Civ Pro Flashcards
Personal Jurisdiction: GENERAL
The power of a court to exercise control over a particular person or item of property.
Types of PJ
- In personam
- In rem
- Quasi in Rem
PJ: IN PERSONAM; General
Jurisdiction over D by virtue of D’s RELATIONSHIP W/ FORUM STATE.
PJ: IN REM & QUASI IN REM; General
D owns property in forum state.
PJ: LIMITATIONS: General
- Statutory
- AND Constitutional
PJ: CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS
Originate from DPC of 14A.
· “A state shall NOT deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, WITHOUT DP of law.
T4: D MUST HAVE minimum contacts w/ the forum state such that it would be fair to force the D to defend a lawsuit there. – International Shoe
AKA: Minimum Contacts Test
–> Cannot demonstrate min. contacts? Court may NOT exercise personal jurisdiction over D.
PJ: STATUTORY LIMITATIONS
A court MAY NOT exercise personal jurisdiction over a D UNLESS a statute exists in the forum state that explicitly authorizes the court the exercise of PJ over the particular D.
PJ Analysis
- Is there a statutory basis for PJ?
- Would it be CONSTITUTIONAL for that court to exercise PJ? OR Does D have min. contacts?
Statutory Sources for PJ
- Physical presence in the forum state @ service w/ process;
- Domicile;
- Consent;
- Waiver;
- Long-Arm Statute
Statutory Sources for PJ: PHYSICAL PRESENCE
If the D is present in the forum state when served w/ process = will be subject to PJ.
· via Burnham: A court can exercise jurisdiction over a D even if that D is only in the state for a short period
· Doesn’t matter if:
–> D is resident; NOR
–> How long D had been or will be in the state
Domicile: Home State
· For individuals by residence, citizenship, and domicile EVEN IF the D is absent from the state at the time of the suit.
· For corporations by the state of incorporation OR where the corporation conducts its principal operations.
Statutory Sources for PJ: DOMICILE
D is always subject to PJ in HOME STATE.
Statutory Sources for PJ; CONSENT
D may consent to a court’s PJ by:
· Voluntarily appearing in the forum state’s court; AND
· Submitting himself to jurisdiction
Consent can be EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.
· Express: Forum-Selection Clause in K
· Implied: Driving on Roads & MA statute saying that creates implied consent to jurisdiction.
Statutory Sources for PJ: WAIVER
D acts in a way that is inconsistent with his argument that the forum lacks a basis for asserting PJ.
Long-Arm Statutes
State law allowing the state’s courts to exercise jurisdiction over out-of-state/nonresident Ds.
Types of Long-Arm Statutes
- Limited or enumerated: specific acts or circumstances; and
- Unlimited or unenumerated: K Max
–> If UNLIMITED: K analysis
K A for Jurisdiction
- Purposeful Availment;
- Minimum contacts; and
- Fairness Balancing.
K Limitations: Minimum Contacts
Depends upon the “quality and nature of the activity;”
·T4: two issues that court must address as a threshold matter:
1. Whether the contact w/ the forum state is continuous and systematic; OR
2. Whether the D’s claim arises out of the contact w/ the forum state.
International Shoe
DP requires only that, in order to subject a D to a judgment in personam, if he be not present w/in the territory of the forum, he have a certain minimum contacts w/ it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Minimum Contacts: GENERAL IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION
D’s contact w/ forum is continuous and systematic REGARDLESS of whether the claim arises out of the D’s contact w/ the forum.
Minimum Contacts: SPECIFIC IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION
D’s contact w/ forum is isolated and sporadic, then the claim MUST arise out of the D’s contact w/ forum state.
–> REQUIRES that the D’s contact w/ the forum state be PURPOSEFUL AND INTENTIONAL
–> NOT fortuitous or unintended
–> Courts REQUIRE some purposeful connection b/w the D and the forum state LIKE wrongful conduct directed at individuals OR intentional receipt of some SIGNIFICANT benefit from the forum state.
Minimum Contacts Test
Two prongs:
1. D MUST have purposefully availed herself of the law and benefits of the forum state (TF not accidental or inadvertent); and
2. Foreseeability (D must have known OR reasonably anticipated that activities in the forum made it foreseeable they may be hauled into court there.)
Purposeful Availment & Stream of Commerce
Requires the D contacts be purposefully directed toward the forum state.
· NOT SUFFICIENT that the foreign manufacturer targeted the US market
· MUST target the state specifically.
Minimum Contacts: Foreseeability
NOT the mere likelihood that the product will find its way into the forum state.
· D’s conduct AND connection w/ the forum MUST be such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
Personal Jurisdiction: Fairness
Exercising PJ over the D MUST comply with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Personal Jurisdiction: Fairness: FIVE FACTORS
- Burden on the D;
- Interests of the forum state in the litigation;
- Interest of the P in litigating the matter in that state;
- Interstate efficiency; and
- interstate policy interests.
–> NOT SUFFICIENT by themselves to sustain a finding of personal jurisdiction.
In Rem Jurisdiction
A judgment that binds the entire world as to the future disposition of PROPERTY ONLY
· NOT the individuals parties to the suit
· Includes anyone who MAY have an interest in the land
· K so long as property is located in jurisdiction AND NOT BROUGHT THERE BY FRAUD OR TRICK.
Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction
If named property is w/in jurisdiction, court can hear EVEN IF the court does NOT have in personam jurisdiction.
· Only adjudicates the rights to the named property as b/w the parties to the suit
–> NOT as against the entire world
Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction: Types
- Type 1: COA and Property relate
- Type 2: P may sue on a personal claim AND ATTACH the property to satisfy his claim against the property’s owner EVEN IF the P’s claim is UNRELATED to the property.
–> MUST STISFY the minimum contacts test from International Shoe
–> Ownership of the property in the forum state is NOT ENOUGH to satisfy test
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The power of FEDERAL courts to hear certain kinds of cases OR to exercise authority over certain kinds of disputes.
· If at ANY POINT during the case, a federal court finds that it LACKS SMJ, it MUST DISMISS the case.
· While Congress CANNOT EXPAND SMJ, they can make it narrower.
Diversity Jurisdiction: GENERAL
Federal district courts shall have jurisdiction over civil actions b/w citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75k.
· COMPLETE DIVERSITY is required by SCOTUS
Simple Diversity
Satisfied when one P is a citizen of a different state than at least one D.
· AKA K Diversity
Complete Diversity
NO P can be a citizen of the same state as ANY D.
· Does NOT matter if Ps or Ds have same citizenship but Ps CANNOT share citizenship with ANY D.
Diversity Jurisdiction: DATE OF IMPORTANCE
The date the LAWSUIT IS COMMENCED.
· NOT the date on which whatever even gave rise to the lawsuit actually occurred.
· ALTHOUGH if a party is added to the case DURING LITIGATION that destroys diversity, the court MUST DISMISS the case or otherwise give it up.
Diversity Jurisdiction: AMOUNT-IN-CONTROVERSY
The P MUST actually sue the D for an amount GREATER than $75k EVEN IF P ultimately recovers less than that or nothing at all.
· P is taken at his word AS LONG AS the P claimed the amount IN GOOD FAITH UNLESS it appears to a LEGAL CERTAINTY from the FACE OF THE COMPLAINT that there is NO WAY P can possibly recover more than $75k.
Diversity Jurisdiction: Amount-in-Controversy: MULTIPLE CLAIMS
Where a P bring multiple claims against a SINGLE D, the amt-in-controversy requirement is met when ALL THE CLAIMS add up to an amount GREATER than $75k
· Can arise from the same incident
· Every claim MUST be based on distinct HARMS OR LOSSES
· Must NOT have alternative theories of liability
Diversity Jurisdiction: Amt-in-Controversy: MULTIPLE Ds
Where a single P sues multiple Ds in a single suit, he CANNOT add the claims against the Ds in order to reach an amount great than $75k
· MUST be met w/ EACH D
Diversity Jurisdiction: CITIZENSHIP
Depends on if the entity is a PERSON OR CORPORATION.
Diversity Jurisdiction: Citizenship: PEOPLE
Where they are DOMICILED, not where residences are located.
Domicile: PEOPLE
REQUIRES the convergence of TWO basic elements:
(1) Objective physical PRESENCE in the state; AND
(2) Subjective INTENTION by the party to remain there INDEFINITELY.
–> Courts usually look to facts and circumstances in order to ascertain.
Diversity Jurisdiction: Citizenship: CORPORATIONS OR ARTIFICAL ENTITIES
(1) The state where it was INCORPORATED; OR
(2) The state where it has its PRINCIPLE PLACE OF BUSINESS.
Diversity Jurisdiction: Citizenship: NERVE CENTER TEST
A corporations PPB consisted of the place where the corporation’s officers DIRECT, CONTROL and CORRDINATE the corporation’s activities.
· HQ provided that the HQs is the ACTUAL center of control and not simply an officer where board meetings are held.
Complete Diversity: Alienage Jurisdiction
Fed. ct. has SMJ over disputes b/w a citizen of any US state AND an alien.
· UNTIL the alien has been admitted to the US for permanent residence AND is domiciled.
- Same state as the US citizen-opponent = DENIED
Complete Diversity: Alienage Jurisdiction: Alien v. Alien
No fed. jurisdiction over an action by an alien again an alien
· BUT MAY appear as additional parties AS LONG AS there are citizens of the US on BOTH SIDES.
Citizenship: Partnerships
The citizenship of a partnership, general or limited, is that of EACH AND EVERY PARTNER.
Citizenship: LLC
Treated like an UNINCORPORATED association for citizenship purposes.
Citizenship: Unincorporated Associates
Considered a citizen of EACH STATE of which ANY MEMBER is a citizen.
Citizenship: Legal Representatives
Legal rep of the estate of a descendent, an infant, or incompetent –> Deemed to have the same citizenship as whom they rep.
Citizenship: Class Actions
Diversity is determined on the basis of the citizenship of the NAMED MEMBERS of the class who are suing.
· Can be overcome by carefully selecting named members
· OR P can change state PRIOR to commencement of the suit AS LONG AS genuine and NOT temporary.
Diversity Jurisdiction: Judicial Realignment
Court MAY realign the designation of the parties to create OR destroy diversity according to the parties true intentions with the suit.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
A court MAY entertain claims that (by themselves) do NOT meet the requirements of FQ or diversity jurisdiction IF the claims arise from a COMMON NUCLEAUS OF OPERATIVE FACT as the claim that invoked original federal SMJ.
Supplemental Jurisdiction: Intervening Parties
NO supplemental jurisdiction for claims by original Ps against intervening Ds
· OR claims by intervening Ps WHEN INTERVENTION IS AS OF RIGHT.
· MAY proceed ONLY IF there is an independent basis for SMJ
Supplemental Jurisdiction: Substitution of Party v. Replaced
→ Substituted = Citizenship of the substitution party is DISREGARDED.
→ Replaced = Wrong party was replaced w/ correct party = REPLACEMENT party’s citizenship
Supplemental Jurisdiction: Impleader
Impleader = 3P
→ NO diversity of amt. on controversy is required UNLESS the original P asserts a claim against the 3PD
Cross-Claims & Supplemental Jurisdiction
If the STOC, does NOT need to meet the requirements of diversity of citizenship OR FQ.
Amt. in Controversy: Counterclaims
→ D’s counterclaim CANNOT be combined w/ Ps claims to reach the 75k
→ compulsory counterclaim does NOT need to meet the 75k
Contributions to Amt. in Controversy
· Collateral consequences may NOT be considered;
· Attorneys’ fees that are recoverable by K OR by statute MAY be considered;
· Interest that is related to the claim itself CAN be considered; AND/OR
· Punitive damages PERMITTED UNDER STATE substantive law MAY be used.
State Court: Amt. in Controversy
P files in state court for amt. less than 75k requirement and D counters w/ suit more than 75k CANNOT be removed to fed. court
→ Removal only permitted by D b/c P 1st to file.
· PLEASE NOTE MODERN TREND to allow removal to federal court by P.
Erie Doctrine: GENERAL
A federal court in a diversity case WILL apply its own PROCEDURAL law
→ BUT MUST APPLY the substantive law of the STATE in which it is sitting.
Erie Doctrine: 1st Determination
Whether there is a FEDERAL LAW for the specific issue
→ YES? It applies provided it is VALID
→ NO? Apply to test to find out if issue is substantive OR procedural.
Erie Doctrine: Court Tests to Determine if Issue is SUBSTANTIVE or PROCEDURAL
1) Outcome Determinative Test;
2) Balance of Interest Test; OR
3) Forum shopping deterrence?
Erie Doctrine: Clearly Substantive
1) SOL;
2) Rules for tolling SOL; and/or
3) Choice of law rules.
Erie Doctrine: Statutes Involving BOTH Substantive & Procedural
Fed. Ct. will apply the STATE SUBSTANTIVELY and FED. PROCEDURAL.
Erie Doctrine: Interpreting State Laws
Fed. Ct. is bound to apply substantive law that would be applied by HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.
→ Fed. trial ct. reviewed DE NOVO by appellate.
→ UNTIL FINAL APPEAL, trial court decision MAY BE CHANGED to conform to a new decision.
Erie Doctrine: Federal Common Law: IMPLIED RIGHT OF ACTION BAED ON K
For damages against FEDERAL officials for violating K rights.
Exceptions to Diversity Jurisdiction
Federal cts. GENERALLY will not exercise diversity jurisdiction over domestic relations OR probate proceedings.
Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act (MMTIJA)
Applies to accidents in which AT LEAST 75 pp have died from a SINGLE ACCIDENT at a discrete location.
→ ONLY 1 P MUST be diverse from ONLY 1 D.
→ Intervention permitted.
MMTJA: Other Conditions
Only requires 1 P diverse from 1 D AND ONE OTHER FROM THE FOLLOWING:
· 1 D MUST reside in a different state from the place where a substantial party of the accident took place;
· Any 2 Ds MUST reside in different states; OR
· Substantial parts of the accident MUST have taken place in different states.
Federal Question (FQ)
Original jurisdiction over ALL civil actions arising under K law.
FQ: GENERAL
· FQ MUST appear as part of the P’s cause of action (COA) as set out in a WELL-PLEADED COMPLAINT.
· Defense based on federal law WILL NOT create FQ.
· NO amt. in controversy requirement.
· Can be IMPLIED federal right of action
→ T4: NOT ESSENTIAL that the federal statute expressly provide for a civil COA for a violation.
Federal Corporations & FQ
FQ does NOT arise merely from a corporate party incorporated by an act of Congress UNELSS the US owns MORE THAN 50% of the corporation’s stock.
FQ: Pendent CLAIM Jurisdiction
DISCRETIONARY supplemental jurisdiction over STATE CLAIMS if the claims derive from a CNOOF (common nucleus of operative facts.
FQ: Pendent PARTY Jurisdiction
Can arise from the CNOOF.
FQ: Specific Statutory Grants of Jurisdiction
Cases involving:
1) Bankruptcy;
2) Patent & copyright;
3) Involving US
4) Involving foreign states removed from state courts to federal courts;
5) USPS;
6) IRS; and/or
7) Security Exchange Act.
3-2-1
Art.3, §2, Clause 1
→ Establishes FQJ
FQ: COA Test
1) FQ is a SUBTANTIAL ONE (serious dispute);
2) FQ is serious and important enough to warrant pursuing the claim in federal ct.; AND
3) Are fed. cts. OVERWHELMED w/ a workload BEYOND what Congress INTENDED
Venue
Relates to the proper district in which to bring the action.
→ Question of geography rather than power of authority
→ MAY be WAIVED; OR
→ MAY be TRANSFERRED by Court for convenience or by parties if all agree.
Venue: General Rules
Venue in the fed. cts. is proper in:
· Judicial district (JD) where ANY D resides IF all Ds reside in the same state;
· JD where a substantial party of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred OR a substantial party of the property subject to the action; OR
· JD where ANY D is subject to PJ w/ respect to the action.
Venue: Residence: INDIVIDUALS
Resides in the JD in which he is DOMICILED.
→ INCLUDES an alien LAWFULLY admitted for permanent residence.
Venue: Residence: BUSINESS ENTITIES
Any JD in which it is subject to the court’s PJ w/ respect to the action in question.
Venue: Residence: NONRESIDENT OF THE US
May be sued in any JD.
→ Disregarded when joinder w/ respect to other Ds.
Improper Original Venue
Court MUST DISMISS OR TRANSFERRED to the proper venue in the interests of justice.
· Transfer is MORE appropriate UNLESS EXTRAORDINARY circumstances.
Venue: Transfer: APPLICABLE LAW
Was original venue proper?
→ YES = Apply law of the venue to which the case was originally assigned.
→ NO = Apply law of the venue to which the case shall be transferred.
