Civil Procedure Flashcards
Personal Jurisdiction
PJ involves the court’s ability to exercise authority over parties and their property
Core concept is FAIRNESS i.e. is it fair for this court to exercise jx over the D?
Must balance the state’s interest in protecting its citizens with due process rights protecting against unfair exercise of jx
Statutory/Const. constraints can limit a court’s jx
Personal Jurisdiction Analysis
jx must be (1) statutorily authorized AND (2) constitutional
(1) Statutory - an applicable state law must authorize jx (usually a long-arm statute will apply)
(2) Constitutional - jx must satisfy DUE PROCESS
- Minimum contacts with the forum state
- adequate notice of the action
- opportunity to be heard
In personam PJ
jx over persons
courts may render judgement against an individual based on contacts with the forum state
In rem PJ
jx over property or status, including ownership disputes
(1) Court adjuicates rights of parties with respect to property in the forum state
- judgment binding as to disposition of property rights not as to parties personally
(2) Often involves estate issues, business proceedings, property disputes
Quasi in rem PJ
permits a court without PJ to determine certain types of disputes between P and D when property is located in the forum state
(1) Property is attached for some reason not necessarily involving the property itself - e.g. action against D and his assets due to fears D will flee state
(2) Court may render judgment as to persons with respect to property (rather than judgment over person or property itself)
Statutory Limitations on PJ
State laws often determine when courts may exercise jx
(1) Fed. Court must analyze jx as would a state court in which it sits and must follow applicable state statutes
(2) Plus it must be const.
General Requirements for In Personam Jx
IF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
(1) D is personally served in the forum state
(2) D is domiciled in the forum state
e.g. D maintains permanent home in forum state
(3) D consents to jx (express or implied)
(4) D’s actions fall within the state’s long-arm statute
- most common is a general/unlimited long arm statute which confers state courts with jx to the extent allowed by the Constitution
Constitutional Limits on PJ
To be subject to PJ, D must have such minimum contacts with the forum state that exercising jx does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
Constitutional Limits on PJ Analysis
(1) Minimum Contacts
D must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state
Inquiry focuses on:
(a) Purposeful Availment - did D purposefully conduct activity in forum, thus invoking benefits and protections of the forum’s laws?
(b) Forseeability - did D know of or anticipate being held accountable for her in-forum activities?
(2) Fair play & Substantial Justice
Give D’s contacts, exercise of jx must not offend these notions
Inquiry focuses on:
(a) Convenience - would litigating in the forum severely disadvantage D?
(b) State’s Interest - does forum state have an interest in providing redress for residents or an interest in the outcome?
Minimum Contacts
(1) Purposeful Available - D must purposefully act in the forum i.e. reach out in a non-accidental manner (e.g. using roads, doing business in-state, creating a market for D’s products, etc)
(2) Foreseeability - D must know or reasonably anticipate that she could be held accountable for her activities in the forum state
Circumstances that may give rise to Minimum Contacts
(1) Website - interactive sites more likely than passive sites.
- Interactive = two way comms between user and operator
- Passive = makes information available but no business is transacted
(2) Putting goods into the stream of commerce
- Unclear is manufacturer is subject to PJ if it knows or hopes product will wind up in a particular forum. Look for intentional targeting
- mere awareness that component parts may reach forum as part of another product is insufficient
(3) Targetting the forum state - increasingly, SCOTUS has equated minimum contacts with a targeting of the forum state. This requires some deliberate activity within and cultivation of the state.
Fairness Factors
Due process requires that the exercise of jx must be fair (i.e. it must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice)
3 Factors
(1) Relatedness of contacts & claim
(2) Convenience
(3) State’s interest
Relatedness of Contacts & Claim Factor
Does P’s claim arise from or relate to D’s contact with the forum state?
(1) Specific Jx - claims arise from or related to D’s in-state contacts
- minimum contacts must be established
- D can only be sued for claims arising from or related to in-state contacts
- Creating a market for its product may subject manufacturer to jx in the forum even though sale did not occur there
(2) General jx - claims do arise from to relate to D’s in-state contacts
- D is “at home” in the forum state (incorporated or place of business)
- If found, D can be sued for any claim arising in or outside of forum
Convenience Factor
would jx in forum severely disadvantage D?
- e.g. distance to courthouse, inability to travel, or lack of familiarly with court system
- must be so inconvenient and difficult that D is inherently put at severe disadvantage compared to P
State’s Interest Factor
does forum state have an interest in allocating its limited resources to hearing this matter?
- interest is less compelling when case involves non-resident actors and non-resident acts or when case involves complexity
Notice Requirements
Due process requires that D must be sufficiently notified of a pending lawsuits
Notice must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise interest parties of the pendency of the action and afford an opportunity to be heard
Methods of Notice
traditional methods of notice satisfy due process
e.g. personal delivery, registered mail, delivery to an appointed agent
P need not deliver notice personally; can be given by court-appointed agent or agent hired by P
If P knows that notice was not received by D (e.g. by mail), P cannont proceed if practical alternatives to giving notice exist
Personal Service
If D is personally served, they are likely subject to PJ within the forum state
Three recognized Exceptions:
(1) Fraud - D who is served after being lured into forum under false pretenses
(2) Force - D who is served after being brought involuntarily into the forum by force
(3) Witness - a D who is served while responding to a court subpoena
Consent
Express or implied.
A forum selection clause is the most common form of consent and will be enforced unless the selected forum is remote and alien to the parties/txn.
Defendant can also consent by waiving the objection at first appearance.
If D appoints an agent in the state this can satisfy consent.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Fed. Courts must have authority over the claim in question (as opposed to the parties or property which concerns PJ); SMJ refers to court’s ability to exercise that authority
Const. provideslimits on types of cases that fed.courts can hear.
SMJ CANNOT BE WAIVED.
By contrast, state courts are presumed to have SMJ. In a narrow set of cases, federal courts have exclusive SMJ (e.g., patent infringement)
Types of SMJ
(1) Diversity Jx
(2) Federal Question jx
(3) Supplemental Jx
(4) Removal Jx
Diversity Jx
The constitution grants fed. courts SMJ over controversies between citizens of different states, even where claims do not involve fed. law
Conferred by statute (28 USC 1332) but the statute does not grant SMJ over all cases between citizens of diff states.
Requirements:
(1) Complete Diversity
No P and D can be from same state
(2) Amount in Controversy >75,000
Must be in good faith
Exceptions:
Will not hear divorce actions, alimony, child custody, or probate
Citizenship for Complete Diversity
Every P must be of diverse citizenship from every D
Natural Persons
- Citizen of the state where domiciled i.e. where they were last both (1) Physicaly present and (2) intend to remain indefinitely (permanent home)
Businesses
(1) Corporations - citizens of every state where incorporate and the one state where corp. maintains principal place of business (nerve center i.e. corp headquarters)
(2) LLCs/LLPs/etc - citizen of all states in which any partner or member is a citizen
Amount in Controversy
P’s complain must make a good faith allegation that the amount of damages or injury in controversy exceed $75,000, excluding interest and costs
Lenient standard - to dismiss for insufficient amount there must be no legal possibility that recovery will exceed 75k
Equitable Relief Claims - AIC
Court looks at value of the harm caused
- can look from either P or D perspective i.e. does act requiring injunctive relief harm P by more than 75k;
- or would it cost D more than 75k to comply with the injunction south?
Aggregating Claims for AIC
may be permissible to meet 75k requirement
(1) One P can aggregate all her claims against a single D
(2) Multiple Ps or Ds - aggregating only allowed if either:
(a) One P has Joint liability claims against multiple Ds (use total value of claims)
(b) Multiple Ps seek to enforce a single title or right in which they have a common, undivided interest (rare)
e.g. several Ps jointly own real estate and sue D to quiet title
Federal Question Jurisdiction
Fed. Courts have jx over properly-pleaded claims arising under fed. law (28 USC 1331)
Requirements: Claim must show a right or interest founded substantially on fed. law
(1) Must appear on the face of the complaint not extraneous allegations or potential defenses
(2) Ask if P is enforcing a right that arises under fed statute/const./etc
Exclusive Fed. Jx
(1) Bankruptcy
(2) Patent, Copyrights, Trademarks
(3) Federal Antitrust
(4) Postal matters
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Allows a federal court to hear additional claims (e.g. counterclaims/cross-claims) that do not on their own meet diversity of FQJ requirements (28 USC 1367)
Requirement that it arises from a Common Nuclear of Operative Fact (CNOF)
- Same transaction or occurrence as the underlying claim that does have Federal SMJ
Court has the discretion to refuse a supplemental claim if:
(1) Original SMJ claims dismissed earlier in the proceeding
(2) Supplemental clai raises a novel or complex state law issue, or
(3) Supplemental claim substantially predominates over original SMJ claim
Limitation on Supplemental Jx
in diversity cases, supplemental jx is withdranw for claims by P (does not apply to claims by other parties)
Exception - a co-P may use supplemental jx to have a below-limit claim heard in fed. court
Even then, the Co-P’s presence in the suit cannot override the complete diversity requirement
Removal Jurisdiction
D can remove a case initially filed in state court to fed. court if the fed. court would have had SMJ
Rules:
(1) Can only remove if the case could have been filed in fed. court
(2) Only D can remove and all Ds must agree
(3) Can remove only to fed. district embracing the state court in which the case originally filed
(4) D who files a permissive counterclaim in state court waives the right to remove
Timing - within 30 days of service of process of first removable doc
Procedure - D must file notice in fed. courts including grounds for removal and copies of documents served in state court
Diversity Jx limitations on Removal
D cannot remove if P filed suit in any D’s home state
i.e. no removal if any D is a citizen of the forum state
Remand
if removal is improper, court can remand to state court
Improper procedure - P can move to remand within 30 days
Lack of SMJ - P can move to remand at any time
Erie Doctrine
In diversity cases, Fed. courts must apply state substantive law and fed. procedural law
Analysis:
(1) Is there a valid federal law that is on point and directly conflicts with state law?
- if yes apply fed law
(2) If there is no federal law on point analyze under these tests:
(1) Outcome Determinative test
(2) Balance of Interest test
(c) Forum Shopping avoidance
Outcome Determinative Test
Would applying or ignoring the state rule affect the outcome of the case?
If yes, state law is substantive and should be applied
Balance of Interests
Does either fed. or state system have a strong interest in applying its rule?
If one has clearly stronger interest apply that rule
Forum Shopping Avoidance
if fed. court ignores state law, would it encourage litigants to flock to fed. court?
If yes, state law is substantive and should be applied
ALWAYS Goverened by State Substantive Law:
(1) Elements of a claim or defense
(2) Statute of Limitations and rules for tolling SOL
(3) Conflicts/choice of law rules
(4) Standard for granting a new trial because the jury’s award was excessive or inadequate
Venue
Venue determines in which fed. distrcit the case may be brought
For most actions venue is proper where:
(1) Any D resides (provided all Ds also reside in the same state)
(2) Location of claim or property - substantial part of the claim arose or in which a substantial part of property that is subject to action is situation
(3) D subject to PJ (fallback) - if no fed. district can satisfy the above venue is proper in any fed. district in which any D is subject to PJ
Residency for venue purposes
People - determined by domicile
Entity with capacy to sue or be sued in its common name - any state in which it is subject to PJ
In a state with more than on district it is occasionally also necessary to determine in which district a corporation resides (using contacts).
Venue Transfer (Original District Proper)
A case may be transferred from one fed. district to another in which the case could have been filed or one to which all parties consent
Court may transfer to another fed. district cour based on interest of justice, convenience of parties and witnesses
(1) Transfer is to a fed district in which the case could have been filed or to which all parties consent
(2) Court may refuse transfer
(3) Courts discretion based on (a) public factors and (b) private factors
Venue Transfer (original district improper)
court may transfer to a proper venue in the winter of justice or dismiss the case
Venue Choice of Law
transferee court applies choice of law rules of the original court, regardless of which party sought transfer
Exception: transferee court will apply its own laws if original venue was improper or if transfer to enforce a forum selection clause
Forum Selection Clauses
case must be transferred to the indicated fed. district unless the public factors present a compelling reason not to transfer
transferee court will apply its own laws
Forum Non Conveniens
When there is a more appropriate forum for the litigation, but the case cannot be transferred there, a court may dismiss the action pursuant to the doctrine of forum non convenient
Courts will not grant FNC without finding that there is an adequate alternative forum (may stay if adequacy is in doubt)
Court evaludes based on same public and private factors as venue transfer (i.e. convenience, applicable law, etc)
Service of Process
The delivery to D by P of the summons and complaint, which satisfies notice requirements for PJ.
Subsequent papers filed with the court (e.g. motions, answers) do not require formal service
Service of Process Requirements
(1) D must be serviced with:
(a) Summons - formal notice of the suit signed by court clerk telling D when/where to appear, identifying the parties, P’s attorney, etc
(b) Copy of the complaint
(2) Timing - must be within 90 days of filing of the case (otherwise dismissed without prejudice unless P shows good cause)
(3) Any non-party aged 18 or older may serve
Methods of Service
(1) Personal Service
(2) Substituted Service - left w/ TP at D’s usual abode. TP must be of suitable age and discretion who resides at abode.
(3) Serivce upon D’s authorized agent
- receipt must be within scope of agency
- Party registering to do business in state may be required to appoint agent
(4) Any method permitted under state law
(a) state where fed court sits or
(b) where service is effected
Waiver of Service
P may request that D waives service by mailing D the complaint and formal request to waive service
(1) If D denies request or fails to respond P must serve through another acceptable method; D is then obliged to pay the cost of that service
(2) If D agrees to waive service, D extends her time to answer complaint to 60 days from the date of waiver request was served (as opposed to normal 21 days)
(3) Waiving service does not waive the right to object to venue or jx
Interlocutory injunctions
Court orders requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action before trial while case is pending
Purpose is to prevent irreparable injury that will occur before there is a final judgment
Security - for both preliminary injunctions and TROs, movant must provide security to pay costs and damages if adverse part is wrongfully enjoined or restraied
Preliminary Injunction
Traditional 4-Part Test:
(1) Irreparable Injury (a/k/a n adequate remedy at law)
(2) Reasonable likelihood of success on the merits
(3) Balance of hardships
(4) Public interest
Notice and hearing are required for the adverse party
Appealable
Temporary Restraining Order (TROs)
Issued by the court when necessary to prevent immediate, irreparable injury to a party
(1) Not immediately appealable
(2) Expiration - no more than 14 days from issuance; court may extend for good cause or w/ consent to 28 days. Beyond that it becomes a preliminary injunction
(3) Notice is not required if moving party:
(a) provides specific facts showing immediate and irreparable injury will result before adverse party can be heard; and
(b) Certifies in writing all efforts to give adverse party notice
(4) Actual Notice - adverse party must have actual notice before they can be held in contempt for violation
Complaint
The initial pleading in a lawsuit filed by P which begins an action and gives notice to opposing parties
Requirements - Complaint must contain:
(1) Statement of jx - short and plain statement of grounds upon which the court’s jx depends
(2) Statement of the claim - Short and plain statement of P’s claim showing entitlement to relief
Plausibility pleading standard
(A) Complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face
(B) Allegations are accepted as true
(C) Plausibility means factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that defendant is liable
(D) Plausibility is more than possibility but less than probability
(E) Judges are encouraged to use their judicial experience and common sense
(3) Demand for Judgment - description of the relief sought
Answer
Response to the complaint, in which D states defenses to each claim asserted and admits or denies each count of P’s complaint
- Defenses can be pleaded in the alternative
- Timing - must be filed within 21 days of SoP or 14 days after rule 12 motion is denied or postponed
Answer Requirements
(1) Respond to allegations of complaint
- admit
- deny (failure to do so may constitute admission)
- lack sufficient information to admit/deny
(2) Raise Affirmative Defenses (certain defenses may be waived if not pleaded in answer)
- Contributory neg
- Claim preclusion
- Statute of Frauds
- Fraud
- Statute of Limitations
- Self-Defence
- Res Judicata
(3) Counter-claims
- may be compulsory or permissive
Rule 12(b) Motion
D may attack the validity of P’s complaint through a Rule 12 motion
12(b) defenses:
(1) Lack of SMJ
(2) Insufficiency of SoP
(3) Lack of PJ
(4) Failure to state a claim
(5) Improper Venue
(6) Failure to join a necessary party
(7) Insufficiency of process
Rule 12(b) defenses may be raised by motion or in the answer
These defenses are WAIVED if not included in D’s first response
Motion for more definitive statement (Rule 12(e))
If the complaint is so vague or ambiguous that D cannot reasonably prepare a response, D may move for more definitive statement from P
Motion to strike (12(f))
D may move to strike from the complaint (or court may strike on its own) any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous material
