Federal Court Complaint Washington State by tiy18297

VIEWS: 40 PAGES: 53

More Info
									            Civil Procedure
         Professor Washington

   The Power of Procedure

   The Lottery (Fairness vs. Justice)

   In Re: Bell South (Case of Good Result Making
    Bad Law?)
The Structure of Federal Courts
   U.S. Supreme Court (court of last appeal)

   Courts of Appeal (the 13 Intermediate
    Appellate Courts)

   District Courts (federal trial court)
       GA State Court Structure
   GA Supreme Court

   GA Courts of Appeal (intermediate
    appellate court)

   GA Superior Court (trial court)
          The Litigation Process
   Pleadings & Motions
   Discovery
   Pre-trial Adjudication
   Trial
   Post-Trial Activity (e.g., appeals)
   Limits on Subsequent Litigation
           Pleadings: Initiating the Action
   Deciding whether to sue (A Civil Action)

   Personal Jurisdiction (in which state / jurisdiction should
    we file the suit?)

   Subject Matter Jurisdiction (should we file in state court
    or federal court?)

   Venue (which specific court within the jurisdiction should
    entertain the lawsuit?)

   Service of Process (did we properly notify the defendant of
    the claim against her?)

   Vertical Choice of Law Issues (i.e., Erie– should we apply
    state or federal law?)
    Hawkins v. Masters Farms Inc.
   Subject Matter Jurisdiction 28 USC 1331
    (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 USC
    1332 (complete diversity jurisdiction)

   Applicable Rule: a person is a citizen of the
    state in which he or she is domiciled;
    domicile is established by physical presence
    in a place accompanied by a manifest intent
    to remain there indefinitely (not
    permanently)
             Practice Problem
   P a student at the University of Michigan
    spent his winter vacation at his parents’
    home in Champaign, IL. While there, he
    was seriously injured in an auto accident
    with D, a lifelong resident of Champaign.

   Can P sue in Federal Ct?
   Which state can P initiate his suit in?
          Practice Question
Assume that P files his case in federal court
  in IL, which is divided into 3 districts – the
  Northern District, the Central District
  (which contains Champaign), and the
  Southern District.

On the facts where will venue be proper?
      How the Constitution Shapes
               Litigation
   Personal Jurisdiction (which forum state)
   Subject Matter Jurisdiction (which court
    state or federal)
   Choice of Law (state or federal
    jurisprudence)
               Relevant Constitutional Provisions
   Subject Matter Jurisdiction

       Art. III authorizes the establishment of the federal courts and in Sect.
        2 of that article sets the limitations of federal judicial authority

   Personal Jurisdiction

       Art. IV Sect. 1 the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that every state
        recognize and enforce judgments rendered by other state courts as
        long as said court had jurisdiction to decide the case

       14th A Section 1 (Due Process Clause) provides, “no state shall deprive
        any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law”; this
        provision of the Constitution forms the corner stone of personal
        jurisdiction

   Choice of Law:

       Art. VI (Supremacy Clause) makes federal law and the U.S.
        Constitution the supreme law of the land given priority over state laws
        and state constitutions
            Pennoyer Principles
State sovereignty / autonomy / authority
       State interest in property and persons within its
       territory

       Comity Principle
             Anti-usurption Doctrine

       Reciprocity / Mutuality Doctrine (relationship b/t
       States and    citizens of the State)

Full Faith and Credit

D’s Due Process Entitlements
                 Practice Q
   A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns
    some land. A serves B in ND. B moves to
    dismiss the MN action for lack of personal
    jurisdiction. What result?
             Practice Q
A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns
some land. A serves B in ND. B defaults
and the court enters judgment against her.
A takes the judgment to ND to enforce. B
appears at the enforcement proceeding and
argues that the judgment is invalid and
should not be enforced. What result?
             Practice Q
A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns
some land. A serves B while B is traveling
on business in MN. B moves to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction. What result?
            Practice Q
A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns
some land. A serves B while B is traveling
on business in MN. B defaults. A recovers
a default judgment, which he then takes to
ND to enforce. B appears at the
enforcement proceeding and argues that the
judgment is invalid and should not be
enforced. What result?
             Practice Q
A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns
some land. A attaches B’s land in MN and
obtains a judgment against B. A then seeks
to have the land sold to satisfy the
judgment. B sues to enjoin the sale, arguing
that the court lacked jurisdiction over her
or her land b/c she was not personally
served. What result?
            Practice Q
A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns
some land. Without attaching B’s land, A
serves B by publication, obtains a default
judgment and sues to enforce that judgment
in ND. B appears at the enforcement
proceeding and objects. What result?
                 Practice Q
   A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN where B owns
    some land for divorce. A notifies B in ND.
    B’s lawyer moves to dismiss challenging
    personal jurisdiction. What result?
                 Practice Q
   A (MN) sues B (ND) in MN, where B owns
    some land, for divorce, child support, and
    alimony. A notifies B in ND. B’s lawyer
    moves to dismiss challenging personal
    jurisdiction. What result?
             Practice Q
A attempts to serve B while B is on a fishing
trip on the MN-WI border. B moves to
dismiss the MN suit, claiming she was
served in WI. B loses the motion to dismiss.
A then gets a judgment and sues on the
judgment in ND. B appears at the
enforcement proceeding and argues that the
MN judgment should not be enforced b/c
the MN court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction. What result?
        The Mechanics of Challenging
            Personal Jurisdiction

   Collateral Attack

   Filing a pre-answer motion pursuant to 12(b)(2)

   Filing an answer containing a challenge to
    personal jurisdiction

   Special Appearance
             Practice Q
P files a complaint and the D files a
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The motion is
denied and D then files a 2nd motion, this
time pursuant to 12(b)(2). What result?
             Practice Q
P files a complaint and the D files a
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The motion is
denied and D then files an answer
containing both a defense on the merits
and a 12(b)(2) challenge. What result?
             Practice Q
P files a complaint and the D answers the
complaint including in her answer a
12(b)(2) challenge. What result?
             Practice Q
P files a complaint and the D files a
12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. The motion is
denied and D then files a 2nd motion, this
time pursuant to 12(b)(2). What result?
             Practice Q
P files a complaint and the D files a 12(f)
motion to strike scandalous allegations
from the complaint. The motion is denied
and D then files a 2nd motion, this time
pursuant to 12(b)(2). What result?
             Practice Q
P files a complaint and the D files a
motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C.
1404. The motion is denied and D then
files a 2nd motion, this time pursuant to
12(b)(2). What result?
4 Ways to Establish Personal Jurisdiction

   Specific Jurisdiction (Sovereign Power;
    Constitutional Basis)

   General Jurisdiction (Presence)

   Consent (forum selection clauses)

   Notice (service of process)
    The Evolution of Personal Jurisdiction
               Jurisprudence
   Hess v. Pawloski (1927) (echoes Pennoyer’s
    Reciprocity / Mutuality Doctrine)

   Milliken v. Meyer (1940) (emphasizes the
    concept of “responsibilities of state
    citizenship” and characterizes Due Process in
    terms of traditional notions of fair play and
    substantial justice)
       The Modern Personal
      Jurisdiction Framework

International Shoe (1945) changed the principle
personal jurisdiction inquiry from, “is it there?”
(Pennoyer) to “is it fair?”

Personal Jurisdiction Standards / Considerations:
consistent and systematic contacts; minimum contacts
w/ the state; notions of fair play and substantial
justice; reasonableness; state interests; state
sovereignty; inconvenience to the D
   General Jurisdiction (a broader grant of
    jurisdiction which allows D to be sued
    without regard to subject matter of the
    law suit)

   Specific Jurisdiction (a narrower grant of
    jurisdiction which requires a nexus
    between D’s in state activities and subject
    matter of law suit)
             Practice Q
A truck loaded with shoes, owned by Int’l
Shoe and driven by a Shoe employee,
traveled through WY on its way to
Washington. While in WY, the truck
collided with a truck driven by a rancher,
who was injured in the accident. The
rancher filed suit vs. Shoe in WY alleging
negligence of the Shoe driver. Is personal
jurisdiction satisfied?
             Practice Q
A truck loaded with shoes, owned by Int’l
Shoe and driven by a Shoe employee,
traveled through WY on its way to
Washington. While in WY, the truck
collided with a truck driven by a rancher,
who was injured in the accident. A former
Shoe employee residing in WY, who used
to work at the Missouri headquarters files
suit alleging wrongful discharge in WY
court. Is personal jurisdiction satisfied?
               Practice Q
A truck loaded with shoes, owned by Int’l Shoe
and driven by a Shoe employee, traveled
through WY on its way to Washington. While in
WY, the truck collided with a truck driven by a
rancher, who was injured in the accident. A
former Shoe employee residing in WY, who used
to work at the Missouri headquarters files suit
alleging wrongful discharge in Missouri court. Is
personal jurisdiction satisfied? What if the suit
was initiated in DE?
                Practice Q
A truck loaded with shoes, owned by Int’l Shoe and
driven by a Shoe employee, traveled through WY on
its way to Washington. While in WY, the truck
collided with a truck driven by a rancher, who was
injured in the accident. The rancher owns some shares
of Shoe bonds on which the corporation has failed to
pay interest when due. The rancher files suit vs. Shoe
in WY alleging negligence of the Shoe driver and for
the unpaid interest. Assume there is personal
jurisdiction for the personal injury claim. Is there
personal jurisdiction for the claim seeking the bond
interest?
            Review of Shoe
   General Jurisdiction

   Substantial Contacts (legal term)
   Domicile of Individual
   State of Incorp or PPB for Corporations
   Proper Notice
                     Review of Shoe
   Specific Jurisdiction

       Minimum contacts: Nature and Quality of Action (continuous,
        systematic, persistent, frequency, quantity etc. . .)

       Due Process Considerations (fairness, reasonableness, justice,
        inconvenience to D)

       State interest (protecting its citizens, governing certain
        industries and enterprises that affect the well being of its
        citizenry, sovereignty, providing its citizens with a forum w/in
        which to resolve disputes)

       Nexus Requirement: Substantive nexus b/t claims-and in state
        activity that satisfies minimum contacts test

       Proper notice
           Does the Shoe Fit?
   McGee v. International Life Ins. Co (S. Ct.
    1957)

   What is the Shoe consideration that the
    court emphasizes in reaching its decision?

   Does this opinion expand or contract the
    jurisdictional authority of states?
          Does the Shoe Fit?
   Hanson v. Denckla (S. Ct. 1958)

   What is the Shoe consideration that the
    court emphasizes in reaching its decision?

   Does this opinion expand or contract the
    jurisdictional authority of states?
           How Does Shoe Fit?
   Shoe left the following two inquiries
    unanswered:

       1) How does the minimum contacts / fair play
        and substantial justice framework apply to
        individuals?

       2) Does the Shoe framework apply to in-
        personam and in-rem actions?
             Pennoyer Persists
   Harris v. Balk (1905)

       Holding: a state can acquire jurisdiction over
        persons whenever their debtors were present
        in the state by “attaching” the debts. The
        result is to make creditors liable to the extent
        of amounts owed them in any state in which
        the debtors set foot.
          Does the Shoe Fit?
   Shaffer v. Heitner (S. Ct. 1977)

   What is the Shoe consideration that the
    court emphasizes in reaching its decision?

   Does this opinion expand or contract the
    jurisdictional authority of states?
 Overview of Personal
Jurisdiction Landscape
                Pennoyer (1877)
Base line case: The actual holding in the case could be
said to contract state jurisdictional authority, but the
broad principles espoused in the case advocate for more
expansive jurisdictional reach.

Articulates a distinction b/t in rem and in personam
cases

Key inquiry: “Is it there?”

Emphasizes state interest in persons and things found
within a state’s territory and the protection the newly
enacted Due Process Clause provides to defendants
          Harris v. Balk (1905)
   expands forum state jurisdictional
    authority by applying the “Pennoyer
    property principle” to include debt as
    property
             International Shoe (1945)
   expands state jurisdictional authority

   Announces “Minimum Contacts Test” (nature, quality
    and character of contacts with the state)

   Fair Play and Substantial Justice / Due Process
    Considerations (fairness, reasonableness, justice)

   Adopted Specific Jurisdiction / General Jurisdiction
    Framework

   Nexus requirement b/t claim and contacts

   Key inquiry: “Is it fair?”
                    McGEE (1957)
   expands forum state jurisdictional authority

   Uses Minimum Contacts test

   Broadens application of DP Considerations to consider
    changes in modern transportation, technology and
    communications

   Emphasizes state interest

   Considered to have established a high water mark for
    states’ jurisdictional reach
                 HANSON (1958)
   contracts forum state jurisdictional authority

   Symbiotic / mutuality requirement to satisfy
    minimum contacts and Due Process; unilateral
    activity is not sufficient to satisfy the Minimum
    Contacts test

   Adds purposeful availment to framework which
    echoes the mutuality principle considered in
    Pennoyer
                    SHAFFER 1977
   contracts forum state jurisdictional authority

   Announces that the Minimum Contacts Test applies to
    in-rem, quasi-in rem and in personam claims

   doesn’t make property within the forum state irrelevant
    but considers its relevance within the context of the
    minimum contacts framework as a contact with the
    forum state

   Considers plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient
    and effective relief (i.e., availability of a forum)
World-Wide Volkswagen (1980)
             World-Wide Volkswagen
   contracts forum state jurisdictional authority

   Distinguishes b/t forseeability and notice (i.e., reasonable
    expectation / reasonable anticipation)

   considers purposeful availment (intentionally directing one’s
    product into the stream of commerce)

   holding avoids an outcome inconsistent with a free market and
    that would have an adverse impact on interstate commerce

   unilateral act of P’s not sufficient to est. minimum contacts
    (echoes Hanson)
Asahi (1987)
                        Asahi (1987)
   contracts forum state’s jurisdictional authority

   Seems to separate minimum contacts from considerations of fair
    play and substantial justice and balance them vs. each other

   Purposeful availment

   Mere awareness does not satisfy minimum contacts

   Considers P’s interest in resolving dispute

   Considers State’s interest in resolving dispute

   Considers Implications for international relations

   Unilateral action is not sufficient to establish minimum contacts

								
To top