Essay 61 Flashcards
Copyco, Inc. (“Copyco”), a maker of copy machines, was incorporated in State A. Most of Copyco’s employees work in State B at its sole manufacturing plant, which is located in the southern federal judicial district of State B. Copyco also has a distribution center in the northern federal judicial district of State B.
Sally is a citizen of State B. Sally was using a Copyco copy machine at Blinko, a copy center within the northern federal judicial district of State B, when the machine started to jam. When Sally tried to clear the jam, she severely injured her hand. She underwent several surgeries at a nearby hospital. Her physician believes she may never recover the full use of her hand.
Sally filed a lawsuit against Copyco as the sole defendant in the State B northern district federal court. Her complaint alleges that Copyco was negligent and that she has suffered physical injury, and also seeks damages of $100,000, exclusive of costs and interest.
The federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear Sally’s lawsuit on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Copyco, however, moved for a change of venue to the southern federal judicial district of State B. The court denied Copyco’s motion.
Sally wishes to obtain from Blinko a copy of the maintenance records for the copy machine that caused her injuries.
Questioning the extent of the injuries Sally alleged, Copyco wishes the court to compel Sally to appear for an examination by both a physician and a psychologist of Copyco’s own choosing.
- Was the federal court correct to deny Copyco’s motion for change of venue? Discuss.
- (a) Is Sally entitled to a copy of the maintenance records? Discuss.
(b) If so, how must she proceed to obtain them? Discuss. - (a) Is Copyco entitled to an order to compel Sally to appear for an examination by a physician and an examination by a psychologist chosen by Copyco? Discuss.
(b) If so, how must it proceed to obtain such an order? Discuss.
ISSUES CHECKLIST
I. Copyco’s (C) Motion for Change of Venue
Venue
C’s Residence
Personal Jurisdiction
In Personam Jurisdiction
Due Process Requirements
Minimum Contacts
Purposeful Availment
Specific and General Jurisdiction
Fair Play and Substantial Justice
Forum State Interest
Burden on Defendant
Interest of Judicial System
Shared Interests of States
Change of Venue when Original Venue is Proper
II. Maintenance Records
A. Discovery Scope B. Requests to Produce Documents
III. Physical and Mental Exams
A. In General B. Procedure
SAMPLE ANSWER
I. Copyco’s (C) Motion for Change of Venue
S filed her lawsuit against C in North. The facts state that the federal court in North has subject matter jurisdiction to hear S’s suit on the basis of diversity of citizenship. C moved for a change of venue from the northern federal judicial district of State B (North) to the southern federal judicial district of State B (South). To determine if C’s motion to change venue was properly denied, it must first be determined whether the original venue was proper.
Venue
In general, venue in a federal civil action is proper in only one of the following judicial districts: (i) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state in which the district is located; or (ii) a judicial district in which a “substantial part of the events or omissions” on which the claim is based occurred, or where a “substantial part of the property” that is the subject of the action is located.
In this case, Sally (S) was using a copy machine of C’s in North. The machine jammed and S severely injured her hand when she tried to clear it. This is the entirety of the events that led to S’s claim against C. Additionally, the copy machine is located in North. As such, venue is proper in North since both a “substantial part of the events or omissions” on which the claim is based occurred in North, and a “substantial part of the property” that is the subject of the action is located in North.
If, for whatever reason, this wasn’t the case, it would have to be determined where C resides, and whether North has personal jurisdiction over C.
C’s Residence
For venue purposes, a defendant that is an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued, regardless of whether incorporated, is deemed to reside in any judicial district in which the entity is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question. In a state that contains multiple judicial districts and in which a defendant corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, the corporation “shall be deemed to reside in any district in that State within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate State.”
Here, C was incorporated in State A, but most of C’s employees work in State B at its sole manufacturing plant in South. C also has a distribution center in North. Since State B has two judicial districts, North and South, C will be deemed to reside in the districts where its contacts would be sufficient to subject C to personal jurisdiction.
Personal Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction refers to the judicial power over the persons or property involved in the cases or controversies before it. There are three general types of personal jurisdiction: (i) in personam jurisdiction; (ii) in rem jurisdiction; and (iii) quasi-in-rem jurisdiction.
In Personam Jurisdiction
In personam jurisdiction is the power that a court has over an individual party. There are four bases for in personam jurisdiction: (i) voluntary presence; (ii) domicile; (iii) consent; and (iv) long-arm statutes.
First, there are no facts to suggest that C was voluntarily present and served with process while in State B. Second, for in personam jurisdiction purposes, a corporation will be a resident corporation only if it is incorporated in the forum state. If the corporation is not incorporated in the state, then for the purposes of in personam jurisdiction it will constitute a foreign corporation. The rules of minimum contacts and substantial fairness discussed below apply to a foreign corporation. C is incorporated in State A, but State B is the forum state, so it is not a resident corporation. Third, although C conducts activity in State B, there is no evidence that it consented to personal jurisdiction through appearance in court. Finally, in most states, a long-arm statute authorizes jurisdiction to the extent permissible under the Due Process Clause. Thus it must be determined whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process requirements.
Due Process Requirements
Due process requirements are satisfied if the nonresident defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum jurisdiction such that the maintenance of the action does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Minimum Contacts
Presently, any attempt to gain in personam jurisdiction, under whatever basis, is subject to the International Shoe requirement of minimum contacts.
Purposeful Availment
A defendant’s contacts with the forum jurisdiction must be purposeful and substantial, such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being taken to court there. Foreseeability depends on whether a defendant recognizes or anticipates that by running his business, he runs the risk of being party to a suit in a particular jurisdiction.
Here, C was incorporated in State A, but most of C’s employees work in State B at its sole manufacturing plant in South. C also has a distribution center in North. C will point out that it could not foresee being taken to court in North because its sole manufacturing plant was in South as well as most of its employees, and that is where there contacts were purposeful and substantial. C will state that any litigation that might arise from the manufacturing plant or the products produced there should be in South.
However, C had its distribution center in North. All of its copy machines went through there and C had a few employees there as well. These contacts are purposeful and substantial, and C should have foreseen litigation in North as well.
Specific and General Jurisdiction
The scope of the contacts necessary for the assertion of personal jurisdiction depends on the relationship that the cause of action has with the forum state. When a cause of action does not arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum, the court must resort to general jurisdiction. To determine whether a foreign corporation is subject to a state’s general jurisdiction, the proper inquiry is whether a corporation’s affiliations with the forum state are so “continuous and systematic” as to render the corporation essentially “at home” in the forum state. A corporate defendant is always “at home” in the state of the corporation’s place of incorporation and, if different, the state of its principal place of business. “Principal place of business” refers to the “nerve center” of the corporation, and is generally the location from which the high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the activities of the corporation. Typically, the nerve center is the corporate headquarters. In exceptional cases, a corporate defendant’s operations in another forum may be so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation “at home” in that state even if the state is not the corporation’s place of incorporation or principal place of business, but such cases are rare. However, even when general jurisdiction is unavailable, the court will have specific jurisdiction over a defendant when the cause of action arises out of or closely relates to a defendant’s contact with the forum state.
C was incorporated in State A and, because the court has diversity jurisdiction over the parties, C’s principal place of business is not located in State B. Moreover, C lacks the requisite “continuous and systematic” contacts with North that would render it essentially “at home” there. Consequently, there would be no general jurisdiction in North if North were its own state. However, there would be specific jurisdiction. Here, S is bringing a negligence cause of action due to a malfunctioning copy machine located in North. The copy machine, and its use, are both contacts that C has with North. Additionally, the copy machine likely traveled through C’s distribution center in North. Because S’s cause of action arose from C’s contacts with North, there would be specific jurisdiction.
Fair Play and Substantial Justice
A court must determine if maintenance of the action would “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Courts consider various factors, including: (i) the interest of the forum state in adjudicating the matter; (ii) the burden on the defendant of appearing in the case; (iii) the interest of the judicial system in the efficient resolution of controversies; and (iv) the shared interests of the states in promoting common social policies.
Forum State Interest
Here, State B has an interest in providing a forum for redress for injuries suffered within its borders and by its citizens. Thus, the forum state’s interest is high.
Burden on Defendant
The burden on C to defend a suit in North is low since it has a distribution center located there. Although C has a manufacturing plant with most of its employees in South, C is delivering copy machines to customers in North, so traveling there would not pose a burden.
Interest of Judicial System
Here, litigating in North would be an efficient resolution because S is a citizen of State B and the copy machine and witnesses are located in North.
Shared Interests of States
There is a high interest in adjudicating in North for the reasons set forth above.
Considering the above factors, it is likely that a court would find the action does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
All in all, original venue was proper in North since C has enough minimum contacts with North that the maintenance of the action does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Additionally, both a “substantial part of the events or omissions” on which the claim is based occurred in North and a “substantial part of the property” that is the subject of the action is located in North so venue would be proper no matter what.
Change of Venue when Original Venue is Proper
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented. This transfer may be ordered upon motion of a party or by the court on its own initiative, but it is available only when the jurisdiction and venue of the court considering the issue are proper.
In this case, North has proper venue and personal jurisdiction, as discussed above. It also has proper subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity since the facts state so (it would seem that diversity would be destroyed since S is domiciled in State B and C has its principal place of business in State B, but since the facts state there is proper subject matter jurisdiction it is accepted as fact).
C moved for a change of venue to South. It must be determined whether personal and subject matter jurisdiction would be proper in South before considering a change of venue.
Here, South has personal jurisdiction over C because C’s principal place of business, its manufacturing plant where most of its employees are located, is in South. This means there is general jurisdiction since C was “at home” in South. Subject matter jurisdiction is present because South is the same state as where S filed her lawsuit, and therefore there is no disruption of the requirement of complete diversity. Thus, the case could have originally been brought in South so a change of venue would be proper if it is in the interest of justice.
S will argue South is inconvenient because her injury occurred in North, Blinko (B) and the malfunctioning copy machine are in North, her medical treatment was received in North, and any witnesses to the injury are in North. C will counter that the allegedly malfunctioning machine was manufactured in South, so any witnesses testifying to the fact that there was no negligence involved in the manufacturing process would be in South. Looking at all the circumstances, it is clear that North is the more convenient district for the case to be heard in. C is a large business entity and will have less of a problem getting witnesses and evidence to the trial then S, as an individual, would. As such, a change of venue would not be convenient or in the interests of justice.
The court correctly denied C’s motion for change of venue.
II. Maintenance Records
A. Discovery Scope
Discovery is generally permitted with regard to any matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense in the action that is not otherwise privileged. This includes the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. Admissibility of the evidence at trial does not matter for determining relevance for purposes of discovery. The test is whether the information sought is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Information may be discoverable if it “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Here, S seeks to obtain a copy of the maintenance records for the copy machine that caused her injuries. These records would likely reveal whether the copy machine was regularly serviced and maintained. This information would likely prove if the machine had a defect or was unreasonably dangerous. Thus, the maintenance records should be discoverable.
B. Requests to Produce Documents
Nonparties may be compelled to produce documents and other things or submit to an inspection pursuant to a subpoena.
In this case, S seeks to obtain a copy of the maintenance records for the copy machine that caused her injuries from a nonparty, B. B may be compelled to produce a copy of the maintenance records for the copy machine with a subpoena.
III. Physical and Mental Exams
A. In General
If the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, then the court may order such person to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner.
Here, an examination by a physician would go to the damages’ element of negligence. S underwent several surgeries on her hand and her physician believes that she may never recover the full use of her hand. If her hand is as severely impaired as she claims, her damages would be higher. However, if her hand is not as injured as she alleges, C could potentially lessen the amount. Thus, the exam would be relevant to the controversy of C’s negligence.
C is entitled to an order to compel S to appear for an examination by a suitably licensed or certified physician.
In addition to the physical exam, C wants S to undergo a mental evaluation. Generally, a suitably licensed or certified examiner need not be a physician and can include others licensed to report on physical or mental conditions, including psychologists. However, unless S is claiming pain and suffering as part of her damages, a psychological exam of S does not seem relevant to prove damages. There are no facts to indicate damages beyond physical injury to her hand and thus, this exam is not relevant.
C is not entitled to an order to compel S to appear for an examination by a psychologist.
B. Procedure
An order for a physical or mental exam may be made only upon motion, for good cause shown, and the person to be examined and all parties must be given prior notice specifying the time, place, conditions, and scope of the examination and the identity of the examiner.
Here, C must make a motion compelling S to submit to the physical exam. They must show good cause, which they can as discussed above. S underwent multiple surgeries and claims that she can never use her hand again. C must also give S prior notice specifying the time, place and conditions of the physical exam, as well as the identity of the physician. The prior notice should also specify the scope of the examination, which in this case would most likely include the injured hand and arm.
Venue
In general, venue in a federal civil action is proper in only one of the following judicial districts: (i) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state in which the district is located; or (ii) a judicial district in which a “substantial part of the events or omissions” on which the claim is based occurred, or where a “substantial part of the property” that is the subject of the action is located.
Corporation’s residence
For venue purposes, a defendant that is an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued, regardless of whether incorporated, is deemed to reside in any judicial district in which the entity is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.
In a state that contains multiple judicial districts and in which a defendant corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, the corporation “shall be deemed to reside in any district in that State within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate State.”
Personal jurisdiction - 3 types
Personal jurisdiction refers to the judicial power over the persons or property involved in the cases or controversies before it. There are three general types of personal jurisdiction: (i) in personam jurisdiction; (ii) in rem jurisdiction; and (iii) quasi-in-rem jurisdiction.
In Personam Jurisdiction
What are the bases for PJ?
In personam jurisdiction is the power that a court has over an individual party. There are four bases for in personam jurisdiction: (i) voluntary presence; (ii) domicile; (iii) consent; and (iv) long-arm statutes.
Due Process Requirements for PJ
Minimum Contacts
Presently, any attempt to gain in personam jurisdiction, under whatever basis, is subject to the International Shoe requirement of minimum contacts.
Purposeful Availment
A defendant’s contacts with the forum jurisdiction must be purposeful and substantial, such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being taken to court there. Foreseeability depends on whether a defendant recognizes or anticipates that by running his business, he runs the risk of being party to a suit in a particular jurisdiction.
*See scope of contacts for General or Specific PJ
Fair Play and Substantial Justice
A court must determine if maintenance of the action would “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Courts consider various factors, including: (i) the interest of the forum state in adjudicating the matter; (ii) the burden on the defendant of appearing in the case; (iii) the interest of the judicial system in the efficient resolution of controversies; and (iv) the shared interests of the states in promoting common social policies.
Specific and General Jurisdiction - scope of contacts corporation
The scope of the contacts necessary for the assertion of personal jurisdiction depends on the relationship that the cause of action has with the forum state.
When a cause of action does not arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum, the court must resort to general jurisdiction.
[General jurisdiction]
To determine whether a foreign corporation is subject to a state’s general jurisdiction, the proper inquiry is whether a corporation’s affiliations with the forum state are so “continuous and systematic” as to render the corporation essentially “at home” in the forum state.
[At home]
A corporate defendant is always “at home” in the state of the corporation’s place of incorporation and, if different, the state of its principal place of business. “Principal place of business” refers to the “nerve center” of the corporation, and is generally the location from which the high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the activities of the corporation.
[HQ/POB]
Typically, the nerve center is the corporate headquarters. In exceptional cases, a corporate defendant’s operations in another forum may be so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation “at home” in that state even if the state is not the corporation’s place of incorporation or principal place of business, but such cases are rare. However, even when general jurisdiction is unavailable, the court will have specific jurisdiction over a defendant when the cause of action arises out of or closely relates to a defendant’s contact with the forum state.
Scope of Discovery
Discovery is generally permitted with regard to any matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense in the action that is not otherwise privileged. This includes the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. Admissibility of the evidence at trial does not matter for determining relevance for purposes of discovery. The test is whether the information sought is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Information may be discoverable if it “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Discovery device used for non-party to produce documents.
[Assuming w/i scope of discovery]
Nonparties may be compelled to produce documents and other things or submit to an inspection pursuant to a subpoena.
In this case, S seeks to obtain a copy of the maintenance records for the copy machine that caused her injuries from a nonparty, B. B may be compelled to produce a copy of the maintenance records for the copy machine with a subpoena.
Discovery and mental/physical exams.
If the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, then the court may order such person to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner.
Procedure for ordering a physical or mental exam.
An order for a physical or mental exam may be made only upon motion, for good cause shown, and the person to be examined and all parties must be given prior notice specifying the time, place, conditions, and scope of the examination and the identity of the examiner.
