Anda di halaman 1dari 6

I.

Personal Jurisdiction
a. Statutory (1/2)—does state law authorize the judge PJ over the ∆?
i. All states have:
1. Statutes regarding consent to jurisdiction.
2. Motor-vehicle statutes.
3. Statutes indicating presence and service of process requirements to assert jurisdiction over the
defendant.
ii. Long Arm statute—determine limits of due process clause and exercise of PJx over nonresidents
1. Type I – Anything goes as long as “it meets minimum contacts”. Problem is that this type of
statute makes every jurisdictional question a constitutional question.
2. Type II – The Laundry List. Everything that can create jurisdiction is listed. Must be careful to
ensure that the list is complete. Everything cannot be anticipated – internet example.
3. Type III – Hybrid approach. Laundry List PLUS “anything else that meets minimum contacts”.
iii. Steps in using Long-Arm Statutes
1. Make sure act of defendant fits within one of the provisions of statute. Ex. “Causes tortious
injury within state and performs substantial business in state…”
2. Make sure cause of action arose from act of defendant. Ex. “person injured by exploding valve
made by defendant”
3. Check against Constitution/Due Process.
iv. Statute reaches to the full extent of due process (const) or a laundry list of things it’s statues give Jx to
v. Will follow this unless the state law violates the constitution
b. Constitutional (2/2)
i. Traditional
1. Domiciled (resident of the state)
a. Same rule as diversity Jx
2. Consent (including voluntary appearance)
3. Personal service in the forum state
a. If the ∆ is inside the state and you serve process there, you “tag” them
4. Attachment of in-state property at outset of lawsuit (in rem)
ii. Modern
1. Minimum Contacts—That does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
a. Purposeful Availment—intentionally establishes contact with a state
i. Contacts have to give rise to the lawsuit
1. Ex. Solicit business—its all fact specific
b. Reasonably Foreseeable that ∆ could get sued in that forum
i. Continuous and systematic presence vs. isolated and sporadic
ii. Stream of commerce (reasonableness)—“targeted the forum”
1. (1) the defendant’s burden,
2. (2) the forum state’s interest,
3. (3) the plaintiff's interest,
4. (4) the judicial system's interest in the “efficient resolution of
controversies,” and
5. (5) the “furtherance of fundamental substantive social policies.”
iii. Mere awareness that a product will end up in an end market is not sufficient
contacts
iv. Internet—active vs. passive
2. Levels of Minimum Contacts
a. General Jx—continuous and systematic (∆ can be sued in the forum for a claim that
arose anywhere in the world)
b. Specific Jx
i. ∆ had contacts in the forum
ii. Claim arose out of those contacts
iii. PJx is otherwise “fair and reasonable”
c. Insert in rem and quasi in rem from page 3 of 9 Freer
d. Minimum Contacts Analysis for Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction
i. Quasi in rem actions are essentially an indirect method for asserting jurisdiction over a party based upon
property found in the forum state.
ii. Shaffer v. Heitner – Supreme Court held that minimum contacts with forum state are required for quasi
in rem proceedings. Quasi in rem jurisdiction over D cannot be exercised unless D had such "minimum
contacts" with the forum state that in personam jurisdiction could be exercised over him.
1. Concurring Opinions
a. Real property in state is enough to assert jurisdiction.
b. Real property and intangible property such as bank account in forum state is enough to
assert jurisdiction.
Shaffer basically abolishes the utility of quasi in rem jurisdiction – since quasi in rem is
only used where there is no personal jurisdiction, and since the same minimum contacts
needed for quasi in rem will suffice for personal jurisdiction, quasi in rem will rarely be
advantageous. (The one exception is where minimum contacts are present, but the state
long-arm for personal jurisdiction is too narrow to reach the defendant, yet a state
attachment statute applies.) One big practical effect is that attachment of a third party’s
debt to the defendant, or attachment of an insurance company’s obligation to defend
and pay a claim, are largely wiped out as bases for jurisdiction.
A. Approaching Personal Jurisdiction Questions (AWESOME)
1. Were traditional bases of jurisdiction met?
a. Consent
b. Presence (service of process)
c. Domicile
d. State of incorporation
e. Headquarters location
f. Agent in forum state
2. Is this a case of “jurisdiction by necessity”?
a. Nowhere else to hear case.
i. Foreign defendants
ii. Parties scattered throughout U.S.
3. Check for MINIMUM CONTACTS and PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT
a. Defendant must have relevant contact with forum.
i. Purposeful Availment – defendant must reach out to forum, not the unilateral act of
plaintiff.
ii. Foreseeability – must be foreseeable that defendant could be sued in the forum state.
b. Fairness
i. Relatedness of cause of action to the defendant’s contacts with the forum. Can help make
up for little contact. Would not apply if there was general jurisdiction.
ii. Convenience – Burden is on defendant to prove that the forum is severely inconvenient
and is very tough to meet.
iii. State’s interest in providing a means to adjudicate.
iv. Plaintiff’s interest.
v. Legal system’s interest in efficiency.
vi. Interstate interest in shared substantive policy.
4. Evaluate other factors (“Kitchen Sink”)
a. Quality and nature of activities in forum state
b. Who initiated the contact or contract
c. Nature of the relationship – ongoing or one-time
d. Does contact deal with dangerous or highly regulated products or industries?
e. Whether or not the defendant has obtained protections and benefits of the laws of the forum
state
f. If there is a contract involved – see where it was signed, where it was entered into, where it was
fulfilled, where it was negotiated, whether a forum selection clause was included, whether there
was a clause in the contract indicating they could be haled into court in the forum state
g. Did defendant consent to jurisdiction
h. Does defendant have an agent in forum state
i. Where are evidence/witnesses located
j. Stream of commerce issues
k. Was defendant subject to previous suits in the forum state.
II. Venue § 1391
a. Is the court an appropriate location within the court system?
i. Rationale: statutory only; overall convenience/efficiency/fairness
b. π has three choices where to lay venue
i. Residency—any district where all ∆’s reside, or (multi. Dists. In same st. then any dist.)
1. Residence same as domicile
2. § 1391(c) corp.—all districts where it is subject to PJ when the case commences
ii. Transaction—substantial part of the claim arose
1. Broad—venue is proper as long as events in the forum were an important part of the sequence
of events giving rise to the claim (substantial connection)
2. Narrow—venue is proper where the ∆ was responsible for the forum related event and the
event is a point of dispute between the parties
iii. Fallback (rare)—where and ∆ is subject to PJx with respect to the action IF there is no dist in which the
action may otherwise be brought
c. Corporations—split authority
i. Corp. resident of all district in state of incorp. OR only resident in the district of its official corp. address
d. TRANSFER OF VENUE
i. Transfer from state ct. (transferor) to state ct. (transferee) in same state only (federal can go anywhere)
ii. Transfer statutes
1. § 1404(a)—the transferor ct. is a proper venue, and we may transfer based on:
a. Convenience of the parties and witnesses
b. Dist. where action might have been brought or to a dist. that all parties consent
c. Interest of justice—choice of law from the transferor court
2. § 1406—Improper venue
a. Can transfer or dismiss
e. Forum non conveniens (Piper)
i. Court dismisses the case because there is a substantially more appropriate venue
ii. Transfer not available because the more appropriate court is in a different judicial system
f. TN Venue Statute—transitory civil actions may be brought
i. County where the cause of action arose; ∆ resides; or ∆ is served
III. SMJ
a. Federal Question—“arising under” Const., laws, or treaties
i. Const. Scope Art. III § 2 grants
1. Osborn— as long as the "original cause" involves a question of federal law, the case arises
under federal law—“ingredient”
ii. Statutory Scope § 1331 [narrower]
1. District courts have original Jx of all civil actions “arising uner” Const, laws, treaties
2. Well pleaded complaint—π’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon
federal law (integral to π’s cause of action)—don’t look at defenses!
i. Short and plain statement as to grounds on which court has jurisdiction. Ex. 28
USC §1331.
ii. Short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief. States elements of
cause of action.
iii. A demand for judgment for relief the pleader seeks.
iv. State in plain terms the probable defenses to the cause of action.
v. Affirmative defenses – “Yes, but” defenses. Must say them in order to bring
them to trial.
b. To determine if there is federal question jurisdiction.
i. Look at plaintiff’s complaint ONLY to determine if there is a federal question
AND
ii. Look at which law creates cause of action. If federal, there is federal question
jurisdiction.
c. Pros to Well-Pleaded Complaint
i. Decreases cases on docket.
ii. Allows decision as to jurisdiction early in process.
iii. Because only one side is looked at, courts do not have to determine differences
of fact between plaintiff’s complaint and defenses answer.
d. Cons to Well-Pleaded Complaint
i. Less efficient.
ii. Ensures that a lot of cases dealing with application of federal law are dealt with
by courts that are not best equipped to answer federal questions. Very little
chance of U.S. Supreme Court review.
3. Centrality of the Federal Issue to the Claim
a. Factors to Determine When a Federal Cause of Action Lies
i. Whether the plaintiffs are part of the class for whose special benefit the statute
was passed?
ii. Whether the indicia of legislative intent reveal congressional purpose to provide
a private cause of action?
iii. Whether a federal cause of action would further the underlying purposes of the
legislative scheme?
iv. Whether the respondent’s cause of action is a subject traditionally relegated to
state law?
iii. Federal Jx over state law claim will lie only if a federal issue is:
1. Necessarily raised
2. Actually disputed
3. Substantial
4. Capable of resolution in federal court with disrupting the federal-state balance approved by
congress
b. Diversity § 1332 (not exclusive Jx)
i. Requirements
1. Must exceed 75k
2. Between citizens of different states/foreign state (complete div. rule)
a. Congress could change the complete div. rule
ii. Citizenship=domicile at time of filing
1. Present in the state (takes up residence)
2. Intent to make it your permanent home
iii. Corporate Citizenship § 1332(c)(1)
1. Place of incorporation; AND
2. Principal place of business (1 place—cut down on # of Fed. ct. cases)
a. Nerve Center—where the important decisions are made/most business
b. “Headquarters”—management
iv. Amount must >$75k
1. π’s good faith claim governs unless it’s clear to a legal certainty that π cannot recover that
amount
2. excludes interests or costs of the claim
3. Ultimate recovery irrelevant
4. Aggregation of claims
a. Can only do if 1 π and 1 ∆
b. If joint claim, go with total value of that claim (can be unrelated)
c. Must be separate losses
c. Supplemental § 1367
i. Federal courts have Supp. Jx over claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with a Jx.-
invoking claim
1. Common nucleus test is always met by a claim that arises from the same (T/O) as the claim that
has invoked an independent basis of Fed SMJ
ii. § 1367—a case in properly in federal court, but there is a claim in the case that does not meet Div. or
FQ. Supp. Jx. makes it possible to hear this claim. Apply:
1. § 1367(a)—Grant sup. Jx. if it arises from the same common nucleus of operative facts
2. § 1367(b)—cuts back grant of Supp Jx. in Diversity cases to the π only!
a. Claim by π’s against parties joined under Rule 14,19,20,24
b. Claims by Rule 19 π’s
c. Claims asserted by people seeking to intervene as a π under Rule 24
Questions to ask:
d. Does the fed. Court have a basis for original jurisdiction (SMJ)
e. Is the other claim which on its own is not properly before the federal court, part of the same case or controversy
as the jurisdictionally proper claim (anchor claim)?
f. Do any 1367(b) exclusions apply?
g. Should the court decline jurisdiction under 1367(c)?
i. Efficiency, cost; vs.
ii. State issues best left to the states, Jury confusion—different remedies for same cause of action
IV. Removal § 1441, 1446
a. Removal is a one-way street. It only goes from state court to Fed. court
i. Federal court can remand to state court (improperly removed)
ii. ∆ should have the same chance as the π to have the case heard in federal court
b. All ∆’s must agree to removal
i. Exception—a single ∆ can remove if a separate and independent fed. claim
c. Only ∆’s can remove
d. § 1441(a) must remove to a state ct. where the case was filed within 30 days
e. Can remove if the case has federal SMJ
i. Exceptions (only in Diversity cases)
1. No removal if any ∆ is a citizen of the forum
2. Cannot remove a diversity case more than one year after the case was filed in state court
V. Notice (Rule 4)
a. Notice must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the
pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.
i. Notice of service depends on whether the person is known, accessible, or ascertainable
b. Two types of notice required
i. Mail
ii. Newspaper—4 weeks consecutive
c. Reasonably calculated factors
i. Practical difficulties
ii. Cost
iii. What are the burdens on the person giving notice (benefits for the ∆)
d. General Summary
i. Notice needs to be of such a nature to reasonably convey the required information.
ii. Notice needs to allow a reasonable time for the defendant to make an appearance.
iii. The means employed for notice must be desirous of actually informing the defendant.
iv. Must use best means possible.
VI. Erie
a. Rules of Decision Act
i. In the absence of a contrary federal statute or a contrary provision in the Constitution,
ii. Federal courts must follow the "law of the several states"
iii. In diversity cases,
iv. With state law defined to include common law
1. Substantive, not procedural
2. Outcome determinative—would applying or ignoring the state rule affect the outcome of the
case? If so, it’s prob. substantive rule use state law.
3. Balance of interests: does either fed or stat system have strong interest in having its rule
applied? (Walker)
4. Avoid forum shopping: if the fed court ignores state law will it cause parties to flock to fed
court? If, so apply state law.
b. Framework:
i. 10th Amendment—If power is not delegated to the US by the Const. nor prohibited by it; it is reserved
to the states
1. Article I, §§ 8–10; Supremacy Clause—Article VI, § 2
ii. Aims: (1) avoid forum shopping & (2) avoid inequitable administration of the law
c. Choice of law:
i. Vertical—should a federal court apply federal or state law in diversity cases
ii. Horizontal—which state's substantive law should the court apply
d. Takeaway
i. Under Swift v. Tyson, federal courts didn’t always apply state law to the issues in diversity cases, instead
applying federal general common law
ii. Erie, the Supreme Court held that the federal court may not apply federal general common law to
determine the applicable legal principles in diversity cases.
1. RDA constitutionally construed, requires federal courts to apply state substantive law in
diversity cases and on other issues not governed by federal law
iii. When the meaning of applicable state law is unclear, the federal court should apply the state supreme
court predictive approach to determine what the law of the state is
1. Ask what the state supreme court would apply, even if older cases say something different
2. This requires strong evidence
3. State courts don’t have to follow this
iv. Klaxon, Supreme Court held that a federal diversity court must apply the choice of law rules of the state
in which the case sits (or court?) to determine which state's substantive law to apply to a diversity case
(vertical uniformity)
VII. Preclusion
a. Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata) (same T/O)
i. Prevents parties from relitigating claims that they fully litigated in a previous case
1. Typically what relates to the underlying case;
2. promotes fairness and efficiency
3. Prevents waste of judicial resources
ii. Inapplicable to retrials, collateral proceedings, and double jeopardy
iii. What must be satisfied before a claim will be barred?
1. Claim must be the same as one that was litigated in a previous case
a. Transactional—assertion of different kinds of theories of relief still constitutes a single
cause of action if a single group of operative facts give rise to the assertion of relief
b. Primary Rights—π has a separate claim for each right that the ∆ has violated
c. Same Evidence—If the evidence needed sustain the 2d suit would have sustained the
first, or if the same facts were essential to maintain both actions
2. Previously litigated claim must have resulted in a valid, final judgment on the merits
3. Parties who litigated the previous claim must typically be the same parties (or in privity to) who
are litigating the current claim (“identity of interests”)
a. Agrees to be bound
b. Substantive legal relationship
c. Adequately represented by same interests
d. Assumed control
e. Relitigate through proxy
f. statute
b. Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel) [narrow]
i. Elements
1. The same issue was decided in an earlier action,
a. Ask yourself what the first issue was, and compare to current
2. The issue was actually raised (determined) and fully litigated
3. The previous case resulted in a final judgment on the merits,
4. The issue in question was necessary (essential) to the judgment, and
5. Both actions involve the same parties or those in privity with them
ii. Non-mutual defensive collateral estoppel
1. The party using collateral estoppel in Case2 was not a party in Case 1
a. This is fine as long as person using against had a full opportunity to use it in Case1
iii. Non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel
1. Majority: probably doesn’t allow
2. Minority: allows if it can be fair (economy & fairness)
a. Full fair opportunity to litigate in Case1
b. Foresee there would be additional litigation
c. Easily joined in Case1
d. No inconsistent judgments
3. A litigant who was not a party to a prior judgment may nonetheless use that judgment
offensively to prevent a defendant from relitigating issues resolved in the earlier proceeding
provided that:
a. The π could not easily have joined in the earlier section
b. Use of judgment will not result in unfairness to the ∆

Anda mungkin juga menyukai