Essay 4615 (CA law)

Question 1

In Person Jurisdiction:

(1) Traditional Basis
(2) Long Arm Statute

Answer 1

Individual.
In personam personal jurisdiction (“IPJ”) refers to the court’s ability to exercise power over a particular defendant. Traditionally, IPJ is based upon where the party is domiciled, presence in the state when served, and consent.

Long Arm Statute.
Because no traditional basis exists, the plaintiff must look to see if the state has a long-arm statute that would allow IPJ over a non-resident defendant. California’s long arm statute is non-specific and allows personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the United States Constitution, which means it must pass the constitutional limitations test as discussed below.

*****Constitutional Limitations Test.
Even if California’s long arm statute arguably grants the state court IPJ over the defendant, such exercise must still be constitutional. To be constitutional, there must be “sufficient contacts” with the forum state so as to not offend the “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

Question 2

Constitutional test for PJ?

Answer 2

A. Minimum contacts requires a showing of purposeful availment and foreseeability.

(1) PA - The defendant must have purposefully availed himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
(2) 4C - The defendant also must know or reasonably anticipate that his activities in the forum render it foreseeable that he may be hauled into court there.

B. Relatedness of the Claim to the Contact

• Specific jurisdiction may be found when a cause of action arises out of or closely relates to a defendant’s contact with the forum state, and jurisdiction may be warranted even if that contact is the defendant’s only contact with the forum state.
• Whereas, general jurisdiction exists if the defendant had systematic and continuous activity in the forum state such that the defendant is essentially at home in the forum.

C. Fairness

The court in determining whether exercising IPJ over a defendant is fair will look at the (1) convenience to the defendant, (2) the state’s interest, and (3) other factors such as the shared interests of the States.

Question 3

Outline for a PJ essay

Answer 3

Minimum Contacts

            Purposeful Availment and Foreseeability

        Relatedness of the Claim to Contact

            Specific Jurisdiction

            General Jurisdiction

        Fairness

            Convenience to Defendant

            Forum State’s Interest

            Other Factors

Question 4

Removal

Answer 4

A case may be removed to federal court if the case could have been brought in federal court, all the defendants agree to it, and a notice of removal is filed within 30 days of service of the document that first makes the case removable. The right of removal is a right of the defendant only and is not available to a plaintiff defending a counterclaim that could have originally been brought in federal court.

Question 5

Could Have Been Brought in Federal Court: Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Answer 5

A case could have been brought in federal court if the court would have subject matter jurisdiction (“SMJ”) over the case. SMJ is the federal court’s power to hear a particular case. It can either be based upon a federal question or diversity of citizenship.

• All defendants must agree
• Must be within 30 days
• Exception to the GR - the In-State Defendant Rule

Question 6

Complete Diversity

Answer 6

Complete diversity requires that all plaintiffs be from a different domicile than all defendants. A person’s domicile is where he is physically present coupled with an intent to be domiciled there.