Basic Civil Procedure Outline PDF

Preview

Summary

BCP Outline...

Description

Prof. Adam Crepelle – Basic Civil Procedure – SULC, Fall 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal Jurisdiction “Can the plaintiff sue the defendant in this state?” The court must have power over the defendant. Personal jurisdiction comes in 3 forms: (1) In personam jurisdiction – The court has power over the defendant himself because the defendant lives in the state, consented to jurisdiction in the state, done something in the state, or otherwise has some connection with that forum (ex. served with process there, submitted a product there, etc.) (2) In rem jurisdiction – The court has power over the defendant’s property because he owns or controls property in that state. (3) Quasi in rem jurisdiction – The courts have personal jurisdiction over defendants in these types of cases if the requisite property is seized by the plaintiff at the outset of the trial. In addition to the statutory and Constitutional analyses, the defendant must receive sufficient notice of the pending lawsuit in order for personal jurisdiction to be exerted.  Rule 4(k): Territorial Limits of Effective Service.  (1) In General. Serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant: (A) who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located; (B) who is a party joined under Rule 14 or 19 and is served within a judicial district of the United States and not more than 100 miles from where the summons was issued or; (C) when authorized by a federal statute.  (2) Federal Claim Outside State-Court Jurisdiction. For a claim that arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if: (A) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction and; (B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws (International Shoe).  The due process clause of the Constitution requires personal jurisdiction over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 1.) In Personam Jurisdiction  In personam jurisdiction will always be either general or specific.  With general in personam jurisdiction, the defendant can be served in the state in question based on activities stemming from anywhere in the world. In order for courts to exert general jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must be either (1) domiciled in the forum state or (2) have continuous, systematic, and substantial contacts with the forum state.  With specific in personam jurisdiction, the defendant is being served on a specific claim that arises in the forum.  District courts follow the forum state’s “long-arm statute” in order to exert personal jurisdiction over a defendant domiciled outside of the state. Each state has a governing long-arm statute.  Most states have statutes granting their courts in personam jurisdiction in the following four situations: o (1) When the D is present in the forum state and personally served with process; o (2) When the D is domiciled in the forum state o (3) When the D consents to jurisdiction; and o (4) When D committed acts bringing D within the forum state’s long-arm statutes.  Federal courts must conduct the analysis found in the state’s long-arm statute, conduct the Constitutional analysis (minimal contacts and fairness), and compare the two before invoking personal jurisdiction.  Pennoyer v. Neff – 4 original bases for specific jurisdiction: (1) Physical presence during trial;









 

 



(2) Domiciled in the forum state; (3) Consent to jurisdiction in the forum state and; (4) Property attached at the time that the suit is filed. Hess v. Pawloski – By driving into a state, you consent to jurisdiction over any claims arising from your operation of the motor vehicle in question and appoint an agent (usually a state officer, such as the Registrar of Motor Vehicles) for service of process. International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington – Expands the Pennoyer bases to consider Constitutional limitations; Jurisdiction exists if the defendant has sufficient minimal contacts with the forum that exerting personal jurisdiction “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (openended and amorphous) To determine relevant minimal contacts, there must be: (1) purposeful availment – the defendant solicited business in the state, thereby purposefully invoking the laws and benefits of the state and; (2) foreseeability that the defendant could get sued in the forum through its minimal contacts in the state. Calder effects test – Even if the defendant does not set foot in the forum state, a targeted effect caused in the forum state can constitute purposeful availment, due to the state’s interest in providing a forum for litigation. Assuming there are minimal contacts, the courts then assess relatedness. Does the plaintiff’s claim arise from the defendant’s contact with the forum? If yes, then the court has specific in personam jurisdiction over the defendant. If no, then jurisdiction is only possible with general in personam jurisdiction, so the defendant must be domiciled within the forum. Finally, personal jurisdiction must be assessed on grounds of fairness. This only applies in specific in personam jurisdiction cases. Fairness factors: (1) Burden on the defendant (very difficult to prove); (2) The forum state’s interest in the litigation; (3) The plaintiff’s interest in litigation within the forum state; (4) The legal system’s interest in promoting interstate efficiency and; (5) The legal system’s interest in promoting shared interstate policy interests. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz – The burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the forum is “so gravely inconvenient” that they are at a major disadvantage, but this is incredibly difficult to prove. Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court – In terms of products liability, there is a “stream of commerce” with 2 prevailing theories: (1) (Justice Brennan) If products are added to the “stream of commerce,” can the defendant reasonably anticipate that the product will flow to states that the defendant has no relevant contacts with? (2) (Justice White) In addition to the prior theory, did the defendant specifically target the market of the forum state? Forum selection clauses are always presumptively valid.

2.) In Rem and Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction  Long-arm statutory analyses are only related to in personam jurisdiction.  In rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction are related in terms of the attachment statute (which every state has) in which the property in question is seized at the outset of the trial to grant jurisdiction to the forum.  In rem jurisdiction is power over the defendant’s property, but not the defendant himself. In rem jurisdiction gives courts the power to adjudicate the rights of all persons to a particular item or property.  Quasi in rem jurisdiction is power over the value of the defendant’s property and, by extension, the defendant himself.  Types of quasi in rem jurisdiction: (1) Courts adjudicate the rights of parties in property based on the property’s presence in the forum. The close connection between the case and the property provides the minimal contacts or;

(2) The plaintiff attaches the requisite property to bring the defendant into the forum on a claim unrelated to that property. However, the defendant must have minimal contacts with the forum.

The (Limited) Subject Matter Jurisdiction of Federal Courts 1.) "Federal Question" Jurisdiction  Constitution Article III, Section 2 - "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."  28 U.S.C. § 1331 - "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil action arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 2.) The "creation" test and the "well pleaded complaint" rule  Ex, Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley- As part of a previous settlement, plaintiffs were given lifetime passes be defendant. After the passes were given, a federal law was passed that outlawed free passes, so the railroad quit honoring them. Plaintiff brought claim in federal court in anticipation of the railroad using the federal law as a defense. Both parties were citizens of Kentucky. The federal court dismissed the claim on the basis of no subject matter jurisdiction, as the original claim does not "arise under" the Constitution.  The federal question must be the original cause of action, not an anticipated defense.  Whenever it appears by suggestion by one of the parties or the court that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the action will be dismissed. Holmes Creation Test: (1) Federal law must create the plaintiffs claim and; (2) Federal law must also create a cause of action for the claim. Well-pleaded complaint rule – For the purposes of determining whether federal question jurisdiction exists, the court will consider only those aspects of the complaint that are "essential to the claim." The federal question must arise within the original complaint; It can not be pleaded or amended to the claim later on. 3.) "Diversity of Citizenship" Jurisdiction Basis for Diversity SMJ  Constitution Article III Section 2 gives the outer boundary for federal jurisdiction for diverse parties. "controversies between two or more States; between a State and a citizen of another State; between Citizens of different states; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign states, Citizens or Subjects"  State = a US State, state = sovereign outside of the US  U.S.C. § 1332 - The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest or costs, and is between: o § 1332(a)(1) Citizens of different states o § 1332(a)(2) Citizens of a State and citizens of a foreign state o § 1332(a)(3) Citizens of different states and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties o § 1332(a)(4) A foreign state as a plaintiff and citizens of s State or of different states Complete Diversity Rule – No plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant. 4.) Establishing the citizenship of the parties  Citizenship is determined by federal law, not state law  Diversity of citizenship must be present when the complaint is filed  The burden of proof is on the party invoking federal jurisdiction 

Ex. Mas v. Perry - Mr. and Mrs. Mas bring an action against Perry, their former landlord, for spying on them through two-way mirrors in their bedroom and bathroom. Claim was brought in federal court pursuant to diversity SMJ. Perry was a citizen of LA, Mr. Mas was a citizen of

France, while Mrs. Mas’ citizenship is more problematic. She was born in MS, attended school at LSU, married in MS, returned to LSU, then moved temporarily to IL, with intentions of moving back to MS. The federal court held that diversity jurisdiction exists. 

Citizenship of an individual under federal law is determined by two factors: (1) The individual must be a citizen of the US and; (2) The individual must be a domicile of the state.



Domicile is defined as a "true, fixed, and permanent home and principle establishment with intentions to return or remain there." Domicile can only be changed by (1) Taking up residence in a different domicile and; (2) Intention to remain there for the "foreseeable future."





Diversity of citizenship must be present at the time of filing. Domicile is unaffected if it changes after the suit is filed.

Determining Citizenship of Business Entities  Business entities are artificial persons under the law.  Corporations:  Separates the business activities from one's personal activities; limited liability for the owners.  Corporations are established through state incorporation laws, usually involving filing papers with the state, and the state recognizing that the papers are valid  Corporations are immortal, the ownership can change, but the corporation never expires  Corporations can have multiple jurisdictions U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) - "A corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principle place of business." Total Activity Test for Determining the Domicile of Business Entities  Includes the "place of activity" test and the "nerve center" test  The nerve center is where the officers direct, control, and coordinates all activities without regard to locale.  The place of activity is where the bulk of the activities take place, not where management is determined. Non Incorporated Businesses  Citizenship is derived from the citizenship of the owners. Multiple citizenship is common.  Each partner is jointly or severally liable. 5.) Determining the amount in controversy  In addition to proving diversity of the parties, §1332 require the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000.  This amount does not include legal interest or attorney's fees, or any additional damages. The amount in controversy must be on the face of the complaint.  The amount in controversy is the amount the plaintiff seeks, not the amount actually recovered. Aggregation o o

1 plaintiff w/ two or more related/unrelated claims against 1 defendant may aggregate claims to satisfy the statutory amount. If 2 plaintiffs each have claims against 1 defendant, they may not aggregate the claims if they are regarded as “separate and distinct.”

o

o

If 1 plaintiff has a claim in excess of the statutory amount and the 2nd plaintiff has a claim in excess of the statutory amount, both against the same defendant, the plaintiffs can sue in federal court. In situations involving multiple plaintiffs/defendants with a common undivided interest in the same cause of action, the total value of the claims will determine the statutory amount.

6.) Supplemental Jurisdiction  U.S.C. § 1367(a) - Except where expressly provided otherwise by statute, the district court shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III. Such jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.  Supplemental jurisdiction only applies when the courts are otherwise unable to exercise federal question or diversity jurisdiction over a given claim.  The claims must arise from “a common nucleus of operative fact” in order for the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.  If courts are unable to exercise federal question jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, or supplemental jurisdiction over any of the claims, those claims are dismissed.  If the dismissed claims cause the amount in controversy to fall below $75,000, the case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  (SEE “JOINDER” SECTION) U.S.C. § 1367(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction over: o claims by plaintiffs against defendants made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; o claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19; or o persons seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules,  when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of diversity jurisdiction.  U.S.C. §1367(c) Restates Gibbs factors for when to deny supplemental jurisdiction: (1) the claim raises novel or complex issues of state law (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction (4) in exceptional circumstances (courts have extreme discretion to, essentially, rule however they see fit). 

U.S.C. §1367(d) Should the state claim be dismissed from federal court, the statute of limitations will not run until the dismissal.

7.) “Removal" of cases from state to federal court  28 U.S.C. § 1441 - Except as otherwise expressly provided, any civil action brought in State court of which the district courts of the US have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the US for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending..." o o o o

In layman’s terms, the defendant can second guess the plaintiff and remove certain cases from state to federal court. The rationale is that both parties should have a right to choose federal courts for cases with federal jurisdiction. Once removed, the state court loses jurisdiction over the case. Defendant cannot remove on basis of jurisdiction if he is sued in his own state; The only exception is federal question jurisdiction.

o o

Removal must be from state court to federal court in the same state. The whole suit must be removed, not individual claims.

Venue 1.) Original Venue  When a case is filed, venue rules govern which courts within the system are sufficiently related to the parties or to the dispute such that they will serve as a convenient and sensible forum in which to litigate a case. The next step after finding whether a federal court is able to exercise jurisdiction over the case is to choose a proper forum that fits within the particular federal district as well as the conditions under which an action may be transferred from one venue to another or dismissed altogether when the preferred venue lies outside of the federal system.



U.S.C. § 1391(b) - A civil action may be brought in:

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated or; (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. 

 

For example, if all defendants reside in State A, but a substantial part of the events underlying the action occurred in State B, then the venue would be proper in any federal judicial district within those two states. In this scenario, the plaintiff may choose any of the proper venues as long as the court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants. This is known as forum shopping, a strategic move intended to select the most advantageous venue for litigation. § 1391(b)(3) is a fallback provision that permits venue in any district having personal jurisdiction over any defendant if there is no other district in which the action can be brought. If a state has multiple judicial districts, the venues are limited to the district in which the parties or events subsided.

3.) Pendant Venue  When a plaintiff asserts multiple claims in an action, venue must be proper for each of these claims. However, some courts have recognized an exception in the doctrine of pendent venue, in which the venue will be proper with respect to an improperly venued claim if the claim is joined to a properly venued claim and the claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact.  Generally, courts do not require an independent assessment of venue for co...