Civil Procedure Flashcards
Rule statement
Personal Jurisdiction
How do we start it?
- Power of a court over a party; geographical
- Requires both constitutional due process and statutory long arm authorization
- the long arm statute authorizes the assertion of jurisdiction to the full extent of the due process clause
Rule statement
Pennoyer three way
- Citizen
- consent
- in hand, in state, tag service
owning property just by itself was not enough in Pennoyer
Rule statement
International shoe
Pure rule and two options
if you knock out the pennoyer 3 way
- overruled the exclusiveness of Pennoyer and added a 4th way: minimum contacts test
- Specific jurisdiction and General jurisdiction
General Jurisdiction
Tell me the pure rule, the case, the test
- A defendant’s contacts with the forum satisfy GJ if they are so pervasive and constant as to render the defendant essentially at home in the forum state.
- Daimler: the court held that it was a comparative theory, where the defendant is most at home. Similar to Pennoyer citizenship
- At home test: Domicile = individual; PPB/Corp = corp
extreme scenario: destruction off PPB, company sends everything into US. even though PPB and Corp not there, it still counts
Specific Jurisdiction
The pure rule
- The defendant must have sufficient minimal contacts that comport with fair play and substantial justice
- We look at the relationship among the defendant, cause of action, and the forum state
Minimum contacts
Connection between Forum and Defendant
- Purposefully avail the defendant of the benefits and privileges of the forum state’s law such that the defendant can reasonably foresee being haled into court there
- there must be some purposeful connection between the defendant and the forum
- there can be intermediaries - my actions directly led to the conduct in NY even though i have never been to newyork
not just any contacts, contacts that give rise to the benefits and privileges
Additions to connection between forum and defendant
- is there something about the forum state that the defendant is targetting? like putting a NM flag on toy soldiers (customization)
- did the defendant know products were going there? how much
- is there some specificity?
- is 99% of business in the forum?
- quantity can play a role as well
none of these are necessarily dispostivie
Walden
- There was no connection between Walden and NV
- Does not matter if plaintiff has connection
- Walden had zero connection with NV himself
- Touchestone: **Def have purposeful connection to the state **
- it is not enough that the defendant had connection with the plaintiff only, plaintiff actions will not establish PJ SOLELY by themselves
might be different if Walden published a story, talking mad shit, defamed them, and Walden publishes this all over the country and it goes into NV, then he gets sued for defamation. Here, we have a purposeful conduct/connection
Forum and Cause of action
- the cause of action must arise in the forum
- BMS
in BMS, CA v. BMS, but OH and TX plaintiffs want to join. But their COA happened in OH and TX. So no PJ of CA courts
Defendant and the Cause of Action
- Defendant must have sufficient connection (or be related) to the cause of action
- Ford
helpful thought: in international shoe, all those salesmen while they were there gave rise to (way past related, so good for us) the cause of action (tax)
Ford
- Ford had tons of purposeful availment and benefits and privileges (contacts)
- they marketed, sales, dealerships, autoparts
- BUT Ford argued these had nothing to do with the the cause of action! so no PJ!
- but SCOTUS said no these contacts are sufficiently related or give rise to
- you encouraged residents of these forums to buy this cars!
What fails minimum contacts test?
Isolated & sporadic + no cause of action = no PJ
btw courts have held isolated and sporadic + cause of action = PJ
if the single contact is significant enough
Fair play & substantial justice?
Burger King fairness factors?
- Burden on Defendant
- Interest of the forum
- Interest of the plaintiff
- court has never applied the other two
How do you challenge PJ
- Refuse to show up = default judgment, waived merits but you can contest PJ (collateral attack)
- Special appearance = immunity from tag and show up to plainitff’s home court and challenge PJ, preserve appeal but no collateral attack
- Waive it and beat them on the merits
SMJ
Diversity Jurisdiction
- for a federal court to have DJ over a case, the court must have both constitutional and statutory authorization
- Article III requires only minimal diversity and has no AiC
- statutory authorization requires complete diversity and amount in controvery exceed 75k
Domicile
for a citizen, corp, or unincorp
- A US citizen is a citizen of birth state unless they changed their citizenship by taking domicile in a different state
- you need to be physically residing there and subjective intent to remain indefinitely
- citizenship is assessed at time of filing
- PPB/INC for corp
- Members test for unincorp
- Fixed at time of filing
Complete diversity
how do you prove intent
- deposition
- drivers license, other forms
- taxes
- what kind of job (temp or permanent)
- voting
Amount in Controvery
and 3 wrinkles
- fixed at time of filing
- must be made in good faith
in terms of dollars but nonmonetary relief is acceptable and court will put dollar value.
good faith must pass common sense
some laws might not allow punative damages
remember aggregation
Members test
for non corps, figured out by firms partners’ location
ONLY the members
headquarters are irrelevant
might have a partner that is corp or another partnership!
partnership? use members
Corp? PPB/Corp
Alien Jurisdiction
Foreign v. US = Alien (exclusively) this is the requirement for AJ
TX & FR v. CA = no alien but we have domestic
LPR exception to AJ = if an LPR is domiciled as same state as other side of v. = then no AJ
FR (LPR NY) v. TX is OK for AJ
Fr v. En (no domestic and no AJ)
NY & FR (LPR CA) v. CA = no AJ and yes domestic DJ
domestic DJ looks at US citizens only - LPR are irrelevant AND domestic DJ requires US citizens on both sides
LPR only relevant to destroying AJ
No AJ if us citizens on both side of v
Constitutional SMJ
Federal Question
Under Osborn, article III FQ jxn extends to a case in which fed issue forms an essential ingredient, even if dominated by state law issue
just needs to exist
Statutory
Federal Question
Mottley only
- statutory has been interpreted to be much narrower
- Under mottley, FQ jxn exists only if the federal issue appears in the plaintiff’s well pleaded complaint
- not by anticipated defense or counterclaim
appear in the complaint and be apart of the claim
Statutory
Federal Question
Grable and Gunn
- must be necessarily raised = wpc
- actually disputed = one party argues the federal issue one way, while other party argued other way
- substantial importance = uniformity that a federal forum can offer
- Non-disruptive = Capable of resolution in fed court without disrupting the fed-state balance approved by congress
Grable
meets embedded federal issue in state law claim
- quiet title claim (state law)
- notice provided by IRS unlawful - grable needs to prove this so it is WPC
- this was actually disputed because both parties will dispute this
- substantial because how the IRS gives notice will be important for uniformity
- this is a case of law, how does IRS give notice, will not disrupt balance of Fed and State
substantial = 50 different interpretations for how IRS gives notice = BAD
Gunn
does not meet embedded federal issue in state law claim
- Patent infrigement but loses and then sues for attorney malpractice (state law claim)
- there are essential fed ingredients - attorney messed up federal patent case
- and he meets mottley WPC as well, he cant win without patent part
- Actually disputed? yes both parties will argue
- substantial? NO! this is substantial to this case, but not to the fed system of the whole, not a pure question of law that will set precedent, will only resolve attorney malpractice
- nondisruptive? NO, a bunch of attorney malpractice cases will be thrown into fed court, regulation of attorneys belong to the state
Supplemental JXN
1367
- when a claim not eligible for FQ and DJ is joined with a claim that is eligible (anchor)
- does claim meet DJ or FQ? yes, court keeps
- is the claim related to the anchor claim? no, dismiss
- Exception: is anchor based solely on DJ AND plaintiff side AND under R14, R20, R24? yes to all? exclude, dismiss
- All surviving, under court’s discretion
3 potential defects
Removal and Remand
- Lack of SMJ
- violation of Forum defendant rule
- untimeliness of removal or like unanimity rule
in general
Removal and Remand
removal only
- each defendant gets 30 day period to remove (subject to consent if multiple defendants) – when the case becomes removable (typically at time of complaint service) but for example Forum defendant rule may stop removable
- one year bar for DJ that begins at date of original complaint (with exception of bad faith)
- Forum defendant rule = if based on DJ may be removed only if no defendant is a citizen of the state in which the case is filed
- removal is based on WPC rule, only original matters no supplemental
in general
Removal and Remand
remand
- a remand motion for any ground other than lack of SMJ to be made within 30 days
- cannot appeal remand
General Rules
Complaint
- short and plain statement of jurisdiction
- Demand for relief
- can plead in the alternative or inconsistently
- Fraud must be pleaded with particularity = who what when where why
Complaint
Conley
two requirements that came from it
- must be legally sufficient
- must give fair notice of the claim and grounds upon which it rests = does the defendant know how to respond to this claim?
1) I cant sue you for being bald
2) you harmed me - how do i respond to this dude?
complaint
Twiqbal
requirements that came from this?
- Must be factually sufficient
- Disregard all conclusory allegations
- assess remaining factual allegations to determine if they state a plausible claim for relief. = taking them as true
- assessment based on judicial experience and comon sense
a conclusory allegation is one without direct support for and instead is an inference asked to be drawn from the other allegations in the complaint
take into considerations other possibilities
facts
Twombly
- plaintiff’s obligation to provide the “grounds” of his “entitlement to relief” requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do
- Parallel conduct does not suggest conspiracy, and a conclusory allegation of agreement at some unidentified point does not supply facts adequate to show illegality
facts
Iqbal
- Allegations are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true; discrimination is not a plausible conclusion
- Respondents’ complaint does not contain any factual allegations sufficient to plausibly suggest the petitioners’ discriminatory State of Mind
in general
Service
- compliance with rule 4
- party cannot serve and person who serves must be over 18
- summons and complaint (process) served within 90 days of filing (extendable)
- prove service by an affadavit from service processor
In the US
Service
- by state law
- in-hand tag service
- leave at dwelling with suitable resident
- serve an agent designated to receive service
- Business = state law or officer/agent appointed to receive service
waiver
Service
- serve summons complaint and 2 copies of waiver form using reliable means
- 30 days to respond
- if D waives, get 60 days to respond (standard is 21)
- if D fails, without good cause, to sign and return a waiver, cost shifting for service
very carrot and stick vibe here
dont forget about R5 easy service
good cause = somehow missed email (spam folder)
waiving service does not waive PJ
Timeliness
Answer
also for a denied motion to dismiss
- within 21 days after service (60 days after waiver)
- can be extended from asking party or court if party is denies
- MTD denied (fully or in part) = 14 days (adjustable)
these are defaults
admit, deny, …
Answer
General denial - never do this, if you get something (even small) wrong, you are deemed to admit everything
What to do: Admit what is true, deny the rest.
you can admit in your own words too. (give your own characterization)
if you fail to deny an allegation, you are deemed to have admitted to it
at the end, say: the def denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph
you must also list any affirmative defenses in your answer, if you do not, they are not apart of the lawsuit.