Civil Procedure Flashcards
Traditional bases for personal jurisdiction
Voluntary appearance (physically present and served with process)
Domicile
Consent
Essay Approach for Personal JX
- Is there a traditional basis for pj? (voluntary served, domiciled, consent) – if so, stop there.
- Is there a long-arm statute? (usually goes to limits of constitution)
- Due process analysis!
- Minimum contacts (purposeful availment, foreseeability, relatedness (general jx v. specific jx))
- Fair Play and Substantial Justice (interest of forum state, burden on D, interest in judicial efficiency, shared interest of states)
Transfer of venue essay approach (district to district)
- Is venue appropriate in the original district where the lawsuit was filed?
a. Venue is proper in any judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; or
i. individual: domicile
ii. business: residency requires a PJ analysis for the particular district
b. Venue is proper in a judicial district in which a “substantial part of the events or omissions” on which claim is based occurred; or
c. If neither of above apply, fall-back is district in which any D is subject to PJ. Should the case be transferred to the new venue?
- Should the case be transferred to the new venue?
a. Is it appropriate in the new district?
b. Is there personal jurisdiction?
c. Is there SMJ? - Is the transfer to the new venue in the interest of justice?
Removal question approach
- Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction? If not, removal is not appropriate.
- If it does have SMJ, do procedural limitations still bar?
- notice within 30 days of service
- all Ds must consent
- in diversity case, if any D is citizen of state where claim is filed, can’t remove (“home court advantage”)
Bases for subject matter jurisdiction
Federal Question, Diversity
Diversity Jurisdiction Requirements
i) complete diversity between plaintiffs (individual = domicile; corporation = incorporation AND principle place of business)
ii) AIC over $75k (measured by good faith estimate, aggregation only allowed if one P v. one D)
When is aggregation allowed for diversity?
One p v. one d
One p v. multiple Ds, if Ds are joint and severally liable
Multiple Ps v. one D, if enforcing a single title/right
class action fairness act
California subject matter jx
Small claims: $10,000 o r less;
Limited claims: $25,000 or less
Unlimited: more than $25,000
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Federal cases: claim has common nucleus of operative fact (same transactino or occurence) with anchor federal claim
Diversity case: allows related claims by Ps against single D (so long as diverse!), but bars plaintiff claims against parties added by joinder, intervention, or impleader; allows most claims by D, except permissive counterclaims
Court’s discretionary rejection of supplemental jurisdiction
Raises novel / complex issues of state law
substantially predominates
all other original claims have been dismissed
other compelling reasons
Traditional bases for personal jurisdiction
VDC
voluntary service
domicile
consent
constitutional requirements for personal jurisdiction
Minimum contacts, fairness
Minimum contacts (PJ)
Purposeful availment (purposeful and substantial contact)
Foreseeability (reasonably anticipate being sued)
Relatedness (conduct in relation to action – includes SPECIFIC (arising out of contacts) and GENERAL JX (D “at home” in forum state)
Fairness factors (PJ)
Interest of forum state
Burden on Defendant
interest of judicial system in efficient resolution
shared interests of states in promoting common policies
Three bases for appropriate venue
a. Venue is proper in any judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; (note will require domicile analysis for individual, PJ analysis for business)
b. Venue is proper in a judicial district in which a “substantial part of the events or omissions” on which claim is based occurred; or
c. If neither of above apply, fall-back is district in which any D is subject to PJ.