Civ Pro Flashcards
Personal jdx is the
court’s authority to exercise authority over a particular defendant. Exercise is proper if:
(1) authorized by statute; and
(2) does not violate the Due Process Clause
Traditionally, a state has jdx over a D if:
(1) D is domiciled in the forum state and has an intent to stay there
(2) D consents to jdx in the forum state, either expressly or impliedly by general appearance in the forum
(3) D is served with process while in the forum state, so long as it is not induced by fraud or force
(4) In rem: D owns property in the forum state which is the subject of the litigation, or
(5) Quasi in rem: D’s property in the forum state can be seized to satisfy a judgment
Long-arm statute
In addition to traditional bases, states have long-arm statutes authorizing jdx over particular Ds
Constitutional requirements of PJ
The DPC of 14th Am limits a state’s power to exercise PJ over a non-resident D which requires (MT like “empty)
(1) D has minimum contacts with the forum, and
(2) The exercise of PJ does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
CA long-arm statute
meets the constitutional limit
Minimum Contacts - Purposeful availment
Goes with minimum contacts
D, through her contact, has availed himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of the laws of the forum state
Minimum contacts - D is said to have min contacts when there is:
(a) purposeful availment of the laws of the forum state, and
(b) a lawsuit is foreseeable in that forum state
Foreseeability
D’s contacts with the forum state are such that it is foreseeable to him that a suit could be brought against him there
Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice are not violated when:
(1) the claim is related to D’s contacts within the forum
(2) it is convenient for the rest of the parties to litigate there, and
(3) the state has an interest in litigating the action in the forum state
Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice - Relatedness:
The court has general personal jurisdiction over a D that engages in systematic and continuous activities within the forum state such that D is essentially at home in the forum state.
The court has specific personal jurisdiction over a D if the cause of action arose from D’s activities within the state, however minimum.
Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice - Convenience
Litigating the forum state must be convenient to both parties, especially if D is put at a severe disadvantage in the litigation.
Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice - State’s Interest
The state must have an interest in protecting its citizens from unfair litigation or in litigating that particular action.
Subject matter jdx
- Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority to exercise its discretion over a particular controversy. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and may only hear cases involving:
o (1) Federal question jurisdiction, or
o (2) Diversity jurisdiction.
Federal Question Jdx
o Federal courts may hear claims if the right or interest is grounded in federal laws or statutes, arising under the U.S. Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
Diversity Jdx
o Federal courts may hear claims involving diversity of citizenship if:
n (a) There is complete diversity between the P and the D, and
n (b) The amount in controversy is greater than $75,000.
Complete Diversity
There is complete diversity when the when the citizenship of all Ps differs from the citizenship of all Ds.
Diversity for individuals: Citizenship is based on the individual’s domicile which is based on:
(i) Where the individual is physically present, and
(ii) Whether she has an intent to stay there.
Diversity for Corporations: Citizenship is based on either:
(i) The place of incorporation, or
(ii) The principal place of business (i.e. the headquarters or nerve center of the business where it directors, controls, and coordinates corporate activity NOT manufacturing or distribution centers).
Citizenship for unincorporated associations
Citizenship of the unincorporated association is every state where all members, including the general and limited partners, are citizens.
Citizenship for decedents, minors, and incompetents
Citizenship is based on where they are citizens, not where the executor or guardian is a citizen.
Amount in controversy
The amount in controversy is generally determined by the P’s complaint and must be a good faith estimate of her damages, excluding costs or interest and must be greater than $75,000. The court will not interfere, unless D can show, clear to a legal certainty, that P cannot recover more than $75,000.
P’s request of an injunction - if P is seeking equitable relief, courts will look either to:
(i) The value of the harm suffered by P, or
(ii) The cost of compliance to D
Aggregation of claims/parties claims
- One P can aggregate all claims against one D
- One P can aggregate claims against multiple Ds, if the Ds are jointly liable to P
Aggregation when multiples Ps
- If at least one P meets the amount, lower-amount Ps may probably use supplemental jurisdiction (see below) to enable them to join their claims together with the higher-amount P
- If no single P has a claim meeting the amount-in-controversy, aggregation by multiple Ps is NOT allowed
EXCEPTION: where two or more Ps unite to enforce a single title or right in which they have a common and undivided interest, then aggregation OK.
Aggregation for class actions
- 9th Circuit: OKAY if the named class representatives each have a claim over $75,000
- Other Courts: EVERY class member’s claim must be $75k+
Supplemental jdx
o A district court with jurisdiction may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims over which the court would not independently have SMJ, but that arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact.
o Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear claims over which there is no diversity or federal question if:
n (1) The underlying claims is a federal question only. Constitutional or federal law (no diversity)
(a) Claims must be joined by P
(b) TEST: If the claims are from the same transaction/occurrence and arose from a common nucleus of operative facts, the claims may be heard in federal court.
n (2) The underlying claim is federal question or diversity
(a) Claims may be joined by anyone except P
(b) TEST: If the claims are from the same transaction/occurrence and arose from a common nucleus of operative facts, the claims may be heard in federal court (same test as above), BUT the court has discretion to hear it.
CA SMJ
o A CA superior court has general subject matter jurisdiction and can hear any case except those that invoke exclusive federal jurisdiction (e.g. bankruptcy, federal securities, etc.)
CA SMJ Types of Cases
Limited, unlimited, small claims
Limited
The amount in controversy is $25,000 or less.
Unlimited
The amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.
Small Claims
If P is an individual, the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less.
If P is an entity, the amount in controversy is $5,000 or less.
CA SMJ - Classification
P must initially determine the amount of demand or recovery, not including costs.
If P files a limited cause of action, she must note the classification on top of the complaint.
CA SMJ Reclassification
n Reclassification occurs when the action was originally misclassified or originally correctly classified but subsequent pleadings indicate it should be reclassified (+/‐ $25,000).
What must a court find for reclassification from an unlimited claim to a limited claim?
· (1) The judgment will be for $25,000 or less, and
· (2) That recovery in excess of $25,000 is impossible.
What must a court find for reclassification from a limited claim to unlimited claim?
· There is a reasonable possibility that the judgment will exceed $25,000.
· If P amends the complaint and the clerk reclassifies the action, then there is automatic reclassification.
Removal and Remand
· In order to determine if P can remand a case back to state court from federal court, it must first be determined whether removal to the federal court was proper initially.
Removal
o D may remove a case to a federal court that embraces the state court where it was originally filed, provided that the case could have been filed in federal court
Removal in federal court is proper if:
P could have originally brought the action in federal court;
o Subject matter jurisdiction exists (federal question or diversity)
o If removal is sought solely based on diversity jurisdiction only, no removal if any D is a citizen of the state in which the action was filed.
o International diversity: if there is an international P and international Deft then diversity is not met and case can’t be removed even if the amount in controversy is met.
n Removal is sought by ALL Ds w/in 30 days of receiving complaint; AND
n ALL D’s MUST AGREE to the removal.
Remand: P may remand back to state court if:
n (1) Remand is sought within 30 days of grant of order to remove case to federal court, or
n (2) There is no subject matter jurisdiction (30 day deadline does not apply).
NOTE: Refer back to subject matter jurisdiction analysis just completed under removal.
Federal Courts have discretion to remand a case back to state court if:
(1) All federal claims have been resolved
(2) Only state claims are remaining, and
(3) There is no diversity jurisdiction.
Venue:
o Venue is where the action may be brought and is proper in a district court where:
The district where any D resides, if ALL Ds reside in the same state;
Venue is where the action may be brought and is proper in a district where:
- Residence - the district where any D resides, if ALL D’s reside in the same state
- In a district where a substantial part of he claim arose; OR
- If NONE of the above apply. look to whether the case is solely based on:
*Diversity: the district in which any D is subject to Personal Jurisdiction
*Federal:the district in which any D may be found
n NOTE: If (3) is at issue, go through personal jurisdiction analysis
Determining Residence for venue purposes
o Individual: Residence is individual’s domicile (see above)
o Corporation: Residence will be EVERY district where the corporation would be subject to personal jurisdiction
A court may transfer venue even if it proper if:
(a) another district where case could have been filed originally
(b) subject to balancing test
*D may move for a transfer of venue when venue is improper
Transfer of Venue - Another District Where Case Could Have Been Filed Originally
*Transferee court must have:
Proper venue;
SMJ; AND
PJ
Transfer of Venue: Subject to Balancing Test
the convenience of the parties/witnesses and the interests of justice outweighs P’s interest in the choice of forum
Balancing Test for Transferring Venue is based on
Public Factors and Private Factors
Public Factors
o (i) What law applies
o (ii) Which community should be burdened with jury service, and
o (1).
Private factors balancing in favor of the transfer
o (i) Convenience of the parties
o (ii) Convenience of the witnesses
o (iii) Where the evidence is located, and
o (iv) Where the claim arose.
D may move for a transfer of venue when venue is improper and a court can
a. Dismiss the Case; OR
b. In the Interests of Justice, Transfer the Case to Any District Where the Case Could Have Been Filed Originally
o Transferee court must have:
o Proper Venue;
o Subject Matter Jurisdiction; AND
o Personal Jurisdiction.
Forum Non conveniens
conveniens provides that, if there is a far more appropriate court elsewhere, a court will stay or dismiss the action, without prejudice, to let P sue D there. This applies when transfer is impossible because different judicial systems are involved.
The moving party for forum non conveniens must show:
o DISMISSAL BY FORUM NON CONVENIENS:
To obtain a dismissal by forum non conveniens, D must:
a. Demonstrate an adequate alternative forum is available; AND
b. Show that considerations of party and forum convenience override the P’s choice of forum, CONSIDERING WHETHER:
P is a state resident (if so, he has a stronger claim to be able to have his case heard in his home state);
o The witnesses and sources of proof are more available in a different state or county; AND
o The forum’s own state laws will govern the action (transfer is more likely if a different state’s law controls)
Erie Doctrine
- A federal court must apply state substantive law of the forum state and federal procedural law in cases based on diversity jurisdiction only.
Examples of substantive law
Elements of a claim or defense in contract or tort; Statute of limitations; Rules for tolling; Burden of proof; Choice of law rules-privilege discussion
Examples of procedural law
Judge-Jury allocation
If there is a question of whether a law is substantive or procedural, apply three tests to make the determination:
Forum shopping deterrence, outcome determinative, and balance of interests
Forum shopping deterrence
If the federal court does not apply the state law and it would encourage litigants to flock to federal court, then the state law must be applied.
Outcome determinative
An issue is substantive if it would directly affect the outcome of the case.
Balance of interests
The federal court must weigh the interests of the state versus the federal system in having its own rule applied.
CA & Erie: For tort claims, the governmental interest approach must be applied:
(1) The court determines if the laws of two or more states are the same.
(2) If the laws of the states are not the same, the court evaluates which state has an interest in the application of its laws.
(3) If both states have interest, the court looks to see which state’s interest would be more greatly impaired.
CA and the Erie Doctrine
o A federal court in CA, for diversity actions must apply CA’s conflict of law rules in determining the applicable substantive law.
CA & Erie: For contract claims, the court looks to the choice of law clauses within the K:
- (1) If there is a choice of law clause in the contract, the court must determine whether the clause is enforceable.
TEST: Does the state have a substantial relationship to the parties? - (2) If the clause is enforceable, the court sees if state’s law conflicts with a CA fundamental policy.
If there is a conflict, the court must decide if CA has a materially greater interest than the other state. - (3) If no clause exists, or the clause is unenforceable, the court applies the governmental interest approach to see which state’s laws govern contract.
Service of Process
- P must give D notice of the action by delivering a (i) summons and (ii) a copy of the complaint.
o Summons: A summons is a formal court notice of suit and time for response.
Methods of Service
Personal Service
Substituted Service
Service on D’s Agent
Waiver by Mail
Corporations
Substituted Service
Process is left (i) at D’s usual place of abode (ii) with a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there.
Personal Service
Papers may be given to D in person by someone other than P.
Service on D’s Agent
Process is delivered to D’s agent if receiving the service is within the scope of agency.
Waiver by Mail
P may request a waiver of service, but it requires writing, addressed to D, a copy of the complaint and two copies of a waiver form, a prepaid means for returning the waiver form, and give D a reasonable time of at least 30 days after the request was sent to return the waiver.
If D timely returns waiver before being served with process,
D does not have ot serve answer to complaint until 60 days after request was sent. This acts as an incentive to waive service because normal period in which an answer must be served is 21 days after SOP.
If D fails to waive service, without good cause, court must impose on the D the expense that are incurred in making service and the reasonable expenses, including atty fees.
SOP to Corps
delivering summons and complaint to an officer, managing agent, general agent, or agent appointed/authorized by law to receive process.
SOP under State Law
Any way permitted by state law in either (i) the state where the federal court sits or (ii) the state where service is effected.