioned the Moore v. Baker - sued doctor for failure to advise her of alternative therapy -She tried to amend her claim to add negligence -Court denied her motion to amend because it did not relate back to the original claim. (Rule 15(c)) X. Alternatives to Trial A. Alternative Adjudication -Summary Judgment -Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal -Default Judgment/Involuntary Dismissal B. Default Judgment -Rule 55(a): Entry of Default Judgment when a party ignores a complaint -Rule 55(b)(1)(2): entry can be submitted to clerk or court -party seeking default jdgmnt must show affidavit that party hasn‘t responded -helps to establish the claim quicker and easier, but often damages are not assessed. Plus people do not take the law into their own hands this way. -Rule 55(c): safety valve allows default judgment to be set aside if the answer is not given in good faith. C. Involuntary Dismissal: When sits on the complaint and doesn‘t act -Rule 60(b): allows a court to set aside default judgment in a case that involuntary negligence on the atty‘s part, fraud, or new evidence Peralta v. Heights Medical -Appelle, , sued to recover damages - never answered, and default judgment was issued - claims that he never received proper service and that it was longer than the 90 day SOL. -Court said that he had to show merit why there shouldn‘t be Summ. Judgment? -This however was wrong, he was denied Due Process, and didn‘t have to necessarily show merit Community Dental Services v. Tani -‘s atty was grossly negligent of ‘s claims - filed motion for default judgment -Court reasoned that ‘s attys were beyond his knowledge, thus no negligence and default judgment was overturned
D. Voluntary and Involuntary Dismissal -Voluntary Dismissal: dismissal w/out prejudice. can dismiss the refile the complaint again -Involuntary Dismissal: failure of the to comply w/the rules of the court. may move for dismissal. Cant refile because its treated as adjudication on the merits XI. Meditation and Coercion A. Why is mediation sometimes used: 1) to find out how much one party is willing to pay or accept 2) to make client fully aware of their settlement options 3) to give the clients a chance to tell their stories to an impartial jury, albeit non-binding 4) to see if the need for ―cover‖ is necessary B. Arbitration: a way for parties to settle w/out the court, quicker, cheaper, w/experts on issues, and w/out as strict followance of the law -Rule 16: the authority of Federal Court to order atty, parties, etc. to settlement conferences, and imposes sanctions for their refusal -Summary Jury Trial: gives parties a reality check about how much damages are likely to be Armendariz v. Foundation Health - sued for sexual harassment - filed motion to compel to arbitration that was in signed agreement -Does have to bind to arbitration? No - has better access to discovery, plus it was a FEHA claim, Title VII -in addition, court said that making pay for costs is unfair 4 basic requirements to seek vindication in court are: 1) neutral arbitrator 2) adequate discovery 3) limited judicial review 4) limitations on the costs of arbitration Lockhart v. Patel - was awarded damages for medical malpratice -At pretrial settlement conferences, ‘s insurance co. sent a low level representative to present a small $ figure that couldn‘t be negotiated -Court held in default, ordered higher level reps there -‘s reps showed up, apologized and settled Ferguson v. Writers Guild - suing for exclusive writing credits -Writers Guild has an arbitration system for disputes -Court reasoned it had no excuse to take this case. - did not exhaust his remedies (appeal to policy board), and the court has limited judicial review Engalla v. Permanente - sought separate court proceedings outside of ‘s arbitration system
- claims that according to ‘s systems, arbitrators are to be chosed w/in 30 or 60 days, and here it took much longer. -Court said this was fraudulent but not unconscionable cause they made fair effort to get unbiased arbitrators. Haas v. .San Bernardino - lost license to run message parlor - claims the ruling was exceedingly unfair, and that arbitration process is biased, sought administrative mandamus - claimed that his Due Process was denied because the county used arbitrators who were biased based on their financial stake in the proceedings -Court agreed XII. Remedies A. Damages can be $ substitute for losses suffered. Types of losses: 1) $ 2) things $ can buy (replacements): econ. losses 3) things $ cant buy: wrongful death, emotional, et -Aristotelian Rightful Position theory: trying to put in rightful position based on what was lost. -we try not to award too much as to wrongfully punish or create a windfall U.S. v. Hatahly -US seized Indians‘ horses/burros -Court awarded damages but revised because the judges as biased on ddamage awards, and some of the awards were arbitrarily gotten at w/out evidence -judges issued damages here and this proved problematic Carey v. Piphus - was suspended for smoking weed at school w/out proper Due Process - sought substantial nonpunitive damages but failed to show evidence as to why these were deserved. Nominal damages were awarded -remanded case to show that constitutional rights had been withheld, if any B. Punitive Damages -Purpose is to punish and deter future conduct Common Law Factors: 1) malice: how bad was ‘s conduct 2) How wealthy is 3) Compare to compensatory damages 4) Amount needed to deter future conduct C. 3 elements to Procedural Safeguards: 1) Jury Instructions: proper guidance how to decide awards 2) Post Trial Review 3) Appellate Review: right to challenge a jury/judicial decision D. 3 elements to Substantive Due Process: 1) How bad were ‘s acts
2) How do punitive damages relate to amount of compensatory damages 3) Punitive Damages v. Civil Penalties Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg -Honda made malfunctioning 3-wheeled vehicles that injured Oberg -Oberg got $1 mil. Compensatory, 5 mil punitive -Honda appealed ‗cause Oregon had no Judicial Review Process -reversed and remanded with instructions to adopt Judicial Review BMW v. Gore -BMW repaired cars form acid rain damage which lowered value of Gore‘s car. -Gore was awarded 4,000 comp. & 2 mil punitive! -Court found that damages were grossly excessive when only economic loss was suffered. -Dissent said that there was insufficient Const. reason for the court to take the case and it would interfere w/state authority XIII. Equitable Remedies A. Specific Relief: a way to give claimants what they want/need rather than $ 1) Substantive Merit: the part of the law that gives someone the right to equitable merit 2) Irreparable Harm: 1. Unique Items: u cant buy adequate replacement w/$ 2. Repeated acts: equity court will stop a specific harm instead of having to go to court every time 3. is insolvent: might not have $ to pay a judgment against him 4. Damages are too harm to measure: courts will grant damages order (ie intellectual property) 5. Balancing equities (hardship to vs. hardship to ) -Sigma v. Harris - sought injunctive order against ‘s new employment at a different chemical company so that wouldn‘t divulge secrets/info. -Court granted injunctive relief to based on balancing the harm it would do to both sides. would suffer business loss, but could get a job in 2 years, and the job would be readily available then. B. Attorney‘s Fees 1) flat fee 2) Hourly rate: most widely used 3) Contingent fee: used most in tort litigation 4) Value Billing: based on good work 5) Legal Aid: pro bono, public defenders C. Rule 68: Settlement offers 1) No post offer costs. cant recover the difference that was initially rejected by him. 2) Post offer atty fees are allowed, if fee shifting is allowed
D. Normal American Rule: each party pays its own atty fees, as opposed to looser paying -we don‘t want to discourage people from suing and hiring attys -creates equity for people who cant afford cases E. Fee Shifting Exceptions: 1) Statutory: Congress/Legislature authorizes fees shifting ie civil rights cases 2) Contract: parties can contract fee shifting provisions 3) Equitable: Funds for class action cases 4) Bad Faith: litigants who file frivolous lawsuits 5) Family Law: economically weaker party can recover fees -Evans. v. Jeff: - sued for injunctive relied to improve treatment of handicapped kids - made generous offer to settle and accepted it but it was w/o atty fees -court said that it wasn‘t improper to allow waiver of atty fees because the atty has an ethical duty to accept settlements on clients behalf -§ 1988 also allowed for it F. Coercive Remedies: to get a party to refrain from specific acts -Preliminary Injunction: party seeking injunction seeks a preliminary stay of order to get a party to refrain from an act -Test to see if injunction will be allowed: 1) u have to show probable merit 2) show Irreparable harm pending trial 3) Courts Balance the hardships to each party 4) Would the injunction be in the public interest -Inglis v. Continental Baking Co. - sought injunctive order to stop from cost cutting their bread prices, charged it was a monopoly. -Court initially denied the order by reasoning that will not prevail on the merits -This was reversed when the court later reasoned that the burden on the moving party is only to show that there is a fair chance of success of the merits in order to consider the injunctive relief G. Seizure Remedies: attachment and garnishment -whereby property is seized in order to protect the other party‘s rights -arises out of a need to protect property from being destroyed perhaps to get such an order u have to show: 1) Probable merit 2) Ex Parte Irreparable harm 3) Notice of hearing has to be given 4) There has to be a contract to show that the case is allowable 5) U have to show a need for attachment -Whats the difference btwn garnishment/attachment? -Attachment property is in possession of the party -Garnishment property is in possession of a 3 rd party (usually bank/employer). Repossession might also occur if so stipulated
Fuentes v. Shevin - bought some stuff w/a conditional sales K from Firestone - was late on her payments and sought order for replevin to repossess the goods - claims this violated her 14 th Amendments rights that no one shall deprive her of property w/o due process of law. -Court reasoned that this did violate 14 th Amend. -court said that a hearing must be granted first w/proper notification -Court noted though that right to be heard before possession doesn‘t guarantee that one will prevail
I.
Jurisdiction a. Personal Jurisdiction (Where a Δ can be sued) A. 2 Types 1. In Personam Jurisdiction – over the person 2. In Rem Jurisdiction – over the property B. 3 things must be Satisfied (According to Due Proces [14th] and Full Faith and Credit Clause [Article 4]) 1. Personal Jurisdiction 2. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 3. Notice (service of process) C. Historical Approach 1. Pennoyer v. Neff a. Mitchell sues Neff (non-resident of OR, not personally served) in OR; default judgment for Mitchell because Neff doesn‘t answer; sheriff seized Neff‘s land in OR; Mitchell attempts Publication notice but it wasn‘t acceptable because a court order is needed to use it. Court says this violates due process because in order to have in rem jurisdiction the property must be attached at the outset of the lawsuit i. With in rem jurisdiction, the remedy can only go as high as the property is worth b. In Personam i. Presence: personal service of process ii. Consent: general apperance iii. Domicile: permanent residence iv. Status: marriage (in divorce case) c. In rem i. Δ owns property in State at filing of lawsuit ii. Seizure of property at filing of lawsuit iii. If the first two are fulfilled, no requirement of personal service d. Pennoyer Today
i. Overruled 1. exclusive territorial limits on service of process (International Shoe) 2. presence of property (Shaffer) ii. Upheld 1. presence [Burnham] temporary residence 2. Domicile 3. Status 4. Consent [Carnival Cruises] 5. Minimum Contacts added later D. Objections to Personal Jurisdiciton (3 Options) 1. Default – if you ignore it, the court will default against you a. By defaulting, you can Collaterally Attack the validity of the judgment on Personal Jurisdiction i. This only works when moving party seeks to enforce it in a subsequent proceeding ii. This may buy time for Δ, but Δ risks giving up the right to contest the merits later down the road if you lose 2. Response on the Merits; however this consents to personal jurisdiction of the court 3. ―Special Appearance‖ a. permits the Δ to object to jurisdiction without the action of objecting being itself the basis for jurisdiction E. Modern Approach to Personal Jurisdiction 1. Minimum Contacts (Now set power test v. reasonableness test) a. Does Δ have purposeful activities in the forum state? b. Does π‘s claim relate to Δ‘s forum activities i. If both parts are satisfied, there is General Jurisdiction ii. If only one part is satisfied, there is Specific jurisdiction iii. If neither is satisfied, then there is no Jurisdiction (Hanson v. Deckla – deceased lady had established a trust fund in DE and moved to FL where she died; no minimum contacts found in unilateral activity of woman mailing forms to trustee 2. Notice F. Specific Jurisdiction (Δ has purposeful activities in forum state AND π‘s claim relates to Δ‘s forum activities) 1. International Shoe v. Washington
a. Shoe had a salesman in WA and did not pay state employment tax. Shoe was a DE corporation with its PPB in MO; Court found that there was 1) purposeful activities and 2) that the claim related. Shoe benefited from WA laws, so they should expect to be sued there i. Systematic and continuous activities of employees brought about obligations; sales activities give rise to employment tax obligations 2. McGee v. International Life Insurance a. Bought policy in CA, company in TX bought the insurance company; π sued in CA and got jurisdiction over TX company. Minimum contacts satisfied with just one policy (purposeful activity) and related claim 3. Minimum Contact Test for product Liability a. World Wide Volkswagon i. Car bought in NY gets in accident in OK; Court did not find any purposeful activities by Δ in forum state 1. lack of purposeful activities in forum state (advertising in state, distributing in state, shippin product into state, selling in state) b. Asahi v. Superior (Upstream Product Manufacturers) i. Indemnification suit between makers of tire tubes and makers of tube valve assembly company; no minimum contacts so no jurisdiction 1. under Ashai, reasonableness test can trump power test because if it is unreasonable you cannot satisfy due process 4. Power Test a. Pure Stream of Commerce i. Product manufacturers place their goods in the stream with anticipation that they may end up in the forum state b. Stream of Commerce Plus i. Still place products in stream, anticipating they may end up in forum state ii. Advertise in market iii. Design for the market
iv. More than passively allow; purposefully target the forum state 5. Reasonableness factors (Is personal jurisdiction reasonable) a. Burden on the Δ b. Π‘s interest c. Forum State‘s interest d. Interstate Judicial System (Nations Procedural policies) e. Several States (Nations Substantive policies) 6. Burger King v. Rudzewicz a. Rudy breached contract with BK by failing to make rent payments; BK [FL] sued Rudy [MI] in Fl. Rudy purposefully availed himself of the protections of FL contract law by entering into a long term deal 7. Federal Courts and Personal Jurisdiciton a. Rule 4(k) sets territorial limits of effective service b. There are rules that broaden federal court jurisdiction i. 100 miles from the courthouse; so if you are in NY this gets you into several states G. General Jurisdiction (Δ has purposeful activities in forum state) 1. Places for General Jurisdiciton a. Δ corporation state of Incorporation b. Δ corporation purposeful/primary place of business c. Δ individual in state of domicile 2. Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining a. Phillipines mining corporation working in OH during he war; π brings claim not relating to the activities in OH but their activities there were continuous and systematic so jurisdiction was permitted i. Supreme Court neither compels nor prohibits courts from exercising general jurisdiction 3. Burnham v. Superior Court a. H and W want divorce, W moves to CA. H visited kids in CA and was served; CA had jurisdiction over π due to Transient Presence i. Transient Presence – by visiting the forum state, avails himself to the benefits of that state 4. Hellicol a. Claim here is wrongful death; cause of action occurs in Peru, π sues in TX (that is where decedents live). Court holds no general jurisdiction
because Δ purposeful activities were not continuous and systematic enough to assert General jurisdiction in the forum state 5. Limits on Jurisdiction a. Washington Equipment v. Concrete Placing i. Breach of contract claim; Washington tried to say the Δ (an Idaho business) consented to jurisdiction due to state statute; court says NO general jurisdiction because the statute was not intended to confer jurisdiction and Δ purposeful activities were not continous and systematic enough b. Insurance Corp v. Bauxities i. B had arranged for business insurance, Insurance corp refused to pay; insurance corp challenged jurisdiction, court ordered discovery and Insurance corp refused. Court granted sanctions. 1. courts have jurisdiction to establish jurisdiction [can order discovery to establish jurisdiction] 2. Rule 37 acts like a rule 12 waiver 3. Personal Jurisdiciton as a Discovery Sanction a. Presumption Theory: presumes that the reason Δ is not providing discovery is because they are trying to hide something that can establish minimum contacts b. Waiver theory: refusal to comply with discovery order means that a court can impose sanction of jurisdiction 6. Consent to Jurisdiction (alternative to minimum contacts a. General appearance – just file an answer on the merits b. Appointment of a local agent – agent can take service of process for you c. Forum selection clause – contractual consent d. Waiver – 1st appearance rule violation e. Carnival Cruise v. Shute i. S bought ticket from travel company, ticket said all suits would be brought in FL; S slipped and fell, brought suit in Washington.
Court said forum selection clause should be enforced because 1) cruise line has an interest in centralizing claims 2) save the court, and litigants time and money and 3) buyers benefit from reduced prices 7. Notice – In personam – Rule 4 Timeline a. 2 Processes i. First 1. claim filed 2. summons issued 3. service within 120 days, extended for good cause 4. Δ has 20 days after service (traditional) to answer ii. Second 1. π sends/mails waiver of service to Δ 2. Δ has a reasonable time (at least 30 days) to decide to accept waiver 3. If yes, Δ has 60 days to answer if in the US, 90 if outside the US 4. if no, π has to serve Δ b. Service of Process i. Gives notice ii. Perfects personal jurisdiction iii. Satisfies service of process rules (Rule 4) c. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust i. Bank was settling trust fund, ran summons in local newspaper. Court ruled publication notice was enough for unknown beneficiaries but for those known at least mail notification was required. 1. Notice must be reasonably calculated to inform d. Dusenberry v. United States i. US was foreclosing on property owned by π. Fbi sent notice to prison where π was inmate, residence where π was arrested and home of π mom by certified mail. Mullane test applied: method of notice reasonably calculated to inform. Court held that the test was satisfied e. Rio Properties, Inc v. Rio International i. Trademark infringement case. Δ was an internet entity in costa rica. Neither the internet company nor their attorney could accept service. Court held that service by
email was appropriate because that was how Δ was used to conducting business H. In Rem Jurisdiction 1. Types of In Rem a. Pure In Rem (probate, eminent domain) i. Property (involving ii. Title (court decides) iii. All (binding on everyone in world) b. Quasi In Rem #1 (quiet title, boundary dispute, landowner‘s tort) i. Property (involving) ii. Title (major issue) iii. Some (only parties in lawsuit are bound) c. Quasi In Rem #2 (sequestration, attachment cases, no question of title) (π claim does not relate, no specific jurisdicition) i. Property (involving) ii. Attachment (you concede title, that is why you attach it) iii. Some (only parties in lawsuit are bound) 2. Shaffer v. Heitner a. [overturns pennoyer] H files a shareholder derivative suit in DE. In order to get jurisdiction over Greyhound directors, H sequesters stock (in rem property in the state of DE). Court found their holding of stock in DE do not provide contacts with DE sufficient to support jurisdiction over them; in rem jurisdiction must include minimum contacts i. Rule: minimum contacts required between owner of property and forum state for in rem jurisdiction ii. But, if you can establish minimum contacts you might as well pick in personam jurisdiction because at least then you are not limited to the value of the property iii. This makes in rem obsolete except for cases of probate or where the long arm statute won‘t allow in personam jurisdiction 3. Shaffer Exceptions a. Judgment Enforcement (pre-existing in other state) i. Creditor could attach the property of the debtor in a state where there aren‘t minimum contacts, if the creditor already had a valid judgment from a jurisdiction that had control over Δ b. Interstate Attachment (take the property and flee)
i. P could attach property in a state which Δ had taken or concealed property when there was a pending suit against D in another state that had Personal jurisdiction over him c. Jurisdiction by Necessary (nowhere else to be sued) i. If no other forum state has personal jurisdiction over Δ, then the property state may take jurisdiction over Δ‘s property b. Long Arm Statute (ability of courts to extend their authority to adjudicate) A. 2 Steps 1. Statutory jurisdiction (Long arm Statute) 2. Constitutional jurisdiction (Minimum Contacts) B. 2 Types 1. Full Reach Statutes a. Only need step 2 of analysis (Minimum Contacts) b. All constitutional jurisdiction allowed by statute 2. Specific Act Statutes a. Need both steps of analysis b. Legislation trying to contain jurisdiction here; statutory jurisdiction more limited than constitutional jurisdiction i. Specific jurisdiction only ii. More contacts required for statutory jurisdiction c. Gibbons v. Brown i. Accident between Ms. Gibbons and Mr. and Mrs. Brown. Gibbons filed lawsuit in 1995 suing Mr Brown in FL; then in 1997 Mrs. Brown filed a suit against Ms. Gibbons claiming that her minimum contacts are satisfied because she sued in FL 2 years ago. Court says not enough activities based on statutory jurisdiction C. Rule 4 1. k(1)(a) – incorporates state court jurisdiction with long arm statutes 2. k(1)(b) – if the party is served within 100 miles of courthouse 3. k(2) – if a Δ is not subject to jurisdiction in any state he can be served as to claims under federal law 4. (m) – 120 day extension after filing of complaint c. Venue (place of trial within a state, has to do with trial convenience) A. Primary general venue statute 28 U.S.C. § 1391 1. (a) – controls venue in diversity cases a. a district where any Δ resides, if all Δ‘s reside in the same state (with individuals = domicile; with
corporations = where they are subject to personal jurisdiction) b. a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occur c. a district in which any Δ is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought 2. (b) – all other civil claims that are not diversity cases a. same as 1,2 in (a) b. district in which Δ may be found if nowhere else 3. (c) – corporations have residence wherever they have minimum contacts 4. (d) – alien can be sued in any district but must satisfy personal jurisdiction B. Transfer of venue and Forum Non-Conveniens 1. Venue Transfer within the Court System (State or Federal) a. § 1404 [transfer for convenience] – district court that has proper venue can transfer to more convenient; up to courts discretion i. provides geographic transfer from one district court within the federal system to another in a different state or district b. § 1406 [transfer for improper venue] – district court without venue can transfer to proper venue c. § 1631 – transfer for lack of jurisdiction 2. Forum Non-Conveniens (dismiss the lawsuit so it can be refilled) a. If dismissed from federal court, then go to another country b. If dismissed from state court, then go to another state or country c. Piper Aircraft v. Reyno i. Plane made in PA crashed over Scotland killing Scotts. Executor in CA wanted to sue in US due to more favorable tort law. Δ moved suit from state to federal court in CA, then to PA, then had it dismissed for FNC; American interest in accident was not sufficient to justify suit in US, also it was easier in Scotland because that‘s where the evidence was 1. event though there was personal jurisdiction, forum was too inconvenient to Δ witnesses 3. Factors to Consider
a. Ease of access to proof b. Cost to witnesses c. Local interest d. Unfairness to litigants e. Avoiding conflict with other nations d. Subject Matter Jurisdiction A. Personal Jurisdiction vs. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 1. PJ a. What state b. What Δ 2. SMJ a. What court b. What claim B. Constitutional Jurisdiction 1. Article III a. Section 1 – established Supreme Court Power and gave Congress power to make lower courts b. Section 2 – limits the power of federal courts to claims arising from: i. Constitutional, federal statutes ii. Treatises iii. When the US is a party iv. Two or more state/Citizens of 2 or more states v. Between citizens and aliens 1. Cases that arise under federal law and cases between citizens of 2 different states are by far the most common cases in federal court C. Statutory Jurisdiciton [28 U.S.C. § 1331 et. Seq] (sets a higher bar than Constitutional Jurisdiction) 1. federal claim (mostly) 2. substantive rule of decision for π‘s claim [cause of action] is based on federal law a. this is assessed at the outset of trial in the well pleaded complaint 3. Statutes a. § 1331 – General Federal Question (Concurrent – meaning the same case can be filed in state court) ―case arising under the Constitution b. § 1332 – Diversity (Concurrent) diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 c. § 1333 - Admiralty (Exclusive) d. §1334 – Bankruptcy (Exclusive) D. Federal Question Jurisdiction (What does arising under mean?)
1. Louisville RR v. Mottley a. An injured couple got lifetime passes to ride railroad as settlement. Later, Congress outlaws free passes. Mottley‘s sue in federal court and allege that 1) the statute does not prohibit the use of their passes and 2) if it prohibits their pass, then it violates their due process rights (Herein, they anticipated the defense of the RR). The substantive issue that gave rise to M‘s claim was based on state law; Court rules for RR company because the substantive issue must be a federal law. Without a federal claim, no subject matter jurisdiction i. Supreme Court raised the issue of jurisdiction not the parties under Rule 12(h)(3) ii. ALWAYS CONSIDER SECTION 1983 WHEN LOOKING AT FEDERAL CLAIM iii. NOT ENOUGH TO HAVE A FEDERAL ISSUE OR FEDERAL LAW ARISE IN DEFENSE iv. In order to satisfy SMJ, the π has to have a prima facie case arising out of a fed question 2. Well Pleaded Complaint Rule a. The federal issue must be in the π‘s statement of his own claim, not from any anticipated defenses the Δ might assert b. The court can raise the defense of lack of SMJ at any time during the case according to rule 12(h)(3) E. Diversity Jurisdiction 1. Constitutional Jurisdiction a. Only minimal diversity necessary b. You can have 9 π from Az and 1 from CA against 1Δ from AZ 2. Statutory Jurisdiction a. Complete Diversity (§ 1332) i. No party on one side may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side ii. Citizenship controlled by federal law iii. Domiciliary (actual residence and intent to remain) iv. Diverse citizenship among adverse parties must be present at the time complaint is filed 1. Note, corporations have dual citizenship; their place of incorporation and their principal place of business
3. Mas v. Perry a. Husband from France and Wife from MS attending school in LA; their landlord in LA spied on them. Students regarded as temporary residents so she keeps her old domicile of MS until she establishes a new one i. Generally, after marriage, the Wife assumes the citizenship of her husband but not in this case because that would make them both foreign 4. Saadeh v. Farouki a. Π is from Greece and Δ is from Jordan but is a permanent resident of MD. Does § 1332(a) make Δ a citizen that can be sued by π? Court says NO, Δ would be construed as a citizen of MD in order to restrict jurisdiction and they wouldn‘t apply it to expand jurisdiction (said it was against the intent of the legislature) F. Amount in Controversy 1. determined at the time the complaint is filed 2. must be at least $75,000 3. Legal Certainty test – if it is clear to a legal certainty that you cannot recover at least $75,000, then you cannot being the case; if there is some doubt, then there is jurisdiction and the case proceeds to be decided on the merits 4. Where can P aggregate (combine) claims? a. Single π, single Δ b. Multiple claims, π1 and π2 vs Δ1 i. If they are common and undivided claims then the amounts can be combined c. π sues Δ on 2 claims, one for $5,000 and the other for $72,000; π can aggregate claims to meet threshold e. Supplemental Jurisdiction (broadens federal jurisdiction to include cases that wouldn‘t have fit within the district courts subject matter jurisdiction) A. Codified in § 1367 1. (a) – supplemental jurisdiction general a. Must have connectedness between pendent party state law claim and claim that is foundation for original jurisdiction (federal claim) 2. (b) – diversity limits; courts shall NOT have jurisdiction on claims against parties joined under circumstances when hearing the claim would be inconsistent with complete diversity under § 1332 3. (c) – Discretionary Factors a. Judicial Economy, Convenience and Fairness
b. State law issues new/undecided c. Federal claim dismissed d. State claim predominates e. State claim tied to federal policy f. Jury confusion g. Separate trials & State law conflicts with Fed law 4. (d) – Tolling of SoL a. When the Δ is a State that has not granted consent to lawsuit, tolling DOES NOT apply i. Raygor v. Regents of U. of Minnesota 1. 11th Amendment provided immunity where the state law claim is linked to federal question; 1367 does not apply to ADEA claims and specific state law claims B. Pendent Jurisdiction (π adds a claim and party) 1. Pendent Claim/Pendent Party a. Π joins a federal claim and a related state law claim i. The claims must be connected by a COMMON NUCLEUS OF OPERATIVE FACTS [CNOF] b. π-------Federal Question-------Δ (Original Juris.) CNOF π------State Law Claim--------Δ (Supp. Juris) c. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs i. violent dispute between mine workers and mine operator; union had the right to collectively bargain; Gibbs lost business because of mine workers strike so he sued 1. Gibbs had 2 claims against the union. 1) based on federal labor law and 2) a state claim based on tort against the boycott‘s intereference with his business 2. the claims meet the CNOF test; both address the boycott and its damage to his business. So it satisfies the necessary link. 3. if the claims would be expected to be in one judicial proceeding and assume substantiality of federal issues, then the federal court has a power to hear the whole claim d. Finley v. United States i. this was an example of adding a party to the suit; although the court found that this
was not allowed, it was later allowed under § 1367(a) C. Ancilliary Jurisdiction (when Δ joins a non-diverse Δ by joinder) 1. looks at other parties (another Δ or 3 rd party) 2. if Δ adds claims or party to lawsuit a. Rule 13 b. Rule 14 3. if 3rd party joinder a. Rule 24 b. Rule 19 4. Owen Equipment v. Kroger a. Husband killed in construction accident (electrocuted), Δ1 brings a claim against Δ2 adding them to the lawsuit under rule 14. Δ2 had not been named by π; Δ1 says if we are liable to π then Δ2 is liable to us for all or part of what we have to pay π. Π joins Δ2. Δ2 was a Nebraska corporation but since it had its principal place of business in Iowa (which is where the π was from) when Δ2 was joined complete diversity was destroyed b. π---------------------------Δ1 c. no diversity from ↓ d. π to Δ2 Δ2 f. Removal Jurisdiction A. Basic Premise 1. this allows Δ to remove the case from state court to federal court, but only if the case could have originally been filed in federal court by π B. Why do we Have Removal Jurisdiction 1. protects federal court option for the Δ 2. allows Δ to use court selection strategies a. perhaps it‘s a large corporation with deep pockets that is not a local residentand would like to escape local bias b. maybe they just want a larger jury pool C. § 1441 – Removal from State Courts 1. General Venue Requirement a. Concurrent Jurisdiction – claim brought in state court which District of US has concurrent jurisdiction b. Venue – district court where state court action is pending i. Once in federal system can move to have venue changed 2. Specific Requirements for federal question removal
a. Federal question cases may be removed anywhere, without regard to domicile b. Diversity cases are limited to removal in state where none of the parties in interest is a citizen of that state 3. Separate and Independent Claims; federal claim removal jurisdiction, if one claim is removable they all are 4. Removal against a foreign state 5. Exclusive Jurisdiction Claims – federal court removed to is not precluded from hearing a claim because the state court did not have jurisdiction over that claim D. § 1446 – Procedure for Removal 1. Δ that wants to remove sends notice to federal court containing the grounds for removal (pursuant to rule 11) 2. Timing Requirements: removal shall be filed within 30 days after service; if the pleading is amended, notice of removal shall be given within 30 days of that pleading, unless 1 year has passed since the beginning of the suit 3. Δ must given written notice of removal to all the adverse parties and the court clerk E. § 1447 – Procedure after Removal 1. confers authority to federal court to bring all parties from the state court 2. it can order Δ to bring state court records 3. motion to remand by π must be within 30 days from notice of removal; if at any time it appears as though the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded 4. appealability issues – an order remanding to state court is not appealable 5. if π seeks to join additional Δ whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny or permit the joinder F. Caterpillar v. Lewis 1. π is from KY, filed against Δ1 in DE and Δ2 in KY. Π2 enters the lawsuit from MA (liberty mutual); Δ2 later drops out of the suit and Δ1 tries to remove a. action filed in state court b. removed based on diversity citizenship c. π moved to remand, denied d. settlement with non-diverse Δ, party dismissed e. diversity of citizenship satisfied, case tried to judgment for Δ f. appeal to court of appeals; judgment vacated, no summary judgment
II.
g. supreme court grants certiorari and reverses court of appeals h. not having complete diversity at removal is NOT fatal to that removal Erie Doctrine (What Law Controls? State? Federal?) A. Approach 1. Is it Arguably Procedural? a. For an issue to be arguably procedural, the relevant rules of law have to focus on the pleading and proof process, and not on the nature of the claim b. If it is substantive, use STATE law i. State where cause of action occurs is state whose substantive law will be applied under Horizontal Choice of Law c. If it is procedural use FEDERAL law 2. Is there a conflict between State and Federal Law? 3. What is the Source of Federal Law? B. Twin Aims 1. Prevent Forum Shopping 2. Avoid inequitable administration of the law C. Cases 1. Hannah a. If the FRCP applies to this issue, and the FRCP rule is valid under the Rules Enabling Act 1) content of the rule falls within practice and procedure (procedural under rules enabling act) and 2) not substantive i. FEDERAL rule applies 2. Byrd a. Constitutional Provisions. If there are more important Federal procedural policies, such as right to jury trial under the 7th Amendment, then the federal provision takes precedence over the contrary state rule i. FEDERAL rule applies 3. Guaranty Trust a. Case law based rules. How large the jury verdict is—If the adoption of the federal procedural provision affects the outcome in that it encourages forum shopping or unequal administration of the law, the under the outcome test, state law applies. Otherwise, federal law is controlling i. STATE law applies 4. Gaspirini (state law applied) a. Judge/Jury/7th: measure of the standard/how we look at an excessive damage award (State Law), but
Decision-Maker Judge (Federal Law). Supreme Court uses Guaranty Trust as modified by Hannah outcome test and decides that the use of federal law here would likely lead to forum shopping and unequal administration of the law i. FEDERAL/STATE law applies 5. Stewart a. § 1404(a) venue of transfer. If the federal procedural law is statutory, such as 1404(a), and it applies to the case, then it will be controlling regardless of contrary state law i. FEDERAL statute applies 6. Burlington a. Recovery of cost of appeal when a frivolous appeal controls, if the federal procedural law is FRAP (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure), and if the FRAP rule applies, and it is valid under the Rules Enabling Act, then it is controlling gunder the Hanna analysis, and contrary state law will not be controlling i. FEDERAL rule applies 7. Ragan/Walker a. State statutes of limitations rule that service of process on defendant stops running of statute of limitations is controlling not FRCP rule 3 i. STATE rule applies