Civil Procedure Outline PDF

Preview

Summary

Outline for Civil Pro....

Description

Civil Procedure Outline______________________________________ Table of Contents:

Unit I: Jurisdiction and Choosing the Proper Court Personal Jurisdiction -Pennoyer v. Neff -International Shoe v. State -Long Arm Statutes -World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson -Burger King Corp. v. Rudezewicz -Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court -J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro -Young v. New Haven Advocate -Burnham v. Superior Court -Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute Subject Matter Jurisdiction -Mas v. Perry -Del Vecchio v. Conseco -Osborn v. Bank of the United States -Lousiville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley -Grable v. Darue Engineering -Rose v. Giamatti -United Mine Workers v. Gibbs Venue -Piper Aircraft v. Reyno -Forum non conveniens The Erie Doctrine -Rules of Decision -Swift v. Tyson -Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins -The Erie Doctrine 1

Unit II: Pleading Pleading Standard: -Swierkiewicz v. Sorema -Conley v. Gibson -Bell Atlantic v. Twombly -Ashcroft v. Iqbal Amending the Complaint: -Beeck v. Aquaslide -Krupski v. Costa Cruise -Worthington v. Wilson Service of the Complaint: -Rio Properties v. Rio International Denials: - Zielinksi v. Philadelphia Piers Sanctions: -Hadges v. Yonkers Defenses: -FRCP 12

Unit III: Adding Claims and Parties Joinder -U.S. v. Heyward-Robinson -Mosley v. General Motors -Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio LLC -MasterCard v. Visa

Unit IV: Discovery Discovery -Cormack v. U.S -Hickman v. Taylor -Poole ex rel Elliot v. Textron

Unit V: Disposition Disposition Without Trial 2

-Colleton v. Hoover -CompuServe v. Saperstein -Olson v. Alick -In re Atlantic Pipe -Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

Unit VI: The Buffalo Creek Disaster

3

Unit I: Jurisdiction____________________________________________________________

Personal Jurisdiction: I.

II.

Personal Service: a. Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) i. Background and Historical Context: 1. The Civil War had just ended and the notion of state’s rights were highly contested during the war. 2. The Supreme Court was afraid of upsetting citizens by utilizing the 14th Amendment as a way to clearly define state’s rights. 3. The Supreme Court’s intent was to appear neutral, given their fear of the rest of the country. 4. Pennoyer v. Neff was the first decision to invoke the 14th Amendment and Due Process Clause in order to protect Neff, a wealthy white land owner. a. This was controversial because the South was angered by the creation of the 14th Amendment, which was created for freed slaves. 5. Mitchell was highly unethical and later bribed his way into the Senate ii. Procedural History: 1. Neff sued Pennoyer and a special verdict was given in favor of Neff 2. Pennoyer appealed to the Supreme Court iii. Facts: 1. J.H. Mitchell represented Neff in a legal dilemma regarding the purchase of Oregon land while Neff was a citizen of California 2. Mitchell sued Neff in Oregon State Court for failure to pay him attorney’s fees 3. Neff was never personally notified of the suit in California and thus never showed up to court 4. Mitchell was allowed to post notice in a religious magazine that only circulated in Oregon 5. Mitchell took Neff’s land, let the sheriff auction it off to him, and then sold it to Pennoyer. 6. Neff then sued Pennoyer years later to gain his property back b. Rule: i. No person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court unless they voluntarily appear in court or are personally served. Service by publication is not enough. ii. Service by publication may be effective for proceedings in rem (regarding property) but not for in personam jurisdiction. iii. States have no power over nonresidents who own no land in the state. iv. In order to have personal jurisdiction: Neff needed to be domiciled, given consent to the Oregon jurisdiction, and have been personally served. Route to Personal Jurisdiction: Minimum Contacts a. International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945) i. Facts: 1. International Shoe Co. deliberately constructed a scheme to avoid paying taxes in Washington. 2. International Shoe was incorporated in Delaware and the principal place of business was in Missouri 4

3. The company hired agents to conduct sales- which were not concluded in Washington (Salesmen only had one shoe of a pair so as not to be personally selling shoes in the state). 4. Commissioner of Washington served a notice of assessment upon a salesman in Washington state and mailed notice to Missouri office, attempting to collect money that was supposed to have been paid to the state unemployment fund. 5. International Shoe claimed that because they were not incorporated in Washington, was not an employer in Washington, and did not have an office in Washington- the state court did not have jurisdiction ii. Issue: 1. Does the Due Process Clause allow for a defendant, who has activities in a state but is not incorporated there, to be amenable to personal jurisdiction in state court proceedings? iii. Rule: 1. A state may subject a corporation to personal jurisdiction where the corporation has such minimum contacts with the state as to make it reasonable to require the corporation to defend a suit there. 2. A corporation is deemed to be present in a state for jurisdiction purposes if the activities of the corporation are continuous and systematic. 3. It is not unduly burdensome to subject a corporation that enjoys the benefits and privileges of a state to jurisdiction. 4. Presence in a forum state does NOT matter- minimum contacts to the forum do. iv. Long Arm Statutes: 1. New York: a. Involves sections within the Due Process Clause b. Personal Jurisdiction Over non-Domiciliaries when: i. The ∆ transacts business with the forum state ii. The ∆ commits a tort within the forum state iii. The ∆ commits a tort outside of the forum state to the ∏ who is a citizen of the forum state iv. The ∆ owns, uses, or possesses any real property in the forum state 2. Rhode Island: a. Fullest extent of the Due Process Clause b. Personal Jurisdiction over non-Residents & Foreign Corp. when: i. Minimum Contacts b. Test for Personal Jurisdiction: i. Federal Analysis: 1. Domicile: Is the ∆ residing in the forum state? If yes, then personal jurisdiction is allowed. If no, move on to next question. 2. Consent: Did the ∆ consent to jurisdiction in the forum state? If yes, then personal jurisdiction is allowed. If no, move on to next question. 3. Present: Is the ∆ currently present in the forum state? If yes, then personal jurisdiction is allowed. If no, move on to next question. 4. Minimum Contacts: Has the ∆ exercised minimum contacts in the forum state? If yes, then personal jurisdiction depending on the type of minimum contacts. If no, there is no personal jurisdiction. c. Types of Minimum Contacts: 5

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

No contact (See World Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson) Casual contact ( Single significant contact (See Burger King v. Rudzewicz) Continuous and systematic (See International Shoe v. Washington) Substantial and pervasive (Ex. Dealership in state for ten years that hires hundreds of citizens, etc.) d. Balancing Test from Asahi: 1. ∆ inconvenience 2. Forum state’s interest 3. ∏ interest 4. Efficiency 5. Several state’s interest in upholding social policies e. World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) i. Facts: 1. Husband and wife (the Robinsons) purchased a car from Seaway (retail dealer) in New York while they were still residents of the state. 2. The family left New York to move to Arizona and were involved in a crash in Oklahoma. 3. Mrs. Robinson and the two children were severely burned so they initiated a strict liability claim against World Wide (regional distributer) and Seaway. 4. Other claims were settled but Seaway and World Wide claimed Oklahoma had no personal jurisdiction over them because they have no business is Oklahoma. a. World Wide is incorporated in New York and distributes parts to New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. b. Seaway is incorporated in New York. 5. Woodson is the district judge of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, whom World Wide and Seaway sought a writ of prohibition against, claiming they had no minimum contacts in Oklahoma. ii. Issue: 1. Is foreseeability alone sufficient to authorize a state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant that has no contacts, ties, or relations with the forum state? (No). iii. Rule: 1. World Wide conducted no business in Oklahoma, thus is was unreasonable for them to expect to be haled to court in Oklahoma. 2. World Wide had no contacts, ties, or relations to the forum state. 3. Foreseeability is NOT the likelihood of location, but the conduct and connection to the state that would cause the defendant to reasonably expect being haled to court there. 4. No minimum contacts- No personal jurisdiction. iv. Minimum Contacts Type: No contact. f. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) i. Facts: 1. Rudzewicz and MacShara jointly applied for a Burger King franchise in Detroit. 2. Burger King is headquartered in Miami, FL. 3. Eventually, the defendants fell behind on payments and Burger King terminated their franchise. 6

4. The defendants continued to run the franchise under the guise of a real Burger King. 5. Burger King sued and the defendants claimed there was no personal jurisdiction. ii. Issue: 1. Does a ∆ have to purposefully avail himself to the forum state in order to be subject to personal jurisdiction? (Yes). iii. Rules: 1. Although the ∆ did not have ties to Florida and did not maintain any Florida offices, he deliberately negotiated with and finalized a deal with a corporation in Florida. 2. Any franchise fees were sent to Florida 3. The ∆ knew he was affiliating himself with an organization based in Florida and he might be haled to court in that state. 4. The contract that the ∆ signed acknowledged that Burger King headquarters in Miami regulated the franchise. 5. It is not unreasonable to grant Florida personal jurisdiction. 6. Purposeful Availment: The ∆ purposefully availed himself to the forum state through the contract. This also can apply to any person or corporation that targets a specific state. iv. Minimum Contact Type: Single significant contact g. Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California (1987): i. Facts: 1. Gary Zurcher lost control of his Honda motorcycle and the crash resulted in the death of his wife. 2. Zurcher filed a product liability action against Cheng Shin (the Taiwanese manufacturer of the tube to the tire). 3. Cheng Shin filed a cross-complaint seeking indemnification from Asahi Metal Industry (the Japanese manufacturer of the tube’s valve assembly). 4. Asahi claimed that the state of California did not have personal jurisdiction over it. 5. Asahi is located in Japan and sells tire valve assemblies to Cheng Shin and other companies. 6. Asahi claims that it never contemplated that its limited sales to Cheng Shin in Taiwan would subject them to lawsuits in California. ii. Issue: 1. Does a foreign business’s awareness that its products will reach a forum state within the United State in the stream of commerce satisfy the minimum contacts needed for personal jurisdiction? (No). iii. Rules: 1. Under the Due Process Clause, the fact that it is foreseeable that a product will enter a state through the stream of commerce does NOT create personal jurisdiction 2. A defendant must purposefully avail themselves toward the forum state to create minimum contacts (See Burger King v. Rudzewicz) 3. Placing a product in the stream of commerce is not an act that is purposefully directed toward the forum state. a. Additional actions are needed to satisfy due process: 7

i. ii. iii. iv.

Catering to the market Advertising Directing communications to consumers Or contracting third parties to sell the product within the forum state 4. Balancing Test: a. The ∆ burden: Asahi’s burden in traveling to the United States is significant b. The forum state’s interest: The plaintiff is not a California resident, so California’s legitimate interests are considerably diminished. c. The ∏ interest: Cheng Shin has not shown that litigation in Taiwan or Japan would be more difficult. d. Efficient resolution of controversies: Foreign nationals should resolve their controversies in their own countries e. Substantive social policies: The possibility of being haled into a foreign court as a result of an accident in that country creates a fear of being subject to application of the country’s foreign tort law. h. J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. V. Nicastro (2011) i. Facts: 1. Nicastro’s fingers were cut off by a metal-shearing machine manufacturer by McIntyre. 2. The injury occurred in New Jersey, but the machine was manufactured in England, where McIntyre is incorporated. ii. Issue: 1. For a defendant to be subject to a State’s personal jurisdiction, must it purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws? (Yes) 2. Does the New Jersey court have jurisdiction over McIntyre even though McIntyre never marketed goods in the state or shipped them there? (No.) iii. Rules: 1. A ∆ may be subject to jurisdiction by the courts of the United States as a whole, but not a specific state unless they purposefully availed themselves to that specific state. 2. However, in order for a state to exercise personal jurisdiction, there must be purposeful availment to that state. 3. The facts reveal an intent to serve the U.S. market, but they do not show that McIntyre purposefully availed itself of the New Jersey market. 4. The stream of commerce metaphor cannot supersede either the mandate of the Due Process Clause or the limits of judicial authority that the Clause ensures. 5. At no time did McIntyre engage in activities in New Jersey that reveal an intent to invoke or benefit from the protection of its laws. i. Young v. New Haven Advocate (2002) i. Facts: 1. Young (citizen of Virginia) sues two Connecticut newspapers for defamation. 2. The articles involved information about a new prison program at a prison that Young works at and seems to imply that Young is a racist. 3. Both magazines either have none or less than ten subscribers in Virginia. 8

4. Both of the magazines/newspapers are marketed towards Connecticut residents. 5. Young claims that since the affects of the defamation were felt in Virginia, there should be personal jurisdiction. 6. Young contends that since the newspapers were Internet accessible, any one from Virginia could read them. ii. Issue: 1. May a court exercise personal jurisdiction over a party based solely on Internet content that is accessible in the state? (No). iii. Rules: 1. Specific jurisdiction is proper only when a party’s contacts with the state are the subject of the lawsuit. 2. Three Part Test for Proper Jurisdiction: a. The party must aim its Internet activities at the state b. The party’s purpose must be doing business or interacting there, and c. The activities must give rise to a claim y someone in the state. i. The fact that online content can be accessed in the state is not sufficient 3. The newspaper’s websites are directed at Connecticut 4. The articles only mention Virginia in the context of Connecticut’s prison transfer policy 5. The defendants could not have reasonably anticipated being haled to court in Virginia because there were no minimum contacts. j. Burnham v. Superior Court of California (1990): i. Facts: 1. The Burnhams were married for several years before agreeing to a divorce. 2. Mrs. Burnham moved to California with the kids while Mr. Burnham stayed in New Jersey. 3. There were a few disputes between what they were divorcing for which led to Mrs. Burnham personally serving Mr. Burnham with a divorce suit in California while he was visiting. 4. Mr. Burnham filed to quash the suit in California, stating that he lacked the necessary minimum contacts with the state. ii. Issue: 1. May a non-resident party be properly served with process while temporarily visiting a state for purposes unrelated to the suit? (Yes). iii. Rules: 1. It is well-established that states have jurisdiction over non-residents who are physically present in the state, no matter how long the individual plans to stay in the state. 2. The minimum contacts standard was created for use in the absence of presence in the state. 3. In-state service is enough to satisfy personal jurisdiction. k. Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute i. Facts: 1. The Shutes went on a cruise and had to sign a forum selection clause in order to purchase their tickets, which stated that any legal proceedings would take place in Florida. 9

III.

2. Mrs. Shute was injured and sued Carnival in Washington. 3. Carnival moved to dismiss because of the forum selection clause. 4. The Shutes said it was unfair to force a forum selection clause that the plaintiffs were unable to negotiate with. ii. Issue: 1. Is enforcement of a forum selection clause against a party who had no opportunity to negotiate the clause fundamentally unfair? (No) iii. Rules: 1. A forum selection clause is not fundamentally unfair solely because the clause was not negotiated. 2. Because there was no special showing against the forum selection clause, it is to be honored. a. This cites to Bremen, which created a default rule that if there is no special showing against a forum selection, then it is to be enforced. 3. The clause was fair and thus is enforceable. 4. By purchasing the tickets, the Shutes gave consent to the Florida forum. Overview: a. Personal Jurisdiction is allowed if: i. The ∆ is presently in the state 1. Includes being personally served even if temporarily in the state ii. The ∆ is domiciled in the state iii. The ∆ consented to jurisdiction in the state iv. The ∆ satisfies the minimum contacts rule: 1. Single significant contact (specific) 2. Continuous and systematic contact (specific) 3. Substantial and pervasive contact (general) v. The ∆ purposefully availed itself towards the forum state through marketing, agents, or sales, etc. (See McIntyre and Young). vi. Balancing test is taken into consideration: 1. ∆ inconvenience 2. Forum state’s interest 3. ∏ interest 4. Efficiency in resolving controversy 5. Several state’s interest in upholding social policies vii. Long Arm Statutes: 1. N.Y.: Specific instances (tort claim in state, tort claim against state citizen, property ownership, and transacts business in state) 2. Rhode Island: Fullest extent of the Due Process Clause (minimum contacts). viii. Foreseeability: 1. Whether a defendant’s contacts with the forum state are such that he should reasonably expect to being subject to the jurisdiction of the state’s courts. ix. b. Personal Jurisdiction fails if: i. Stream of Commerce Metaphor: 1. A foreign business’s awareness that its products will reach the forum state within the United States does not satisfy the minimum contacts rule.

10

2. Placing a product in the stream of commerce is not an act that is purposefully directed toward the forum state. ii. Does not meet any of the standards above.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction: I.

II.

How to Get into Federal Court: a. There are two main ways to get into federal court: i. Federal Question: 1. 28 U.S.C. 1331 2. Requires that the suit arise out of a federal issue, such as a federal statute or constitutional provision. 3. See Osborn, Mottley, & Grable. ii. Diversity of Citizenship: 1. 28 U.S.C. 1332 2. Requires complete diversity of citizenship, meaning that the plaintiff and the defendant must be from different states. 3. Additionally, requires that the amount in controversy reaches $75,000. 4. See Mas & DelVecchio. iii. Supplemental Jurisdiction: 1. 28 U.S.C. 1367(a)-(b). 2. Allows for claims that would not qualify for federal jurisdiction on their own to be combined with a claim that does. 3. 1367(a): p. 272 a. The claim must be part of the same ‘case or controversy’ of the federal claim that creates subject matter jurisdiction. 4. 1367(b): *For diversity of citizenship claims only a. When the subject matter jurisdiction of the claims is based off of diversity of citizenship, there cannot be a claim that does not satisfy the federal ...