Reddit Outline PDF

Preview

Summary

outline for course...

Description

Civil Procedure Outline Personal Jurisdiction Issue: We are addressing if the forum has personal jurisdiction over the ∆ What is personal jurisdiction?  The court’s power to enter and enforce a judgment against a ∆  Exercise of personal jurisdiction must be authorized by statute and constitutional o Statute – a court cannot exercise PJ over a ∆ unless a specific statute exists in the forum state that explicitly authorizes the court to exercise PJ over the ∆ o Constitutional – two restrictions  First, ∆ must have contacts w/ the forum state that the exercise of PJ is fair and reasonable (minimum contacts test)  Second, ∆ must be given appropriate notice of the action and opportunity to be heard  Violation of constitutional requirements = no PJ, even if statute grants PJ  4(k)(1)(a) – Federal court adopt state’s personal jurisdiction statute the court is sitting in  12(b)(2) – Can be waived by consent Territorial Jurisdiction  In personam – lawsuit about a person o May render a money judgment or an injunction  In rem – lawsuit about property within the forum court’s jurisdiction  Quasi in rem – lawsuit is not about the property, but seizing and attaching the property in the forum state is the only way to get a jurisdiction over the ∆ o Recovery is limited to the value of property that is w/in the jurisdiction o Still must perform the minimum contacts test of convenience factors and sovereignty factors. The presence of owning property alone would not support the state’s PJ (Shaffer v. Heitner).  Pennoyer pattern: o Resident of forum state – where is ∆ a resident of if not forum state? – domiciled: your permanent home o Consent – ∆ voluntarily appearing and submitting himself to jurisdiction and not challenging jurisdiction. If not, then did ∆ make a special appearance to NOT consent? o Presence + service  Burnham (case where father purposely availed himself to CA b/c kids lived there and was served there) – split: one side thought that presence + service, or transient presence, is permissible and is always going to satisfy due process so no need to do test. Other side believed that courts should still do the minimum contacts test from International Shoe o Property in state (in rem and quasi in rem) o Rule: No PJ over ∆s who are physically absent from the state or have not consented to the court’s jurisdiction. Cannot violate due process. Specific Jurisdiction  Isolated activity + COA arises out of that activity = specific jurisdiction, maybe PJ o If the act has substantial impact in the state (was a tortious act in IL), it is enough for PJ.  Gray – ∆ argued that they lacked sufficient minimum contacts in forum state – only thing they did in IL is that the valve ended up in IL. But b/c it had a substantial impact in the state, it was enough for PJ. 1

Civil Procedure Outline  Isolated activity + COA does not arise out of that activity = NO PJ o One will have PJ when ∆ purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state  Statute – does this situation fit the specific jurisdiction statute? NY – § 302 o Long-arm statute? Does the statute give their courts power over nonresidents who perform certain activities and that are based off of those contacts in the forum state or cause results within the state by acts performed out of the state?  International Shoe o Are there sufficient minimum contacts between the ∆ and the forum of a quality and nature to make it fair and reasonable for the ∆ to be subject to the suit?  Minimum contacts test  Sovereignty factors – look at ∆’s contacts w/ forum o Purposeful availment (Did the ∆ deliberately focus in the forum state and used its privileges? See Hanson – Hanson – only contact w/ FL forum was the Delaware trustee mailed Donner before her death – NOT systematic and continuous, isolated and sporadic  Must ask if ∆ did anything that would invoke the benefits and protections, or purposely availed itself, in the forum state. If so, it would foreseeable to would get sued there and forum state would have the right to oversee it  Keeton v. Hustler Magazine – ∆ purposely availed itself by engaging in in-state activities by distributing its magazines there. Those contacts supported jurisdiction even though ∆’s acts had greater impact in other states) o Foreseeability (but alone is not enough) (WWV – family purchased VW in NY and traveled to AZ for new home. Car caught on fire. It is not enough that action is foreseeable b/c then every state could have PJ. Wouldn’t be fair to ∆. ∆ must know or reasonably anticipate that her activities in the forum make it foreseeable that ∆ may be “haled” into forum state) o Stream of Commerce – Did ∆ put a product into stream of commerce knowing it would end up in the forum? Is there some kind of action by ∆ that shows purposeful availment in the forum? (Asahi – J. Stevens – awareness that product will be in the stream of commerce but need purposeful action, e.g., advertising in that state)  Convenience factors – balances interests o Interest of the forum state  If a forum has a strong interest, PJ will be found if you can show a substantial connection. McGee – π’s son passed away and π attempted to recover the policy from ∆, but ∆ denied. π brought suit in CA under their long-arm statute. Recovered and sought to enforce judgment in TX but was denied, saying CA did not have jurisdiction. Supreme Court found in favor of π 2

Civil Procedure Outline b/c the forum state had an interest in protecting its citizens and regulating ∆’s conduct.  Gray (see above) & International Shoe  Protecting their own citizens (McGee, Gray) o Interest of π (International Shoe)  May reside there, evidence there, witnesses there, substantive law, etc. o Interest of ∆ (International Shoe & Hanson, see above)  Too much traveling, is suit foreseeable there? General Jurisdiction  Systematic activity + COA arises out of that activity = general jurisdiction, yes PJ  Systematic activity + COA does not arise out of that activity = general jurisdiction, yes PJ  Statute – does this situation fit the general jurisdiction statute? NY – § 301  Contact must be so systematic and continuous the ∆ is considered “at home” in the forum state o Individual – domiciled (permanent place lives) o Corporation – incorporated in the state in which it has its principal place of business (see Perkins)  Goodyear – Bus overturned in Paris and killed two people. Parents sued Goodyear and subsidiaries. Subsidiaries had no direct connections. No PJ. No systematic and continuous activity. o A corporation is “present” in a forum by engaging in activities continuously and regularly within the forum and taking advantage of state’s benefits and programs so it sufficiently satisfies demands of due process o Compare the facts to Perkins (yes general jurisdiction) and Helicopteros (no general jurisdiction)  Perkins – did not arise out of forum state Ohio, but the CEO was there and he was making all the decisions, establishing the systematic and continuous activity, establishing “at home” situation happened in Philippines. Evaluated contacts and court concluded there was sufficient systematic and continuous activity in Ohio for general jurisdiction  Helicopteros – ∆ was Colombian co. and action was brought in TX state court and π died in Peru. COA did not arise from Texas. Not specific jurisdiction b/c π’s death was outside of TX. ∆’s helicopter purchases and purchase-linked activity in TX were insufficient contacts.  International Shoe o Are there sufficient minimum contacts between the ∆ and the forum of a quality and nature to make it fair and reasonable for the ∆ to be subject to the suit?  Minimum contacts test PJ on Internet – Zippo sliding scale of activities  Passive websites: posts info and you can access info at forum state, but you receive info, not doing anything on it, so no purposeful availment, therefore no personal jurisdiction  Active websites: purchasing things, transmitting files and creating contracts on websites, etc. – shows purposeful availment b/c it puts itself out there for people to purchase 3

Civil Procedure Outline  Interactive websites: can get and receive info to and from forum, but not creating contracts and not purchasing things through it – could or could not be purposeful availment Subject Matter Jurisdiction/Original Jurisdiction  What is subject matter jurisdiction? o A court’s power to hear a case o Can never waive it 12(h)(3)  Article III Section 1 of US Constitution sets up the court system while Section 2 is the basic grant of SMJ SMJ through diversity:  Two requirements: o Amount in controversy:  Congress limited SMJ through requiring the controversy exceed $75,000  You can add compensatory and punitive damages together. Court should trust π unless there is no legal certainty π cannot meet jurisdictional amount.  AFA Tours, Inc. v. Whitchurch – Former employee opened his own business and used trade secrets from his old employer. Court determined compensatory and punitive damages can be added together to meet needed amount. If it’s an injunction, you look at the value of the cost for ∆ to do the injunction or cost of benefit to π, whichever is higher. o Complete diversity of parties is required to obtain diversity jurisdiction. No party on one side of the V may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side – Strawbridge v. Curtis o Must fit within categories of § 1332 (a)(1)-(4):  Citizens of a different state  Citizens of a state and citizens/subjects of a foreign state; except if a foreign citizen is domiciled in the same state as someone in the other side of the v. – then it would not be accepted  Citizens of different states and which citizens/subjects of a foreign state are additional parties  A foreign state as plaintiff and citizens of a state or of different states  Categories o Determined at the commencement of the action (if someone moves, it does not matter). o Citizenship:  Citizen of the United States/state § 1332 (a)(2)  Born on US soil, naturalized, born to US citizens, green card, dual national  State (where domiciled)  Individual – presence in state & intent to remain indefinitely – can only have one domiciles but as many residencies o Mas v. Perry – a person must have a domicile. Can have multiple residencies, but only one domicile. Must intend to stay there indefinitely. If no definite domicile, use his/her most recent one

4

Civil Procedure Outline o No diversity where a plaintiff is a U.S. citizen but is domiciled abroad and not citizen of a state – Elizabeth Taylor v. Portland Paramount Corporation  Corporation – look where its principal place of business/headquarters/CEO/“nerve center” is, or where decisions are made – biggest location does not = “nerve center” – citizens of every state where incorporated § 1332 (c)(2)  For corporations in diversity suits, look to where its “nerve center” is – Hertz v. Friend  Other entities – considered to be a citizen of every state where there is a member  Insurance companies – wherever incorporated, principal place of business and where particular person insured is a citizen – §1332 (c)(1)  Guardian/estate – §1332 (c)(2) – citizen of the place of that person they are bringing the lawsuit on behalf of is domiciled o Once identifying where citizens are domiciled, must make sure that no party on one side of the v is from the same place as any others on the other side of the v.  Aggregating claims: o π ($40k, $40k) v. ∆ – allowed b/c both claims together, by one π, equal above $75k o π, π ($40k, $40k) v. ∆ – not allowed b/c cannot aggregate them w/ two diff πs o π, π ($80k, $25k) v. ∆ – allowed  Exxon case o π ($40k, $40k) v. ∆, ∆ – allowed IF joint & several liability – if 2 defendants are equally liable, you can go after one defendant. SMJ through Federal Question  Federal question = § 1331  COA for federal court only: § 1333 (Admiralty/Maritime/Prize), § 1334 (Bankruptcy), § 1337 (Commerce/Antitrust), § 1338 (Patents/Copyrights/Trademarks, etc.), § 1343 (Civil Rights), § 1345 (U.S. as a π), § 1346 (U.S. as a ∆)  Amount-in-controversy does not matter with federal question  πs cannot invoke FQ not essential to case or invoke FQ that is the ∆’s claim. FQ must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. Must take a deeper look and see if the COA would stand on its own. π cannot anticipate a FQ defense o Louisville & Nashville v. Mottley – π given free train passes and then new law says no free transportation, so no more free passes, Court determined that the π’s COA was a contract issue, not FQ.  Act arises under Copyright Act and is a FQ only when the complaint is for a remedy expressly granted by the act. o TB Harms Co. v. Eliscu – Issue over copyright to songs. Court determined this was a dispute over property, not a FQ. Should be state case, not federal. Supplemental Jurisdiction – 28 U.S.C. § 1367  Allows a federal court to listen to certain additional claims over which it would have no independent basis of SMJ/claims that would not satisfy diversity or federal question  Before supplemental jurisdiction: o Pendent – π was pending another claim or another party that did not have independent SMJ (§ 1367) 5

Civil Procedure Outline o Ancillary – ∆ injecting another claim/party  Additional claim(s) must fall under the same case or controversy (or must fall under the same nucleus) and are such that a π “would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one” hearing o United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs – π was suing ∆ over a union boycott and a state common law claim. Court held that they can hear it if it is a common nucleus set of facts  If you have a situation where the original lawsuit is brought under diversity jurisdiction, then there is no supplemental jurisdiction if π brings additional parties if they destroy diversity jurisdiction o If π could not have brought it in the first place, courts do not want π to use supplemental jurisdiction to try and use the backway of using federal courts  Courts can hear the case, but do not have to. Discretionary. Discretionary factors – if hearing the claim would invade state prerogatives, then no supplemental jurisdiction. If no invasion, then supplemental jurisdiction is permitted. o Does the state law claim predominate? I si tr e a l l yas t a t ec l a i m? o Whether it would require the court to decide sensitive or novel issues of state law? o Whether hearing the claims together might confuse the jury? o Whether federal issues are resolved early in case, leaving only state law claim for decision? o ***these facts might lead the court to conclude that, while it had power under the first part of Gibbs to entertain the pendent claim, it should refuse, in its discretion to do so***  When to analyze if there is supplemental jurisdiction: o More than one claim o More than one party on either side o Must first look at if court has original jurisdiction (federal question/diversity) o If no diversity and no federal question, no jurisdiction  Do the two claims/two parties arise under the same facts? o No: no jurisdiction o Yes: Based on federal question or diversity?  Federal question: apply discretionary factors  Diversity: Would bringing in additional party/claim destroy diversity?  If no, then check discretionary factors Removal – 28 U.S.C. § 1441  Gives ∆, who is already being sued in a court where there is PJ and SMJ over him, the power to move the suit from a state forum to a federal forum  Rule: A counterclaim does not allow π to remove. Only the original ∆ can remove o Shamrock Oil v. Sheets  U.S.C. § 1446 (Procedure for removal) and U.S.C. § 1447 (Procedure after removal) o ∆ has 30 days to remove after receiving initial pleading – 1446(b) o Diversity never longer than a year – 1446(c) o π has 30 days to file a motion after the removal is filed – 1447(c)  Test: o First look to see if the case could have originally been brought in federal court o Cannot be removed if:  Any ∆ objects to remove (all ∆s must agree) 1446(b)(2)(A) 6

Civil Procedure Outline  If diversity COA, ∆ cannot remove if he is from forum state (no prejudice b/c ∆ has advantage in his home state) – 1441(b)(2)  Out of time limit 1446(b)(c), 1447(c) Ascertaining the Applicable Law  Choice/conflict of law – two different laws from two different jurisdictions/forums – one will help or hurt one of the parties  The Rule of Swift v. Tyson – overruled by Erie o Diversity jurisdiction suit where the issue was whether the case should be governed by NY contract law or by the new law of negotiable instruments that was developing in recent English decisions o Was problematic b/c no one knew what the language from the act meant o The court said that the court could follow their own law and not the state decisional law  It became easy for litigants to gain access to the federal courts  Could “forum shop” where they would have the best outcome or choose which federal court to bring their action in b/c of that law the court would apply to the case  Erie v. Tompkins – overruled Swift v. Tyson o A federal court sitting in diversity must apply substantive law of the state, whether statutory or common law. However, the federal courts apply federal procedural law o π, citizen of PA, was struck by a door and injured while walking parallel to the Erie Railroad. Brought suit in NY. Type of negligence would be diff if PA law was applied compared to NY law (PA – π = trespasser who the ∆ owes no duty to avoid willful/wanton negligence. NY – ordinary negligence which would be less strict and easier to prove).  Guaranty o The issue was whether the state SOL rule or the Federal Policy of being able to ignore the SOL should be applied.  In order to decide b/w substantive and procedural law, look to see if the outcome is outcome determinative – result will probably almost always be different (substantive = state, procedural = federal)  Outcome-determinative test – if following federal practice that differs from state procedure might significantly affect the result of litigation, the court must apply state rule instead to prevent diverse parties from gaining unfair advantages b/c they chose federal court  If state law is applied, then…  If federal law is applied, then…  If the outcome of the litigation is impacted, the law is substantive, so state law would be applied.  If the outcome of the litigation is not impacted, the law is procedural, so federal law would be applied  What is the problem with this test?  Almost all of the time, when doing this test, the outcome is going to be affected substantively, so state law would apply and federal court’s power was getting smaller.  Byrd v. Blue Ridge 7

Civil Procedure Outline o Issue was whether the applicable law was state (bench trial/judge for workers compensation) or federal (policy of allowing jury trials). Judge found that there would not have been a different outcome as he could overrule the jury. Pushes the standard from Guaranty toward the federal courts. o Court adds to the outcome-determinative test:  Balancing test:  What is the state’s interest in applying its own law? What is the policy behind the state’s law? What are they trying to protect? What are they trying to make sure happens in their jurisdiction? What is the point of this law? (substantive)  What is the federal court’s interest in applying its own law? What is the policy behind the federal law? Why do the federal courts follow this policy? (procedural)  If we apply one law over the other, will the outcome of the litigation be impacted? Did that go into π’s choice of forum in the first place? (twin goals of Erie – avoid forum shopping and uniform administration of justice) (substantive) Direct/No Direct Conflict  Hanna v. Plumer – court looks at situation where the choice of law involves a FRCP (NOT a federal policy) – DIRECT conflict b/w FRCP (π – once complaint is served, SOL is tolled/stopped b/c served in a timely manner) and state rule (∆ – MA requirement that if you were serving an executor, had to hand deliver summons and complaint and that was the only way for SOL to be tolled) o When applying O-D test for a direct conflict b/w FRCP and state rule, look to see if the difference in the law impacted π’s choice of forum in the first pla...