Civil Procedure Flashcards
Federal Rule 4(k)
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules provides that, absent some special federal statute, each federal court must analyze personal jurisdiction as if it were a court of the state in which it is located. Thus, in most cases, the assessment of whether the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant will be exactly the same in federal court as it is in state court.
Calder Effects Test
Determines whether a tortious action was purposefully aimed at a particular state. The test will allow specific jurisdiction over a party:
- (1) whose conduct was expressly aimed at the forum state;
- (2) who knows that the harmful effects would be felt primarily there; and
- (3) who would reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
Minimum Contacts (Contracts)
An individual’s contract with an out-of-state party cannot alone automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts in the other party’s home forum. Instead, the prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties’ actual course of dealing must be evaluated to determine whether a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum.
Stream of Commerce (Brennan, Foreseeability)
Jurisdiction premised on the placement of a product into the stream of commerce without more is consistent with the Due Process Clause, for as long as a participant in this process is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum state, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise.
Stream of Commerce (O’Connor/Kennedy)
O’Connor and Kennedy follow the restrictive approach. In their view, the Stream of Commerce (foreseeability) theory is not good enough without a specific targeting of the forum state. This requires a sovereign-by-sovereign analysis. Although McIntyre had targeted its activities towards the U.S., it had not targeted New Jersey specifically, and it was determined that jurisdiction could not be exercised. A defendant corporation may target a state specifically by giving customer service there.
Stream of Commerce (Breyer)
Justice Breyer looks for minimum contacts on narrow grounds, and does not agree that foreseeability is enough for determining whether minimum contacts exist. Breyer believes that minimum contacts were not satisfied because there were so few of McIntyre’s machines in the forum state. This opens the possibility that if many of McIntyre’s machines were in the forum state, then the minimum contacts test would be satisfied. In this case, contacts would be met even without specifically targeting the forum state.
Relatedness (General Jurisdiction)
General jurisdiction—in personam jurisdiction for any cause of action against the defendant, regardless of where the cause of action arose—requires that a defendant be “at home” in the jurisdiction. A person is “at home” in the state in which he is domiciled, and a corporation is “at home” in the state in which it was incorporated and/or the state in which it has its principal place of business.
Relatedness (Specific Jurisdiction)
If the defendant’s in-state activity is less than systematic or continuous (e.g., isolated acts), in personam jurisdiction over the defendant will be proper only for causes of action arising from that in-state activity; i.e., the court will have “specific jurisdiction.”
Reasonable & Fairness Factors
Once minimum contacts have been satisfied, the court must make sure that jurisdiction in the forum “comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” The final step for specific jurisdiction is to weigh the reasonable and fairness factors:
- (1) the burden on the defendant;
- (2) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute;
- (3) the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief (must have a strong claim);
- (4) the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies (placement of witnesses, evidence, etc.); and
- (5) the shared interest of several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies (avoid making it difficult to do business across state/international lines).
Notice
Due process requires that a reasonable method be used to notify the defendant of a pending lawsuit so that she may have an opportunity to appear and be heard. Due process requires that notice be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”
Problems of Notice (Matthews Factors)
There are two types of problems of notice: (1) method of notice (Mullane, Duesenberg, Jones v. Flowers), and (2) timing (Matthews, Doehr). A plaintiff might get away with suing with no proper method of notice, but the Matthews balancing factors must be considered:
- (1) the private interest that will be affected;
- (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation and the probable value of additional or alternative safeguards; and
- (3) the interest of the party seeking remedy, with due regard for any ancillary interest the government may have in providing the procedure or foregoing the added burden of providing greater protections.
Citizenship (Diversity Jurisdiction)
(a) A U.S. citizen is a citizen of the state where they are domiciled. To satisfy this, the citizen must (1) make entry into the state, and (2) must have the intent to remain there indefinitely (Mas v. Perry).
(b) Under § 1332, a corporation is a citizen of (1) all states where it is incorporated (very difficult to be incorporated in more than one state), and is also a citizen of (2) the one state where it has its principal place of business.
(c) For non incorporated businesses, courts will use the citizenship of all of its members. It does not matter where the principal place of business is or where it was formed.
Alienage Jurisdiction
Section 1332(a)(2) grants subject matter jurisdiction over “alienage” cases, in which the dispute is between a citizen of a U.S. state and an “alien”—meaning a citizen or subject of a foreign country. Jurisdiction is denied, however, if the case is between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country who has been admitted to the United States for permanent residence and domiciled in the same state as the U.S. citizen. Also note that the U.S. Constitution does not provide for federal jurisdiction over cases by an alien against an alien; there must be a citizen of a U.S. state on one side of the suit to qualify for alienage jurisdiction.
Ignore the Aliens → Under § 1332(a)(3), aliens may be on both sides only if they are additional parties and there is complete diversity between the original parties.
Amount In Controversy (Diversity Jurisdiction)
(a) The amount must exceed $75,000. It cannot be exactly $75,000.
(b) Whatever the plaintiff claims will govern the jurisdictional amount, unless it is clear to a legal certainty that they can not recover more than $75,000.
(c) Aggregation is where multiple claims may be added to exceed $75,000.
- (1) A single plaintiff may aggregate all claims against a single defendant if there are multiple claims, no matter the relation between any of the claims.
- (2) Multiple parties may not aggregate their claims, on either side. One plaintiff may not aggregate claims against separate defendants.
- (3) In a joint claim, the total value of the claim is used. If one plaintiff makes one claim against several joint tortfeasors for an amount exceeding $75,000, then the amount in controversy is satisfied.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
A federal issue must appear in the complaint, it is not enough for it to be an anticipated defense (Mottley). There are two categories for federal question jurisdiction:
- (1) Holmes Creation Test → A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.
-
(2) Grable Test → Does the state law claim necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities?
- If there is no federal claim under Grable, the claim is remanded under § 1447(c).
