Correct Forum (mods 1-7) Flashcards
Supplemental Jurisdiction generally
Does not get cases into federal court, but gets claims into a federal court even though the claims cannot use diversity or federal question
Must have a case that is already in federal court that is based on diversity or FQ
First determine whether claim itself has diversity or FQ
If it doesn’t, then check for supplemental
Two steps to determining if supplemental juris applies
- Common nucleus test and
- if any limitations
Common Nucleus Test (supplemental juris)
The claim that want to get into federal court must share a common nucleus of operative fact with the claim that satisfied federal SMJ. Claims are of such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in a single proceeding
Test is always met if the claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the underlying case
- but test is broader than T/O
- so if T/O, common nucleus. But not if common nucleus, then T/O
Limitation on supplemental juris
Even if common nucleus test met, limitations to supplemental jurisdiction if the basis of original jurisdiction is diversity
In diversity cases, claims by plaintiffs generally cannot invoke supplemental jurisdiction
But, can use supplemental jurisdiction over claims even if basis is diversity when there are multiple plaintiffs and one of them does not meet the amount in controversy. If one plaintiff meets amount in controversy and diverse citizenship exists, supplemental juris over pls’ claims that don’t exceed 75k
Discretion over supplemental
Even if meet requirements for supplemental jurisdiction, the court has discretion to decline it
Can decline if the state law claim is complex or state law issues would predominate in the case
Can decline if the claim on which federal SMJ is based is dismissed early in the case
Aggregation of claims vs. supplemental juris over claims
When it is one plaintiff and 1 defendant, aggregate the claims
Supplemental juris doesn’t matter because aggregation applies
Supplemental juris over state claim when federal claim dismissed
May continue to exercise it
But state claim should be dismissed if federal claim is dismissed before trial
Once trial begun, judicial economy reasons for continuing state claim
Choice of law and diversity cases
In a diversity case, federal court applies the substantive law that would be applied by the courts of the state in which the federal court is located
Including choice of law rules
Erie Doctrine - Substantive and procedural laws
Step 1: is there some federal law (constitution, federal statute, FRCP, or FRE) on point that directly conflicts with state law?
- apply the federal law as long as it is valid
- FRCP are presumptively valid and apply if they are arguably procedural
Step 2: if there is no federal law on point, federal judge must apply the state law if the issue to be decided is substantive
- 5 issues clearly substantive
Step 3: no fed law on point and issue is not one of the five clearly substantive, federal judge must determine whether the issue is substantive
- law is very unclear - factors to weigh
5 clearly substantive issues (for purposes of Erie doctrine)
Must follow the state law when in federal court because of diversity:
-Conflict (or choice) of law rules
- Elements of a claim or defense
- Statutes of limitation
- Rules for tolling statutes of limitations, and
- Standard for granting a new trial because the jury’s damages award was excessive or inadequate
Statutes of Limitations - erie and choice of law purposes
SOL is substantive for erie purposes. So when a federal court in a diversity case determines whether a claim is barred by SOL, will apply whatever the state would apply, but doesn’t always mean it will apply that states’ sol
SOL is procedural for choice of law. So the federal judge must also apply the forum state’s conflict of law rules to determine which state SOL apply. So the forum state can apply its own SOL even though a claim arose in a different state
Step 3 of Erie - Whether it is substantive factors
Outcome determinative - would applying or ignoring the state rule affect the outcome of the case?
- if yes, probably substantive and apply federal
Balance of interests - does either the federal or state system have strong interest in having its rule applied?
Avoid forum shopping - will it cause parties to flock to federal court?
Federal common law
Erie doctrine means there is no general federal common law and so federal courts must apply the state substantive law in diversity cases
Areas where federal courts are free to make up common law on their own - no role for state law
- international relations
- admiralty
- disputes between states
- the right to sue a federal officer for violating one’s federal rights
Venue
SMJ states when a case can be in federal court and venue determines which federal court the case can be brought in
Plaintiff may lay venue in any district where:
- Residential prong: all defendants reside, or if all defendants in same state, district where any defendant resides, and
- transactional prong: a substantial part of the claim arose or a substantial part of the property involved in the lawsuit is located (can be multiple), or
- fall back provision if neither above apply - any district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action
Only applies over cases initially filed in federal court
Venue but defendant outside of US
If the defendant resides outside of the US, venue is proper in any federal district court
But if another defendant does reside in the US, venue must be proper as to her
Reside for venue purposes
Human - district where she is domiciled
Business - resides in all districts where it is subject to PJ
Transfer of venue generally
One trial court in a judicial system to another trial court in the same judicial system
Federal district court may transfer the case to another federal district court, but cannot transfer case to a state court (can only remand back)
To transfer, the transferee court must be a proper venue and have PJ over the defendant
- generally must be true without waiver by the defendant
- minor exception
Two transfer statutes
Minor exception of transferring from proper venue to improper venue
The court can transfer to any district, even an improper one, if all parties consent to it and the court finds cause for the transfer
Unlikely that a plaintiff would consent
Transfer when original is proper
If the original district is a proper venue, the court can order transfer based on convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice
Burden is on the person seeking transfer
Court considers both public and private factors showing that another court is the center of gravity for the case
- public: what law applies, what community should be burdened with jury service, local controversy in local court
- private: convenience - defendants and evidence
Diversity, proper venue, transfer to another venue - choice of law
When a diversity case is filed in a proper venue but the court orders transfer, the transferee court must apply the choice of law rules of the transferor court
Unless transfer is to give effect to a valid forum selection clause
Transfer of venue and forum selection clause
If one party sues the other in violation of an FSC, the defendant may seek to enforce the FSC through a motion to transfer
Federal law enforces forum selection clauses if they are not unreasonable, but some states do not
- since federal law governs transfer, FSC can be enforced even though the state itself would not
When FSC, only public interest factors are considered for the transfer because private factors are presumed to favor transfer
If transfer because of FSC, the transferee court will apply its own choice of law rules (fed court will apply choice of law rules of state it is in)
Transfer when original venue is improper
If the original district is an improper venue, the court may transfer in the interest of justice or dismiss
Usually will transfer if possible
Transferee court applies its own choice of law rules - choice of law rules of the state in which it sits
Forum non conveniens
Like transfer, forum non conveniens (FNC) applies when there is another court that is the center of gravity for the case
But still can only transfer a case to another court in the same judicial system
FNC will stay the case or dismiss it - idea is that pl will then sue in the other court
- and court may impose conditions on the party requesting transfer, like waiving service
Decision is based on the same public and private factors as transfer, like existence of FMC
Adequacy of transferee court
The other court must be available and adequate
Usually, the forum will be adequate unless the plaintiff can get no remedy there
Waived venue
Venue is considered to be waived unless a timely objection is made to improper venue
Improper venue must be raised in defendant’s first response
Venue conferred by agreement
Venue can be established by agreement between parties, even if the venue is otherwise improper
Contact - personal jurisdiction
Relevant minimum contacts between defendant and forum state
Purposeful availment: contact must result from purposeful availment, voluntary act
- def reached out to forum and contact resulted from targeting of forum
- cause an effect in the forum
- don’t need to be physically present
Foreseeability: foreseeable that def could be sued in the forum
- know or reasonably should have anticipated that activities in the forum make it foreseeable to be sued there
Relatedness - PJ
Relevant contact and ask does plus claim arise from or relate to defendants contact with forum
- if yes, specific PJ and test fair and reasonable
- if no, need general PJ to proceed with juris
Clearly arises if it caused the harm
If def has substantial contact with forum state, relatedness is satisfied if claim merely relates to the contacts
Specific vs. General PJ
Specific PJ if contacts, plus claims arises from or relates to the contacts, and fair and reasonable
General PJ - can be sued in the forum on a claim that arise anywhere
- def is either at home or must have registered to do business in the state and appointed an agent for service of process there
- tag jurisdiction
General PJ and registered to do business
General pj if def registered to do business in the state and appointed an agent for service of process there
But very few states authorize general pj on registration
- so if going after business, where defendant is at home
Tag jurisdiction
General pj will be found to exist if the defendant is voluntarily present in a state and served while there
General pj - human and corporation
General pj over human if at home - where domiciled
General pj over corporation if state allows pj over registration or where at home
- always at home where incorporated and state where principal place of business
PJ - fairness
Only needed if specific PJ
Whether pj would be fair or reasonable under the circumstances
Fairness factors:
Burden on the defendant and witnesses
- severe disadvantage in litigation, very difficult;
- relative wealth of parties is not determinative
State’s interest in providing citizens forum for out of state defendant
Plaintiff’s interest
- maybe injured and cannot travel
Interstate judicial system’s interest in efficiency, and
Shared interest of states in furthering social policies
