Civil Procedure Flashcards
4
In persona jurisdiction P sues D to impose personal obligation
Statutory Analysis:
Constitutional Analysis:
- each state is free to have own statute for personal jurisdiction (D is a citizen of state, D is domiciled ect…)
- Does D have “such minimum contacts” w/ forum so jurisdiction does not offend traditional notion of fair play and substantial justice
7 (contact, relatedness, fairness)
- Relatedness between this ______ and P ______
- Ask:
- ex:
- contact claim
- does P claim arise from D’s contact w/ forum state
- Doofus (PA) makes valves and sells to company (MN) who puts in widgets. Company widget explodes in NV because of valve = relatedness / specific jurisdiction
8 (Cont. 7)
If the answer is yes to Relatedness question (P claim arises from D’s contact w/ the forum) then ct has:
If answer is NO then what type of jurisdiction do you need:
- Specific Personal Jurisdiction
2. General Jurisdction
13
- Does due process guarantee that the suite will be in the most conveinent forum for D:
- What if D has to travel and bring all their witnesses to the jurisdiction:
- Does wealth of D matter:
- What is the standard then for burden on D:
- No
- Does not matter
- No, wealth not determinative
- D needs to show “severve disadvantage” in the litigation
15
Summary for PJ Constitutional Test
Contact (2)
Relatedness(1)
Fairness(3)
Contact:
- purposely avail
- forseeability
Relatedness: General (D home) v. Specific (contact)
Fairness:
- Burden on D,
- P interest
- States interest
22
What are the two main type of cases that can be heard in Federal Court:
- So what type of SMJ does Federal Court have:
- What type of SMJ does State Court have:
- Diversity of Citizenship (state or alien)
- Federal Question
- Limited Jurisdiction
- General Jurisdction
22A
What one question do you need to ask to determine if the P case is a Federal Question for Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
*YOU NEES to ask on an ESSAY
Is the P enforcing a federal right
24
Diversity of Citizenship / Alienage cases 2 requirements:
- case is between citizens of different state or citizen of state and foreign country
- amount in controversy exceeds 75K
27
- is an alien w/ a green card domiciled in a U.S. state considered an alien or a citizen of that U.S. state:
- So if you have a Diversity SMJ what type would it has to be:
- P(AZ) sues D (green card, domiciled in AZ) in Fed CT. Is there alienage for purposes of SMJ?
- alien
- Alienage NOT diversity
- NO - federal statute prohibits this type of SMJ
48
2 Steps to look at for Supplemantal Jurisdiction
- Test - claim arrises from the dame transaction or occurrence as underlying case “same facts”
- Limitation - in a Diversity case P cannot use supplemental jurisdiction to overcome the LACK of diversity.
50
P(PA) sues D(PA) on claims arising under federal antitrust laws and adds a claim understate antitrust laws. Claims all arrises from same transaction.
- Claim 1 ok:
- Claim 2 ok under support jurisdiction:
- yes - federal question
- yes - Same T/O and Limitationdoes not apply because
NOT a diversity case
- original claim NOT a diversity case.
53
P1(VA) and P2(VA) sue D(PA) on state law claims. P1 claim 100k. P2 claim 50k. Claims arise out of same transaction. Can claim by P2 invoke support jurisdiction:
yes -
- same T/O
- limitation does not apply b/c claim NOT against a
co-citizen. Diversity issue / limitation does not apply
57
- Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists can courts still decline to hear:
- What factors may the court look at: (2)
- What is the main reason the court might use discretion to decline:
- yes
- i. complex state law ii. state laws dominate
- the uderlying federal claim is dismissed early on
74
- P may lay venue in any district where:(2)
- How do the above fit in if a case has been removed from state to district court:
- i. ALL D’s reside
ii. A substantial part of claim arose - Not relevant b/c if case is removed from state case goes to federal ct. that embraces state ct.
75
P(D.MA) sues D1(N.D. CA) and D2(W.D. TX) for 200k for breach of K occurring in District of Wyoming. What are the proper venues:
- does it matter for venue where P resides:
- does it matter if case is diversity or FQ:
District of Wyoming where claim arose. (all D’s don’t reside in same district)
- No
- No
76
- Where do D’s reside for venue purposes
i. human:
ii. corp/business: - So Venue for corp / business could be achieved by: (4)
i. where domiciled
ii. all districts where they would be subject to PJ
- domiciled (incorporated or hq)
- consents
- served w/ process
- if NO 1-3 than contact/relatedness/fairness
81
- Forum selection clause:
- Do cts. typically enforce:
- parties enter into a K and K states a dispute will be litigated in a particular district
- Yes - ct. will almost always transfer if this clause exists.
(58)
- Removal:
- Remand
- Timing for Removal:
- D sued in state ct. and removes to federal ct.
- If removal was improper federal ct. can “remand” back to state ct.
- Within 30 days of “service of process” NOT filing
(61)
- What is the general rule as to what case can be REMOVED:
- Two big exceptions:
- Any case that meets requirements for Diversity or FQ
- No Removal in Diversity case if D citizen of forum, FQ is does not matter
- More than 1 year after the case was filed in state ct.
(63)
- P(GA) sues D(MN) and D(AL) on claim under federal law in an AL state ct. Both are served w/ process. Can D1 and D2 remove:
- P(GA) sues D1(MN) and D2(AL) on state law claim for 500k in an AL state ct. Both are served with process. Can D1 and D2 remove:
- Yes - involves FQ
2. No - exception Diversity case D2 is from AL (resides in forum state - “Instate D Rule”
65
- Where can D Remove case to:
- P sues D in state ct. in Houston which is in Eastern district TX. Can D remove to El Paso which is in Western TX.
- District that “embraces” state ct. Only the district where state ct was filed
- No - only Eastern TX where “embraced’
69
- What is the Eire Doctrine:
- What 3 questions should you ask:
- In a Diversity case a federal judge must decide to apply state law or a ignore state law
- Is there existing federal law (supremacy clause)
- If NO federal law must apply any substantive state law
- IF NO substantive state lae judge determines issues