Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Civ Pro > Civ Pro Final > Flashcards

Civ Pro Final Flashcards

1
Q

Personal Jurisdiction

A

The state a defendant can be sued in
-General Jurisdiction
-Specific Jurisdiction
(2 separate analyses!)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

General Jurisdiction

A
  • arises out of defendant’s domicile, incorporation, or principal place of business in the forum, or tag (physical presence in state when served)
  • defendant’s contacts with the forum state are so systematic and continuous that he is essentially at home in the forum
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Specific Jurisdiction

A
  • claim “arises out of” a defendant’s contacts with the forum
  • d must have sufficient minimum contacts with state such that lawsuit is consistent with fair play and substantial justice
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What law will the court apply?

A
  • Horizontal - states applying law of other states

- Vertical - Federal court applying state law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Where does personal jurisdiction come from?

A
  • 14th Amendment Due Process (states)

- 5th Amendment Due Process(fed)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Pennoyer traditional bases for state exercising PJ:

A
  • Domiciled (reside with intent to remain)
  • Place of Inc./Assoc. or PPB
  • Consent/Waiver
  • Served while present in state
  • (Quasi) In rem
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

A

Can the case be heard in federal or state court?

  • Diversity Jurisdiction
  • Federal Question Jurisdiction
  • Supplemental Jurisdiction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Personal Jurisdiction: In Personum

A
  • court has jurisdiction over the the person of the defendant and all the defendant’s assets, wherever located
  • liability not limited
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Personal Jurisdiction: In Rem

A

-Jurisdiction because d owns real property in the state

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Personal Jurisdiction: Quasi-In Rem

A
  • Jurisdiction because d kind of has property in the state
  • liability limited to value of property
  • ex: d has stock in the state
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Fairness Factors/Fair Play and Substantial Justice Analysis (Reasonableness) from Burger King

A
  1. Burden on defendant;
  2. Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute;
  3. Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief;
  4. Judicial efficiency
  5. State’s interest in furthering social
    policies
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Long Arm Statutes

A
  • Statutes that authorize a court to obtain jurisdiction over a d not in the state
  • Goes to the constitutional limits
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

International Shoe

A
  • overruled Pennoyer!
  • to establish personal jurisdiction, d must have minimum contacts with a state
  • Minimum contacts must be consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
  • A single, isolated, or casual connection to a state is not sufficient
  • before specific and general jurisdiction existed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Ways to Obtain Jurisdiction after International Shoe

A
  • individual domiciled in the forum state (whether physically present or not)
  • Place of incorporation
  • Consent/waiver
  • Minimum contacts consistent with traditional notions of fair play
  • Served while physically present
  • in rem and quasi-in-rem
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Stream of Commerce Theory

A
  • applies when a corporation manufactures, sells, or markets a product in one state, the product ends up in another state, and the product injures someone in that other state.
  • usually products liability case!!!
  • The courts must ask whether the corporation has purposefully availed itself of jurisdiction within the state where one suffers an injury
  • specific jurisdiction only
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

McGee - Minimum Contacts Test

A

TX insurance company essentially has
has only one policy in Cali, but that is sufficient to establish minimum contacts because the one contact is highly related to the claim. Jurisdiction - McGee wins!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What are concerns while developing limits on personal jurisdiction?

A
  • Standards v. rules
  • Defendant forum shopping and state forum selling to defendants
  • Crowding out Congress with Con law
  • Inconvenience of plaintiffs having to travel
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What are problems with no rules on personal jurisdiction?

A

•Fairness: Inconvenience to defendants litigating far away
•State Sovereignty: Federalism concerns
•Plaintiff forum shopping (theorized)
•State/court forum selling to plaintiffs and favoring their own citizens
(theorized)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Helicopteros - Minimum Contacts

A

-makes minimum contacts test more discrete

Specific v. General; independent inquiries

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Hanson

A

Defendant has to “purposefully avail.” “Unilateral activity” of third party not enough.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Burger King

A

Two Separate Tests:

  • Step 1: Minimum contacts analysis
  • Step 2: Fair play and substantial justice analysis (Reasonableness factors)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Asahi - significance

A

The only case in which the Supreme Court has ruled jurisdiction is unconstitutional on the basis of “fair play and substantial justice.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Asahi - OConnor’s Stream of Commerce Plus Test

A
  1. Designing the product for the market in the forum state;
  2. Advertising in the forum state;
  3. Establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum state; or
  4. Marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum state.
  5. Maybe other things?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Minimum Contacts Test

A
  • purposeful availment
  • claim arises out of or relate to d’s contacts w the forum state
  • reasonableness
  • generally, specific jurisdiction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Purposeful Availment Factors for Contracts cases (Burger King)

A
  1. Prior negotiations
  2. Contemplated future consequences
  3. Terms of the contract
  4. Parties’ actual course of dealings
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Worldwide Volkswagon

A
  • Solidifies the “unilateral activity” rule.
  • Introduces idea of stream of commerce, which is broken by unilateral activity.
  • Just because its foreseeable that cars could be driven all over the country doesn’t mean there’s jurisdiction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Goodyear

A
  • Stream of commerce is about specific jurisdiction, not general jurisdiction.
  • Goodyear’s contacts w the state were not continuous and systematic as to render them at home in the forum state so no general jurisdiction either
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Nicastro

A
  • just because it’s foreseeable that a product could end up in that state, doesn’t mean there’s personal jurisdiction!
  • must be purposeful availment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Daimler

A
  • Daimler was an agent of Mercedes
  • Plaintiff claimed that since Mercedes would have general jurisdiction, so would Daimler
  • Wrong! Daimler’s contacts with the forum state weren’t continuous and systematic - no general jurisdiction
30
Q

Tag Jurisdiction (General Jurisdiction)

A

Tag jurisdiction is General jurisdiction

  • reasonableness analysis isn’t allowed for general jurisdiction!!!
  • presence has to be voluntary
  • can’t be induced by fraud to come into the state
  • can’t be served while in the state for other litigation
31
Q

Burnham

A
  • Husband was served divorce papers in Cali so personal jurisdiction (tag)
  • personal jurisdiction because husband voluntarily came into and availed himself to the state
32
Q

Ford Motor Co

A
  • Even though Ford didn’t sell these two specific cars in the states where the accidents occurred, Ford marketed in Montana and Minnesota
  • The marketing in the state was “related” (causal link) to the claim, because if it weren’t for all of the advertising in the state, the car probably wouldn’t have ended up in the state.
33
Q

SMJ vs PJ

A
  • Personal jurisdiction is about the territory that a claim can be brought in.
  • Subject matter jurisdiction is about what system of courts a claim can be brought in—federal, state, or both.
  • Unlike PJ, SMJ cannot be waived and can be raised at ANY time
34
Q

General Jurisdiction of SMJ

A
  • State courts are courts of “general jurisdiction”

- not the same as PJ general jurisdiction!!!

35
Q

Limited Jurisdiction of SMJ

A

-Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction

36
Q

Exclusive Jurisdiction of SMJ

A
  • federal courts (sometimes)

- ex: only fed courts can hear patent claims

37
Q

Diversity Jurisdiction: 28 USC Section 1332

A
  • need complete diversity and action must exceed the sum or value of $75,000
  • diversity jurisdiction if plaintiff is foreign country or additional party is foreign country and there’s complete diversity
  • permanent residents count
38
Q

Diversity Jurisdiction: Constitution

A
  • need minimal diversity.

- don’t need complete diversity.

39
Q

Citizenship of Corporations

A
  • State of incorporation; and

* Principal place of business

40
Q

Citizenship of Unincorporated Businesses (like LLPs)

A

-citizens of all states of which their members are citizens (depends on members, not principal place of business)

41
Q

State Citizenship for Individuals

A
  1. citizen of the US
  2. Domicile
    (determined at time of filing)
42
Q

Exceptions to Diversity Jurisdiction (won’t see in federal court):

A
  • domestic relations
  • divorce, custody
  • probate
43
Q

Mas v. Perry

A
  • Perry (creepy landlord) was sued by Mas’s in fed court
  • Perry argued no complete diversity, so this should be in La state court (not fed court)
  • Mas’s won, because although they lived in La - there was no indication that they were domiciled there - intended to stay there permanently
44
Q

Foreign Parties - Diversity Jurisdiction

A
  • foreign parties are treated as one foreign state
  • ex: CA, Japan v. Mi, Japan; complete diversity
  • ex: CA, Switzerland v. France; no diversity jurisdiction - Switzerland and France are treated as same party
  • foreign country must be plaintiff if it’s vs the country (rather than as a citizen of the country)
45
Q

Grupo Dataflux

A
  • No diversity of Jurisdiction - Mexicans on each side of the v at time of filing.
  • low certainty
46
Q

Legal Certainty

A

-high certainty - Everyone adopts formalism (rules won’t expand)
-medium certainty - Everyone adopts
pragmatism
-low certainty - A mix of formalism and
pragmatism (rules will expand)

47
Q

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a): AIC (amount in controversy requirement for diversity)

A
  • can aggregate a single plaintiff’s claims against a single defendant (& claims don’t have to be related)
  • cannot aggregate claims from different plaintiffs, unless there is a common and undivided interest (rare).
  • can aggregate a singles p’s claims against multiple d’s if d’s are jointly liable
48
Q

Included in AIC:

A

•Attorney fees if by contract or statute.
•Statutory damages
•Interest, only if part of the claim (not
interest that will accumulate during
litigation).
•NOT costs

49
Q

Mottley vs. L&N Railroad

A

-Mottley’s claims asserted breach of contract under state law - no federal causes of action, BUT the Motley’s anticipated L&N raising the 1906 Congressional Act as a defense
-anticipated federal question as a defense it not enough
-plaintiff can’t create federal question jurisdiction by alleging federal defenses
(well-pleaded complaint rule)

50
Q

Well Pleaded Complaint Rule:

A

SMJ exists only when the plaintiffs’ claims
arise under federal law, not on the basis of an
anticipated federal defense, even if p’s
complaint is focused on anticipated federal
defense.

51
Q

Holmes Creation Test

A
  • How to know where a claim arises under federal law
  • A claim “arises under” federal law if federal law creates the right of action
  • this is not law, though!
52
Q

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

A
  • Thompson’s child was born w deformities so Thompson’s brought state law claim against Merrell for violating FDA labeling requirement
  • didn’t pass holmes test
  • federal issue was not substantial enough to create federal question jurisdiction
53
Q

Grable & Sons Metal Products,

Inc. v. Darue Engineering

A
  • Grable got behind on his taxes and sought quiet title in state court to reclaim land
  • there’s federal question jurisdiction even though quiet title action is state claim because the validity of the IRS’s service by certified mail is federal question and Fed gov has a strong interest in interpreting tax law.
  • the outcome of this case won’t cause flood of litigation
54
Q

Gunn - Conditions for a state lawsuit to involve a claim arising under federal patent law:

A
  • state case must necessarily raise a patent-law issue
  • the issue must be disputed
  • the issue must be substantial
  • a federal court must be able to adjudicate the issue without disturbing the appropriate balance between federal and state judicial responsibilities
55
Q

Supplemental Jurisdiction

A

-if a fed court can hear a case, it may hear related state law claims arising out of the same facts

56
Q

Supplemental Jurisdiction: 1367(a)

A

claim has to be related to a claim that the court has jurisdiction over (original/subject matter jurisdiction)

57
Q

Supplemental Jurisdiction: 1367(b)

A

-takes away supplemental jurisdiction in a number of joinder scenarios involving supplemental claims by plaintiffs when original jurisdiction was premised solely on diversity jurisdiction

58
Q

Supplemental Jurisdiction: 1367(c)

A

court has option to decline supplemental jurisdiction (very discretionary)

59
Q

Rule 20

A

Permissive Joinder of Parties: Plaintiff may add parties if claims are
related (Defendants too via counterclaim)

60
Q

Rule 14

A

Third-Party Practice: A defendant—or a plaintiff who has a counterclaim against her—may add a party who may be liable for the claim
against her.

61
Q

Rule 19

A

Required Joinder of Parties: Sometimes, you must add parties

62
Q

Rule 24

A

Intervention: Sometimes, outsiders can force themselves into the suit

63
Q

Exxon Mobil v. Allapattah

A
  • Not all claims against Exxon exceeded the minimum amount in controversy required ($75k)
  • If at least one p satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, there’s SJ
64
Q

1441(a) Removal Jurisdiction

A

-any civil action brought in a State court where

the fed courts have original jurisdiction, may be removed from state court by the defendant to fed court

65
Q

1441 Limitations on Removal

A
  • home state d exception: not removable if d is resident of forum state - only applies in diversity jurisdiction cases
  • can’t remove claims that are over 1 year old if diversity case
  • no time limit on federal question cases though!
66
Q

Homestead Rule

A

if someone sues you in your home state court, you don’t have the ability to move it to federal court

67
Q

1446: Procedure for Removal

A

-defendant has 30 days to file notice of removal

68
Q

1447 Procedure after Removal

A
  • p files motion to remand case back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or procedural defect like missing deadline to file a notice of removal
  • if defect is procedural- p only has 30 days after notice of removal is filed to move to remand
69
Q

FRCP vs. State Law

A

FRCP wins because it’s constitutional

70
Q

Federal Question Analysis

A 
Holmes Creation Test (usually)
Grable Test (sometimes)

Civ Pro (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions