Civ Pro 1

Question 1

Types of Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 1

In Personam
In Rem
Quasi in Rem

Question 2

Federal court must analyze ______ __________ as if it were a court of the state in which it is located

Answer 2

personal jurisdiction

Question 3

States authorize personal jurisdiction over a defendant who:

Answer 3

1) Is present in forum state and personally served with process therein

2) Is domiciled in forum states

3) Consents to jurisdiction; or

4) Commits an act covered by a long arm statute (not on midterm)

Question 4

Modern Due Process Standard

Answer 4

Minimum Contacts
Purposeful Availment
Notice Required

Question 5

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (2 paths)

Answer 5

Diversity of Citizenship
Federal Question

Question 6

Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction (2 requirements)

Answer 6

Complete Diversity
Amount in controversy exceeds $75K

Question 7

Federal Question Jurisdiction

Answer 7

Federal Question must appear in original complaint

Question 8

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Answer 8

Arises from a common nucleus of operative fact
(CNOOF)

Question 9

Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction

Answer 9

Based on statute
(Patent, immigration, trademark, VA benefits)

Question 10

Removal Jurisdiction

Answer 10

Defendant can remove to federal court if it originally could have been brought in state court

Case cannot be removed solely on diversity if any defendant is a citizen of the forum state

Cannot be removed based solely on diversity more than one year after filing (bad faith and case amendments exceptions)

Federal defense insufficient for removal

Question 11

Removal Procedure

Answer 11

30 days to remove

Starts after formal service of complaint

Amendments that allow removal reset 30 days

Question 12

Hawkins v Masters Farms Inc

Answer 12

For purposes of determining whether diversity jx exists, a person is a citizen of the state in which they are domiciled

Question 13

Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v Mottley

Answer 13

For a suit to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, giving a federal court jx to hear the case, a plaintiff must allege a course of action based upon the laws or that Constitution

Question 14

Redner v Sanders

Answer 14

A district court has jx where the matter in controversy is between citizens of different states or citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state

Question 15

Hertz Corp. v Friend

Answer 15

A corporation’s principal place of business, for federal diversity jx purposes, refers to the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the company’s activities

Question 16

In re Ameriquest Mortage Co.

Answer 16

In any action in which the district court has jx over a federal claim, the district court also has supplemental jx over state claims that are so related to claims in the action that they form part of the same case or controversy (CNOOF)

Question 17

Szendry-Ramos v First Bancorp

Answer 17

Supplemental jx should not be exercised over claim that posit novel and complex issues of state law or substantially predominate over the federal claims

Question 18

Keller Logistics Group, Inc v Navistar, Inc

Answer 18

A defendant may remove an action based on diversity jx more than one year after the suit was filed if the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal

Question 19

Pennoyer v Neff

Answer 19

Under the Due Process Clause, no person is subject to the jx of a court unless they voluntarily appear in the court, are found within the state, reside in the state, or have property in the state that the court has attached

Question 20

Int’l Shoe v Washington

Answer 20

For a defendant not present within the territory of a forum to be subjected to a court’s in personal jx, due process requires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and justice

Question 21

McGee v Int’l Life Insurance Co

Answer 21

A state court has jx over an out-of-state company if the company has substantial contacts with the state

Question 22

Hanson v Denckla

Answer 22

A defendant is subject to personal jx only if the defendant purposefully avails itself to the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state

Question 23

World Wide Volkswagen Corp v Woodson

Answer 23

Foreseeability alone is not sufficient to authorize a state court’s assertion of personal jx over a non-resident defendant that has no contacts, ties, or relations with the forum state

Question 24

J.McIntyre Machinery, Ltd v Nicastro

Answer 24

For a defendant to be subject to a state’s personal jx, it must purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws

Question 25

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, SA v Brown

Answer 25

A state court may not exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign subsidiary of a US-based corporation unless it engages in such continuous and systematic activities as to render it essentially at home in the forum state

Question 26

Daimler AG v Bauman

Answer 26

A court can assert general jx over a corporation if its affiliations with the forum state are so continuous and systematic as to render the corp at home in the state

Question 27

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Superior Court

Answer 27

For a state court to assert specific jurisdiction, there must be an affiliation between the forum state and the specific claim at issue

Question 28

Ford Motor Co. v Montana Eighth Judicial District Court

Answer 28

A state can exercise specific jx over a nonresident defendant in an action arising out of or related to the nonresident defendant’s purposeful contacts with the forum state