Civ Pro 2 Questions

Question 1

PJ- Traditional Basis of PJ

Answer 1

1. Domicile- since you owe allegiance because of benefits received, the State has power to adjudicate over you (general jurisdiction)
2. Agency- if you have an agent in the forum
3. Consent- often in the form of a contract
4. Physical Presence/Territoriality in the forum(Tagging jurisdiction)- physically served with summons (general jurisdiction)
5. Doing Business

Question 2

PJ- Pennoyer v. Neff

Answer 2

Case deals with territoriality. A state is all powerful within its borders but impotent outside its borders. Case gives us the traditional basis of PJ.

Question 3

PJ- Hess v. Pawloski

Answer 3

Expansion of traditional basis of PJ- (first breach of the territoriality doctrine). Case which held that a state has PJ over a party through a legal fiction where a party consents to PJ under a state statute which made a govt. official their agent simply by driving in the state. Expands ‘consent’ to implied consent. Expands agency as appointed by statute.

Question 4

PJ- International Shoe v. Washington (1945)

Answer 4

Case that ruled that created a new formula through due process(not present at time of Pennoyer).

1. Did out of state actor have ‘such minimum contacts with the forum’
2. ‘so jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ to require the out of state actor to stand and defend in the forum.

This case had the effect of preventing ‘distant forum abuse’ and allowed states to create long-arm statutes. Since Shoe, SCOTUS has ruled on what fair play, minimum contacts, substantial justice is.

three important things

1. you can now serve process outside the forum
2. test has two parts- contact and fairness part
3. does not overrule Pennoyer- gives minimum contracts test as an alternative to Pennoyer

Question 5

PJ- Hansen v. Denkle (5/4 decision/ Post-Shoe)

Answer 5

Hard case- Penn. citizen sets up Del. trust, then moves to Fla. Dies in Fla. and question is whether Del. trust is subj. to jurisdiction in Fla. Answer is No.
Majority- standards have to be looked at through the perspective of defendants (in this case not enough)
Minority- majority had too narrow a viewpoint. The view should look at the entire set of transactions, and judge jurisdiction based on all the circumstances (tons of contacts with Fla. so Fla. should have PJ)

Question 6

PJ- World Wide Volkswagon v. Woodson (Post-Shoe)

Answer 6

P buys car from N.Y. auto dealer ( ), moves to AZ., but en route, gets into an accident in OK. Sues W.W. Volkswagon, Seaway Motors (distributor and reseller of car) as well as others. Suit was brought in OK and question was- does the OK long arm statute (to the Const. limits) allow jurisdiction in OK?
Answer- NO- unconstitutional under due process because neither Seaway nor W.W. Volkswagon had no minimum contracts. This was so despite the argument that cars are moveable and OK has roads. SCOTUS said that parties must “reasonably apprehend” that they may be called to defend before the forum court. Neither D’s had contracts with OK other than abstract and indirect means, which is not enough. Car brought to OK by purchasers.

Question 7

PJ- Asahi (Motorcycle Tire Case/ Stream of Commerce) (Post-Shoe)

Answer 7

Stream of Commerce Case (is a manufacturer vulnerable to jurisdiction wherever their product shows up?)
4/4/1 Split
4- Brennan- entering product into stream of commerce is enough to allow PJ in any forum
4- O’Connor- stream of commerce + is required (something else, i.e. advertising)
1- Stevens- tangent

Question 8

Strawbridge v. Curtiss

Answer 8

Complete Diversity Rule- complete diversity is needed to invoke diversity jurisdiction.

Question 9

PJ- International Shoe Test for Contacts

Answer 9

Continuous & Systematic + Related = Jurisdiction

Isolated & Sporadic + Related= Specific Jurisdiction if ‘purposeful availment’ and ‘reasonable’

Continuous & Systematic + Unrelated= General jurisdiction if contacts are ‘substantial’

Isolated & Sporadic + Unrelated= No PJ

Question 10

PJ- General In Personam Jurisdiction

Answer 10

The defendant can be sued in the forum on a claim that arose anywhere in the world.

Question 11

PJ- Specific In Personam Jurisdiction

Answer 11

The defendant is being sued for a claim that arises within the forum.

Question 12

PJ- Hanson v. Denckla

Answer 12

Under International Shoe, a ‘contact’ must result from Defendants “purposeful availment” (voluntary act- reach out to forum in some way)
Florida had no PJ over a Delaware bank (trust)

Question 13

PJ- World Wide Volkswagen

Answer 13

No PJ in Oklahoma because there was no purposeful availment even if it was forseeable that a car could get to OK.

Forseeablity that the product would get to the forum is not relevant- it must be forseeable that the defendant could get sued in the forum.

Question 14

PJ- Reasonableness Factors

Answer 14

1. the burden on the defendant
2. the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
3. the Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
4. the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies (not clear)
5. the shared interests of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. (not clear)

Question 15

PJ- Nature of Contacts-

Continuous & Systematic and Related

Answer 15

Jurisdiction

Question 16

PJ- Nature of Contacts-

Continuous & Systematic and Unrelated

Answer 16

General jurisdiction if contacts are ‘substantial’

Question 17

PJ- Nature of Contacts-

Isolated & Sporatic and Related

Answer 17

Specific jurisdiction if purposeful availment and reasonableness requirements satisfied

Question 18

PJ- Nature of Contacts-

Isolated & Sporatic and Unrelated

Answer 18

No jurisdiction

Question 19

Venue- Diversity Actions

Answer 19

Individuals- venue is proper in the district where ANY defendant resides, so long as all the defendants reside in the same state
Corps are deemed to reside in any district where they are subject to PJ or in the district “within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to PJ if that district were a separate State.
Fallback- if no good according to test- venue is OK where any defendant is subject to PJ.

Question 20

Venue- Non-Diversity Actions

Answer 20

Venue is proper in any district where a ‘substantial part’ of the events or omissions giving rise to the cause of action occurred. If property is at issue, then venue is proper in the district where a substantial part of the property is located.
Fallback- if no good according to test- venue is OK where any defendant “may be found”.

Question 21

Venue Fallback- when used

Answer 21

You may only refer to fallback provisions if neither of the first two tests gives you ANY venue.

Question 22

1367(b)-

Answer 22

•this takes away supplemental jurisdiction if:
•applies ONLY in diversity cases (never on federal question cases)
•takes away supplemental jurisdiction ONLY on certain claims by PLAINTIFFS
•applies to persons made parties under Rules
o 14- Impleader
o 19- Compulsory Joinder of Parties
o 20- Permissive Joinder of Parties
o 24- Intervention

Question 23

1367(a)-

Answer 23

• this grants supplemental jurisdiction if:

* if it meets the “common nucleus of operative fact” with the underlying case properly in federal court

Question 24

Aggregation-

Answer 24

•Where you must add multiple claims to get over 75k
o You may aggregate the P’s claims if:
•one P vs. one D
•claims do not have to be related
o You may NOT aggregate if there are multiple parties on either side
o With joint claims, you use the total value of the claim
•The number of parties is irrelevant

Question 25

SMJ- Citizenship of a Natural Person

Answer 25

•Citizen of the state where domiciled
o A person has only one domicile at a time
o Domicile (retained until you change it
•Physical presence
•Intent to make that place your home

Question 26

SMJ- Citizenship of a Business

Answer 26

Citizen of:
o the state where incorporated, AND
o principle place of business (PPB)
•nerve center test ( where managers direct, control and coordinate corporate activities)

Question 27

SMJ- Citizenship of an unincorporated business( partnerships, LLC’s, etc.)

Answer 27

o Citizen of he states where their members are citizens

Question 28

Removal- requirements

Answer 28

o Case meets federal SMJ (either diversity of federal question)
• Exception in diversity cases ONLY:
• No removal if any D is a citizen of the forum (In-State Def. Rule)
o You must remove with 30 days after service of process
o All D’s who have been served must join the notice of removal
• Must be unanimous
o 30 days starts again for newly-served D’s
• this renews the ability to remove after each newly-served D

Question 29

Venue- places where venue is proper

Answer 29

o Lay venue in any district where ALL D’s reside
• If all D’s reside in different districts of the same state, you may sue in any of the districts where any one of them reside.
• A person resides in the district where domiciled
• A business (any kind) resides in all districts where it is subject to PJ
o Lay venue in any district where a substantial part of the claim arose

Question 30

Venue- transfer of venue

Answer 30

• In both 1404 and 1406, the transferee court must be a proper venue and have PJ over D- must be independently true (no waiver by D)
•1404 transfer
• transferor court is a proper venue
o from a proper venue to a proper venue
o you can transfer for convenience for parties or witnesses and interest of justice
•1406 transfer
• transferor court is an improper venue
o from an improper venue to a proper venue
o gives court a choice to transfer in the interest of justice OR dismiss
• after all, P laid venue in an improper court.

Question 31

Forum Non Convieniens

Answer 31

• This is where a court dismisses because there is a much more appropriate somewhere else
• Since a federal court cannot transfer a case to a state or foreign court, the court must dismiss if FNC is granted.
• This transferee court must be ‘adequate’- but simply because you can recover less is irrelevant.
• Usually comes up where the better court is in a foreign country
• This decision is judged by the same factors used in a 1404 transfer

Question 32

Erie Doctrine- Hannah Prong

Answer 32

a. Is there a Federal directive on point?
i. If so, and the federal directive is valid, the federal directive wins
ii. It is valid if the directive is arguably procedural (Shady Grove)
1. Also can’t enlarge, abridge, or modify the substantive right (Rules Enabling Act)
iii. This is based on the Rules Enabling Act and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution

Question 33

Erie Doctrine- Erie Prong

Answer 33

a. A Federal court, sitting in diversity, must apply state substantive law.
b. This is based on the Rules of Decision Act and the 10th Amendment
i. Is the law substantive?
1. Outcome Determinative test- Is it outcome determinative? Guarantee Trust v. York
a. i.e. if the federal court applies the state law vs. federal law, does this result in a different outcome?
2. Balancing of interest test- Byrd v. Blue Ridge
a. Does the state/federal government have an interest in the statute
i. i.e. weigh the state’s interest, then weigh the federal interest
3. Twin Aims of Erie test- Hannah
a. Erie seeks to avoid
i. Forum shopping
ii. The inequitable administration of justice
b. You ask one question to see if this applies
i. If the federal judge ignores the state law, would this cause parties to flock to federal court.

Question 34

Class Actions- Four Prerequisites

Answer 34

1. Commonality- something in common to whole class
   a. Walmart case- commonality is not as easy as it once was
2. Adequacy of rep- rep will adequately protect interest of class when bound
3. Numerosity- too many plaintiffs
4. Typicality of claims- rep’s claim must be typical of class

Question 35

Class Actions- Rules for 23(b)(3) damages class

Answer 35

i) common questions predominate over individual questions

ii) class action is superior way to resolve the case

Question 36

Class Actions- Other requirements

Answer 36

3) Case is not a class action until court certifies
a) When the court certifies, it appoints class counsel-23(g)
4) Notice of pendency
a) In the 23(b)(3) class action, the court must give individual notice to all members reasonably identifiable
i) What you must tell them (23(c)(2)(b)
(1) You can opt out- if you don’t you’re bound
b) Rep pays for this notice
5) Who is bound by a class judgment
a) All members except those who opt out of the 23(b)(3)
b) No right to opt out of a 23(b)(1) or a 23(b)(2) (these are called mandatory classes)
6) Settlement or Dismissal of a Certified Class
a) These must be approved by the court- 23(e)

Question 37

Class Actions- SMJ Rule 23

Answer 37

Rule 23 SMJ Requirements-

i) For citizenship- look to the rep- if diverse from all D’s, this is OK
ii) For amount in controversy- the rep’s claim must exceed 75k (class member’s claims are irrelevant) (supplemental jurisdiction takes care of this)

Question 38

Class Actions- SMJ CAFA

Answer 38

CAFA SMJ Requirements-

• Augments some elements of SMJ for class actions
o You can get in the conventional way or through CAFA
• Relaxes the diversity jurisdiction requirement
o Amount in controversy is $5,000,000+1
• No need for one class member to have 75,000
o Any class member must be diverse from any defendant for diversity
o More than 100 must be in class