Cases Flashcards
Capron v. Van Noorden (1804):
On direct attack, plaintiff can challenge a federal court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even though plaintiff chose to file in that court in the first place. He brought in federal court without establishing diversity jurisdiction.
o A defect in SMJ can be raised after a fully tried case, even if parties’ domeciles are unknown, and cannot be waived by parties.
o No constitutional power to hear the case (Art III Section 2) and no statutory jurisdiction. 28 USC Section 1332(a)
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Congress cannot expand original SMJ of SCOTUS.
Writ of mandamus is an appellate writ not one of original jurisdiction.
Attack on SMJ can be raised by an appellate court even if raised by no party below.
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857):
No diversity jurisdiction because Dred Scott not a U.S. citizen because he is not a citizen of any state.
Rose v. Giamatti (1989)
A plaintiff cannot defeat a defendant’s right of removal by fraudulent joinder of a non-diverse defendant against whom the plaintiff has no real cause of action, aka a nominal party.
o An unincorporated association is a citizen of every state in which its constituent members is a citizen.
o A party cannot be held liable for conduct of a person over whom the party has no control. (MLB and Reds had no control over Commissioner)
o Taking defensive action in state court in preliminary proceedings short of an adjudication of merits of an action does not waive right to removal.
Louisville & Nashville R Co v. Mottley (1908)
Mottleys had free pass to ride railroad but Congress disallowed these types of passes. Mottleys sued for breach of settlement agreement in federal court but it was a state claim.
Federal-question jurisdiction only applies when cause of action arises out of federal claim not anticipated defense.
“Well-pleaded complaint” rule under federal question jurisdiction under 28 USC §1331.
United Mine Workers of Am. V. Gibbs (1966):
Gibbs lost his haulage contracts and claimed that he was unable to obtain other hauling contracts as a result of a UMW plan against him. Sued with state and federal claims. State claims won but federal lost.
Pendent state claims must derive from **same nucleus of operative fact as federal claim. **
Pendent jurisdiction is not a plaintiff’s right but a matter of discretion.
Whether a federal issue predominates should generally be determined on the pleadings.
Aldinger v. Howard (1976):
Howard fired Aldinger for living with her boyfriend.
Aldinger alleged violations of several of her constitutional rights. Additionally, Aldinger asserted state law claims, and argued the federal court had pendent jurisdiction over those claims.
Pendent jurisdiction for state law claim against additional nondiverse defendant not allowed even if arising from common nucleus of operative fact.
Owen Equipment v. Kroger (1978):
Kroger of Iowa sued in federal court against power company in another state and an Iowa equipment company. No diversity jurisdiction.
Finley v. US (2003):
Joining the City of San Diego under state law to federal claim against U.S. not allowed because not complete diversity
Exxon Mobil v. Allapattah Services Inc. (2005)
Class action against Exxon for overcharges on fuel.
A federal diversity action meeting amount in controversy requirement can be joined under supplemental jurisdiction with a claim that does not meet amount in controversy requirement if part of same case or controversy.
Tickle v. Barton (1956):
Service of process, if procured by deceit, is not sufficient to demonstrate a court’s personal jurisdiction over the person served. The court will refuse to exercise jurisdiction even if it has it. Insufficient notice.
o Personal jurisdiction requires power, notice, and opportunity to be heard.
o Plaintiffs demurrer to defendant’s amended plea in abatement is 12(b)(6): Even if it’s true, so what?
o Standard of review is in light most favorable to the nonmoving party (here the defendant) has the nonmoving party stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.
o This was discretionary interlocutory appeal, which is a two-key system §1292 (b): Trial court certifies and appeals court accepts if controlling question of law and early appeal would materially advance the termination of the litigation.
Republic of Austria v. Altmann (2004):
Sovereigns immune unless subject to exception such as expropriation of property that is in the US or property traded for that property is within the US.
- Pennoyer v. Neff (1877):
No personal jurisdiction in Action 1 because court failed to consider that property in question was not in its jurisdiction and the defendant was not served personally.
In action 1 service by publication was inadequate and post-judgment attachment of property found in litigation did not establish personal jurisdiction.
o Action 1 Mitchell v. Neff was void, not final, not valid, and not deserving collateral estoppel
o Field theory of PJ (territorial presence) = in personam: present within state or citizen there, in rem: determine status of property within territory, quasi in rem: recovery limited to value of property within jurisdiction. Formalistic with loopholes for corporations who never want to be anywhere.
o Full Faith and Credit only when court rendering judgment has SMJ and PJ.
o Constitutionalizes personal jurisdiction by finding Action 1 denied due process of 14th Amt.
o Failed attempt by defendant Pennoyer to invoke defensive nonmutual use of collateral estoppel.
Hess v. Pawloski (1927):
MA statute that implies appointment of registrar as attorney who can be served in claims arising out of driving of vehicle if sends plaintiff notice and copy of process by mail with receipt is constitutional.
Nonresident drivers must answer equally for actions as resident drivers.
Laws can establish specific jurisdiction of people transiently present. Single Act Long-Arm. Specific Enumerated Jurisdiction.
- International Shoe v. Washington (1945):
International Shoe moved to set aside the notice on the grounds that it was not a corporation doing business in Washington, had no registered agent within the state, and was not an employer and did not furnish employment within the state as defined under state law.
Minimum contacts required to give general personal jurisdiction and due process. Continuous and systematic activities. Must be both a fair exercise of state power and rights AND fair exercise of defendant’s rights.
o Only applies to in personam service.
o Fair play and substantial justice.
- McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. (1957):
Int. Life, which had only 1 client in CA could be sued in CA to ensure due process for residents. Broad scope for PJ with focus on individual rights and nationalization of commerce.
- Hanson v. Denckla (1958):
FL court took jurisdiction of DE trust and trustee Hanson.
Hanson has less than minimal contacts in FL so there was no jurisdiction and trustee was indispensable to the case that proceeded without him.
Therefore, no full faith and credit due by DE court. Violation of 14th Amt due process rights. Overturns FL case.
Narrow scope of PJ with focus on sovereignty. Personal jurisdiction depends on both state power and defendant’s rights.
- Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980):
Oklahoma does not have PJ over a car sold in NY to NY residents involved in a car accident in OK. WWVW does business only in CT, NY, and NJ.
Foreseeability has no impact on PJ. Plaintiff must show defendant’s volition.
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985):
Specifying choice of law in contracts as FL is intentionally making use of FL laws. Litigation in FL consistent with fair play and substantial justice. No due process violation. Rule 12(b)(3).
Contract-plus is purposeful availment. Contractual consent = volitionality.
- Grace v. MacArthur:
Flying over territory sufficient for PJ according to Arkansas Supreme Court.
Asahi Metal Industry v Superior Court (SCOTUS 1971):
- Asahi is a Japanese subcomponent manufacturer. Its product ended up in tires that were in an accident in CA.
- Defendant must purposely direct action to forum state or purposely avail itself of CA market. CA had a general unenumerated long-arm statute.
- Awareness that a product would reach a state does not constitute minimum contacts such that jurisdiction would be fair and just.
- unreasonable and unfair if the burden on the alien defendant outweighs the plaintiff’s and forum’s interests in the forum state’s assertion of jurisdiction.
- “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
McIntyre Machinery LID v. Nicastro (SCOTUS 2011):
- Nicastro injured by machine manufactured in England and only channeled generally to the US.
- Defendant must intentionally invoke benefits and protections of that jurisdiction’s laws. McIntyre did not direct conduct toward NJ and therefore there is no specific PJ. Stream of commerce not enough.
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown (SCOTUS 2011
- NC children injured in a bus accident. Foreign subsidiaries of Goodyear operated exclusively abroad.
- No personal general jurisdiction if they do not have a continuous and systematic affiliation such to render it “at home” in a state. It would violate due process to exercise jurisdiction.
- CURRENT GENERAL JURISDICTION TEST
Daimler v. Bauman (2014):
A court cannot assert general jurisdiction over a corporation if the corporation’s affiliations with the forum state are not so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation at home in the state.
Residents of Argentina sued Daimler based on the US court having jurisdiction over its subsidiary. Daimler is incorporated and has its principal places of business outside CA, so it is not at home in CA.
BNSF Rwy v. Tyrell (2017):
Tyrell sued for injuries while employed at BNSF. BNSF was a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Texas.
Montana court lacks personal jurisdiction over BNSF.
At home means either a corporation’s principle place of business or place of incorporation. Formalistic and manipulable.
Bristol Myers Squibb Co v. Superior Ct CA (SCOTUS 2017):
BMS did not design, develop, or manufacture the drug at issue in California. Further, the plaintiffs residing outside of California did not buy or take it in California.
Specific jurisdiction arises from connection between forum and claims at issue not defendant’s contact generally with the state.
No personal jurisdiction because activities in forum state not connected to plaintiff’s claims.
Ford Motor Co. v Montana 8th Judicial District Ct (SCOTUS 2021):
- Specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment of MT and MN markets, which Ford did. Activities in state must be a but-for cause or related to the claim. Rejects strict causal link standard.
- The fact that a specific car was not originally sold in these states does not revoke specific jurisdiction.
- It is fair to have the defendant defend here because they intentionally use these markets and no other states have a stronger interest in litigating this case.
Insurance Corp of Ireland v. Compagne des Bauxites de Guinee (SCOTUS 1982):
- Insurers refused to pay a business-interruption claim by CBG, which was incorporated in DE but operated only in Republic of Guinea
- Insurers failed to comply with court orders for production, so the court imposed a sanction under 37(b)(2)(A)(i) with presumptive finding that insurers were subject to jurisdiction because of business contacts. A refusal to produce evidence can be viewed as an admission of PJ.
Shaffer v. Heitner (SCOTUS 1977):
- Stock holdings in a company do not satisfy minimum contacts for jurisdiction for absent defendants.
- The officers and directors of a DE corporation have nothing to do with DE and PJ in DE would be inconsistent with constitutional limits on state power.
Burnham v Superior Court (SCOTUS 1990):
- PJ due to transient presence in state consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice as evidenced by historical acceptance and federal and state statutes allowing it. Also called tag jurisdiction.
- Husband visiting his kids in CA served with divorce papers under CA court, although he lives in NJ and was married in WV.
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (SCOTUS 2023):
- Registration is consent to general jurisdiction. 14th Amt due process allows a corporation to be sued in any state where it appointed an agent to receive suits. The PA law requiring registration to do local business in a state is constitutional. PA has power to hear case.
- Mechanic who previously worked for Norfolk Southern handled asbestos and chemicals and allegedly carcinogens sued in PA under Fed Employers’ Liability Act, a workers’ comp scheme for negligence
- Mechanic had worked for Norfolk in Ohio and VA
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank (1950):
Central Hanover petitioned the court for settlement of its first common trust account as trustee.
Notice (and due process) requires use of the method someone actually desirous of informing/giving notice would use.
Publication in local newspaper insufficient given addresses of many trust beneficiaries are known.
Notice reasonably certain to reach most is sufficient to protect interests of all.
Thick theory.
- Sniadach v. Family Finance (1969):
Prejudgment wage garnishment unconstitutional because it created tremendous hardship on wage earners.
- Fuentes v. Shevin (1972):
State statutes authorizing replevin of consumer goods without a pre-seizure hearing are unconstitutional because state acts without info. No opportunity to be heard and no due process.
Unless directly necessary to secure an important government or public interest, urgent, or person initiating seizure was a government official. Thick theory.
o Fuentes first learns of the lawsuit when they are taking her property. She has to post a bond 2x the value of her property to keep it.
- Goldberg v. Kelly (1970):
Recipient of government-funded public assistance entitled to opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to termination of benefits. (Thick due process: in the eye of the receiver) Entitlements are property.
o Matthews v. Eldridge (1976):
Recipient of Social Security disability benefits not entitled to hearing before termination. (Thin due process: in the eye of the administrator)
Factors include risk of erroneous deprivation, government interest, and interest of party seeking judgment.
Government interests given paramount consideration here according to Koh.
- MacDermeid v. Deiter (2012):
Defendant purposely availed herself of CT law when she accessed CT servers. PJ was reasonable because both CT and P have a significant interest in resolving the matter in CT and reasonable for the Canadian to travel to CT.
- Greene v. Lindsey:
Posting notice on door not the method someone actually desirous of giving notice would have used given that they slip eviction notices under the door.
- Connecticut v. Doehr (1991):
Prejudgment attachment of real estate without prior notice or hearing without showing of extraordinary circumstances and without posting a bond does not satisfy the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. No opportunity to be heard.
Factors include the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation and value of other safeguards, interest of party seeking prejudgment remedy and government interest. (Thin theory provided by CT law insufficient, but holding is also thin theory).
o DiGiovanni attached Doehrs property after being injured in an incident with Mr. Doehr for tort claim. Never brought suit, but Doehrs had trouble selling house later because of DiGiovanni’s attachment. Attachment was based on a conclusory affidavit with few facts alleged.
- Gulf Oil Corp v. Gilbert (1947):
A VA resident sued a PA corporation in NY for negligence based on a fire that occurred in VA. The PA corporation argued that VA—which is where the VA resident lived and did business, where all the events in the litigation took place, and where most of the witnesses resided—was the better place for the trial. SCOTUS agreed.
The factors for forum non conveniens are ease of access to source of proof, compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, cost of obtaining willing witnesses, view of premises, enforceability of judgment.
Plaintiff’s choice of forum rarely disturbed, but local interest in solving affairs that originate there and lack of duty to solve others.
- Piper Aircraft v. Reyno (1981):
Plaintiffs may not defeat motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens merely by showing that change of law would be less favorable. Courts should not consider different bodies of law when deciding convenience.
o Plaintiffs lay venue in CA state court. Defendants remove to CA federal court §1441, transfer to PA §1404, move to dismiss to Scotland—winning at SCOTUS on forum non conveniens.
o Test: Is there a jurisdictionally adequate alternative forum? Presumption against disturbing American plaintiffs forum choice. Balance private and public interest factors (Gulf Oil). Subject to review under abuse of discretion standard.
