Civil Procedure Flashcards
Personal jurisdiction is proper in federal court if:
- Satisfy a State Statute AND
2. Satisfy the Constitution (Due Process).
How do you determine whether the Court can Constitutionally exercise PJ over a D? What is the standard?
Does D have “such minimum contacts with the forum so jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”?
Personal jurisdiction is clearly constitutional if Defendant is:
Domiciled in the forum; consents; or is voluntarily present in the forum when served with process. if none of the above are true, assess a set of factors under contact, relatedness, fairness.
If D is not domiciled in the forum, or has not provided consent, or is not physically, voluntarily in the forum when served, how do you analyze whether personal jurisdiction over D is Constitutionally proper?
CONTACT; RELATEDNESS; FAIRNESS
(1) Contact: There must be a relevant contact between D and the forum state.
There are TWO FACTORS to be addressed here:
A. Purposeful Availment: The contact must result from purposeful availment—D’s voluntary act. D must “reach out” to the forum state or target the forum to qualify.
B. Foreseeability: It must be foreseeable that D could get sued in this forum.
(2) Relatedness between this contact and plaintiff’s claim.
Ask: Does the P’s claim arise from D’s contact with the forum? IF YES, the court might uphold PJ even if D does not have much contact with the forum (depending on whether PJ would be fair). Where the claim arises from D’s contact with the forum, it is called Specific Personal Jurisdiction. IF NO,then, jurisdiction is ok ONLY if the court has General Personal Jurisdiction. If so, D can be sued there for a claim that arose anywhere in the world. To have General PJ, it must be true that D is at “home” in the forum.
(3) Fairness: only if specific jurisdiction, assess the burden on D and witnesses, the state’s interest, and the Plaintiff’s interest.
Define in rem jurisdiction and what are the rules regarding in rem jurisdiction?
- Here, power is not over D herself, but over D’s property in the forum.
- It must be attached by the court at the outset of the case.
- To be constitutional, though, D’s contacts with the forum must meet the constitutional test we just applied in in personam.
What subject matters can a state court hear?
Can hear any kind of case (minor exception relating to patent law, etc). States have “general” SMJ.
What subject matter jurisdiction do federal courts have?
Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction and can only hear certain types of cases, namely, diversity of citizenship and federal question.
Requirements for diversity of citizenship subject matter jurisdiction:
between citizens of different states or between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country (alienage) AND the amount in controversy exceeds 75k.
Suppose we have an alien admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence (a so-called “green card” alien). She is domiciled in a U.S. state. Is she considered an alien or a citizen of that U.S. state?
She is an alien. So litigation with her might invoke alienage, but not diversity.
What is the special rule regarding alienage if a green card alien is domiciled in a U.S. state.
There is a special rule that prohibits alienage jurisdiction if a green card alien is domiciled in the same U.S. state as a litigant on the other side of the case. It would not invoke alienage jurisdiction
P (AZ) sues D (a green card alien who is domiciled in AZ) in federal court, it seems that there would be alienage. Is there?
–No, a statute prohibits SMJ. Even though on one side of the “v.” there is an alien and on the other side there is a citizen of a U.S. state there is no SMJ because that alien is a permanent resident of the same state as the other party across the “v.”
P (a U.S. citizen domiciled in Japan) sues D (CA) in federal court. OK? – Is there alienage?
No, because P is not an alien. P is a U.S. citizen.
P (a U.S. citizen domiciled in Japan) sues D (CA) in federal court. OK? – Is there diversity of citizenship?
No, because P is not a citizen of a U.S. state because she is not domiciled in a U.S. state, thus, cannot go to federal court under diversity or alienage.
What is the citizenship of a natural person require, define it?
The U.S. state of her citizenship for a natural person requires that the person is a U.S. citizen and the state of her citizenship is the U.S. state of her domicile.
How to establish a new domicile?
Two Requirements:
- Physical presence, AND
- The intent to make that your permanent home.
When is citizenship of a natural person relevant in a case?
Domicile for purposes of diversity is relevant when the case is FILED.
What is the citizenship of a corporation?
The citizenship(s) of a corporation are the state or country where its incorporated AND the state or country of its principle place of business.
How do you determine a corporations principal place of business?
The corporation’s PPB is where its managers direct and control corporate activities. Sometimes referred to as the “nerve center,” and it’s usually the headquarters.
Where is the citizenship of an unincorporated business association?
Unincorporated associations such as partnerships or limited liability companies (LLC) are citizens of every state in which each of its partners or members are citizens.
What is the rule for citizenship of a minor and his representative?
Rule: Such persons must sue or be sued through a representative. The representative’s citizenship is irrelevant.
Use the citizenship of the decedent, minor, or incompetent.
P sues D for $40,000 breach of contract and for $50,000 for a totally unrelated claim. What is the amount in controversy and the rule?
The amount here is $90,000. Why? We aggregate the claims of one P versus one D. Thus, we can add the two amounts together and have a 90k claim for AIC purposes.
Can we aggregate factually unrelated claims? –Yes, (hypo AIC #5) There is no limit on the number of claims that can be aggregated if there is one P and one D, we add them all up.
Plaintiff #1 sues D for $50,000. In the same case, Plaintiff #2 sues D for $40,000. Does this mean the AIC requirement?
NO! We cannot aggregate these two claims because the claims are not asserted by a single P against a single D. This case cannot invoke diversity because you cannot aggregate the claims thus don’t meet the AIC requirement.
If a case fails to meet the amount in controversy requirement, what option does Plaintiff have?
Assuming the claims do not invoke federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff should file in State court!!!! Always go to state court which can hear anything pretty much.
P sues joint tortfeasors X, Y and Z for $75,000.01. Can this meet the amount in controversy requirement?
Yes for Joint Claims, use the total value of the claim for purposes of AIC. Any joint claims, just take the total because any one of them could be liable for the full amount. (they have to tell you if it is a joint claim!). With joint claims, the number of parties is irrelevant.
What is the rule for aggregation for the amount in controversy when the claim involves joint tortfeasors?
For Joint Claims, use the total value of the claim for purposes of AIC. Any joint claims, just take the total because any one of them could be liable for the full amount. (they have to tell you if it is a joint claim!). With joint claims, the number of parties is irrelevant.
How do courts determine the amount in controversy requirement of diversity of citizenship when the plaintiff is seeking equitable relief? i.e., P sues D for an injunction to tear down part of his house that blocks P’s view.
TWO TESTS; if either is met, most courts say it’s OK:
(1) Plaintiff’s Viewpoint: Does the blocked view decrease the value of plaintiff’s property by more than $75,000?
(2) Defendant’s Viewpoint: Would it cost defendant more than $75,000 to comply with the injunction? Throw them both in—if either one is over 75k, then you meet the AIC requirement.
Even if the requirements for a diversity or alienage case are met, what cases will the federal courts decline to hear?
divorce, alimony, child custody, and to probate an estate.
Rule of law pertaining to federal question?
The subject matter jurisdiction for federal question cases requires that the claim in P’s complaint “arises under” federal law (e.g., federal constitution, legislation).
What is required of plaintiff is seeking subject matter jurisdiction in federal court based on federal question jurisdiction?
Well pleaded complaint rule: It is not enough that some federal issue is raised by the complaint. The P’s claim itself must “arise under” federal law. Look at the claim & ignore other material P alleged. Ask: Is the P enforcing a federal right?
• If the answer is yes, yes FQ jurisdiction.
• If the answer is no, no FQ jurisdiction.
Are regular tort, contract, and property claims federal?
No, they are state law claims unless the question’s facts specify otherwise.
What to do about additional claims in a suit that gets to federal court either on diversity grounds or federal question grounds?
Assess each claim. If the additional claim satisfies either diversity of citizenship or FQ, it can be heard in the federal court case. What if the additional claim does NOT satisfy diversity of citizenship or FQ? The federal court can still hear the claim if it invokes supplemental jurisdiction.
What is supplemental jurisdiction? When can it be invoked?
If an additional claim to a claim that is in federal court already, fails to meet diversity of citizenship requirements or federal question requirements. Supplemental jurisdiction is how the federal court will test the subject matter jurisdiction over additional claims that otherwise fail to meet federal SMJ requirements.
What is a prerequisite to even consider or assess supplemental jurisdiction?
Supplemental jurisdiction gets non-federal, non-diversity claims into federal court. But the case itself must already be in federal court (because it invoked diversity of citizenship or FQ).
P (NC) sues D (SC) for $100,000 damages from a car wreck. That invokes diversity of citizenship, so the case is in federal court. D files a counterclaim against P in that case. The counterclaim is a state-law claim for $125,000. Do you need supplemental jurisdiction for the counterclaim?
No, it invokes diversity jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction only comes up when you don’t have diversity or FQ jurisdiction.
P (NC) sues D (SC) for $100,000 damages from a car wreck. D files a counterclaim against P asserting a federal-law claim for $50,000. Would you need supplemental jurisdiction for the counterclaim?
No, because it invokes FQ.
P (NC) sues D (SC) for $100,000 damages from a car wreck. D files a counterclaim against P asserting a state-law claim for $50,000. Would you need supplemental jurisdiction for the counterclaim?
Yes because it doesn’t invoke diversity or FQ.
What is the standard or test for supplemental jurisdiction?
For the claim to get into federal court, the claim must share a “common nucleus of operative fact” with the claim that invoked federal subject matter jurisdiction. The test is always met when the claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the underlying case.
What is the limitation to supplemental jurisdiction and when does it apply?
By statute, certain claims cannot invoke supplemental jurisdiction even if they meet “the test.” The limitation applies only in diversity cases, not FQ. And in diversity cases, the limitation takes away supplemental jurisdiction only for claims by Plaintiff, not defendant (narrow limitation!)
What is the rule limiting supplemental jurisdiction?
In a diversity case, plaintiff cannot use supplemental jurisdiction to overcome a lack of diversity. The limitation does NOT stop P from overcoming a lack of amount in controversy. It stops P from overcoming problem with citizenship, i.e., diversity.
P (PA) sues D (PA) for (1) a claim arising under federal antitrust laws, and joins a claim (2) under state antitrust laws. The claims arise from the same T/O (so we meet “the test”). OK?
Claim (1) is OK because it’s a FQ, so the case gets into federal court. But claim (2) is not FQ (because it’s based on state law) and does not meet diversity. Can claim (2) invoke supplemental jurisdiction? Analysis: (1) Claim 2 meets “the test” (same T/O). (2) The limitation does not apply. Why? –Because it never applies in FQ cases, only diversity cases.
P (NC) sues D (SC) for $100,000 damages from a car wreck. That invokes diversity of citizenship, so the case is in federal court. D files a counterclaim arising from the same T/O against P in that case. The counterclaim is a state-law claim for $50,000. The counterclaim fails to invoke diversity of citizenship and fails to invoke FQ. Can it invoke supplemental jurisdiction?
(1) It meets the test (same T/O). (2) The limitation does not apply. Why? –Because it NEVER applies to claims by defendants. Thus, we have supplemental jurisdiction.
P (NC) sues D (SC) for $100,000 damages from a car wreck. That invokes diversity of citizenship, so the case is in federal court. D files a counterclaim arising from different situation against that same P in that case. The counterclaim is a state-law claim for $50,000. Can the counterclaim invoke supplemental jurisdiction?
No, because it does not meet the test. There is no common nucleus of operating fact and does not arise from the same transaction or occurrence.
P (CO) sues D-1 (PA) and D-2 (CO) on state-law claims in one case. The claims arise from the same transaction and occurrence. The claims exceed $75,000. Can there be supplemental jurisdiction over the claim by P against D-2?
NO. Because this case violates the complete diversity rule, it does not invoke diversity jurisdiction. SO THE CASE NEVER GETS INTO FEDERAL COURT. So there is no case in federal court, so no chance for supplemental jurisdiction.
P-1 (VA) and P-2 (VA) sue D (PA) on state-law claims. P-1’s claim is for $100,000. P-2’s claim arises from the same T/O, and is for $50,000. Can the claims get to federal court for subject matter jurisdiction?
P-1’s claim meets the requirements for diversity, so gets the case into federal court. But P-2’s claim does not, because even though citizenship is OK, the claim does not exceed $75,000. Can the claim by P-2 invoke supplemental jurisdiction? (1) It meets “the test” (same T/O); and (2) The limitation does not apply. Why? – Because P-2 is not asserting a claim against a co-citizen.
Finish this rule: A non-federal, non-diversity claim can be heard in federal court if….
if it meets “the test”…
UNLESS it is:
1. Asserted by a plaintiff
2. In a diversity of citizenship (not FQ) case AND
3. Asserted against a citizen of the same state as the plaintiff.
After analyzing supplemental jurisdiction, what can be determined in order to still make SMJ invalid?
Discretionary Factors (rarely tested). Even if we meet the requirements for supplemental jurisdiction, the court has discretion to decline jurisdiction. It can do so if the state law claim is complex or state law issues would predominate in the case. But the more likely one is this: it can decline supplemental jurisdiction if the underlying claim is dismissed early in the case.
What is removal?
D sued in state court might be able to “remove” the case to federal court. Removal transfers the case from a state trial court to a federal trial court. If removal was improper, the federal court can “remand” the case back to state court.
When is removal proper?
D must remove within 30 days of service (not filing) of the first paper that shows the case is removable. Usually, that means within 30 days of service of process.
Do all defendants have to consent to removal?
It is ALL D’s who have been served with process must join in the removal.
P sues D-1 and D-2 on June 1. D-1 is served with process on June 1. Can D-1 alone remove the entire case?
Yes, because D-1 is the only D who has been served with process.
Suppose D-1 does not remove within 30 days. Then D-2 is served with process on August 1. Can she and D-1 now remove?
Yes, the 30 days starts anew with service on D-2.
P sues D in state court. D files a counterclaim against P in that case. Can P remove?
No because plaintiff can NEVER remove a case to federal court regardless of any counterclaim.
What kind of cases can be removed to federal court and by whom?
Removal is by defendant only! And the General Rule is that Any case that meets the requirements for diversity or FQ.
Except these two big exceptions– but these exceptions apply only if we are removing on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
1. No removal if any D is a citizen of the forum (instate D rule) AND
2. No removal more than one year after the case was filed in state court.
What is the exception to the general rule regarding the kinds of cases in which defendant can remove to federal court?
two big exceptions– but these exceptions apply only if we are removing on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
- No removal if any D is a citizen of the forum (instate D rule) AND
- No removal more than one year after the case was filed in state court.
Where do we remove?
Only to the federal district that embraces the state court where the case was filed.
How do we remove?
D files “notice of removal” in federal court, stating grounds of removal, meaning that the case invokes diversity or federal question. Then, she attaches all documents that were served on her in state action. She serves a copy of the “notice of removal” on adverse parties. Then she files a copy of the “notice of removal” in state court.
What do you do with a notice of removal? What is it?
D files this in federal court stating the grounds for removal and serves a copy to P and files a copy in state court.
Where do you file a notice of removal?
D files this in federal court stating the grounds for removal and serves a copy to P and files a copy in state court.
What if P thinks the case should not have been removed. What does P do?
P moves to remand to state court. If P thinks removal was procedurally improper (e.g., D did not attach relevant papers to her notice of removal), she must move to remand no later than 30 days after the notice of removal was filed. If P thinks removal was improper because the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, when can she move to remand to state court? –Anytime! There is never a time limit on SMJ.
D removes a diversity case but there was an instate D. P moves to remand. Is the instate D problem “procedural” or is it a subject matter jurisdiction problem?
In-state defendant problem is procedural and not a SMJ problem so she must move to remand within 30 days.
What if P thinks removal was procedurally improper (e.g., D did not attach relevant papers to her notice of removal)?
If P thinks removal was procedurally improper (e.g., D did not attach relevant papers to her notice of removal), she must move to remand no later than 30 days after the notice of removal was filed.
What if P thinks removal was improper because the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction?
P can move to remand to state court at anytime! There is never a time limit on SMJ.
What does venue generally pertain to?
SMJ governs whether can take a case to federal court. Venue pertains to exactly which federal court. The country is divided into federal districts. P is suing in federal court and wants to lay venue in a proper district.
Where to lay proper venue?
› All defendants reside* (special rule below) or
› A substantial part of the claim arose.
If a case is removed, venue is proper…?
P may lay venue in any district where:
› All defendants reside* (special rule below) or
› A substantial part of the claim arose.
- These choices do NOT apply in a case that was removed from state court to federal court. Remember—in a removed case, venue was set in the district that embraced the state court (see supra previous page).
Where to lay venue in a federal question SMJ case?
All defendants reside* (special rule below) or a substantial part of the claim arose.
Where to lay venue when the federal SMJ is based on diversity of citizenship?
All defendants reside* (special rule below) or a substantial part of the claim arose.
Where can P lay venue if all Ds reside in different districts of the same state?
P can lay venue in the district in which any D resides.
WHERE DO DEFENDANTS “RESIDE” FOR VENUE PURPOSES?
A human “resides” in the district where domiciled, so there is only one. A business (corporation or non-incorporated) resides in all districts where subject to PJ for the case. That can be very broad and multiple districts.
what is transfer of venue?
A federal district court may transfer the case to another federal district court. The original court is the “transferor” and the one to which the case is sent is the “transferee.”
When can a case venue be transferred?
It can only transfer to a district where case could have been filed, meaning that the transferee must be a proper venue and have PJ over the D. So can transfer to federal court only if these things are true and must be true independent of waiver!
Exception: The court can transfer to any district (even an improper venue) if all parties consent (unlikely that P will do so) and the court finds cause for the transfer.
Does a party have a right to transfer?
No, there is no right to transfer. If the original district is a proper venue, that court can order transfer based on convenience of parties and witnesses and on the interest of justice. The factors the court looks to in deciding whether to order transfer of the case are public and private factors showing that the transferee is the center of gravity, i.e., better.
What factors does the court look to in deciding whether to order transfer of the case?
The factors the court looks to in deciding whether to order transfer of the case are public and private factors showing that the transferee is the center of gravity, i.e., better.
Can a court on its own transfer venue?
Yes, however, Courts are a bit nervous, because transfer overrides P’s choice of forum and P did chose a proper venue. But if the original district is a proper venue, that court can order transfer based on convenience of parties and witnesses and on the interest of justice. The factors the court looks to in deciding whether to order transfer of the case are public and private factors showing that the transferee is the center of gravity, i.e., better.
If the original district is an improper venue, what may that court do?
It may transfer in the interest of justice OR dismiss the case.
What is the difference between transfer of venue and forum non conveniens
Like transfer, there is another court that is the center of gravity that would make more sense than the present court. But in forum non conveniens, the court does not transfer to the more convenient court. The court instead “dismisses” or “stays” the case.
Why does forum non conveniens exist and why can’t the court just transfer venue instead?
The court dismisses or stays the case because the more convenient court is in a different judicial system (e.g., a foreign country), so transfer is impossible! The decision is based on the same public and private factors as transfer in D1. supra. This requires a strong showing, though, since this results in dismissal or stay. FNC dismissal almost never granted if P is resident of the present forum.
What are the requirements for forum non conveniens?
Rule: The other court must be available and “adequate.”
o Suppose the foreign court does not permit trial by jury or recovery for emotional distress. Do things like that make the foreign court inadequate? –no, just so the plaintiff will get her day in court is all that we are worried about.
What is service of process generally and what does it pertain to?
D is entitled to notice that she has been sued. Usually, this consists of: (1) a summons (formal court notice of suit and time for response); and (2) a copy of the complaint. Together, these two documents are called “process.”
WHO CAN SERVE PROCESS?
- Any non-party who is at least 18 years old.
- The process server need NOT be appointed by a court (note this difference under IL state law, you need to be a non-party who is appointed by the court)
How is process served?
personal service; substituted service; service on agent; and state law permitted service methods (such as service by mail, etc)
