FCP Deck Flashcards
judicial jurisdiction
the power of a court to render a judgement that other courts and government agencies will recognize and enforce
Article III of the Constitution…
authorizes the establishment of the system of federal courts and in S2 sets the limits of federal judicial authority
Article IV, S1 states…
that “Full Faith and Credit… be given in each State to judicial proceedings of every other State.”
S1 of the 14th Amendment…
provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
Article VI…
provides that the Constitution and federal laws “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
choice of law
the choice of which laws should apply to the case at hand
in the absence of a controlling federal statute…
federal courts must respect state statutes and common law
attachment
officially sanctioned seizure of property
writ of execution
an official document from the court which authorizes the sheriff to seize any property belonging to the defendant, sell it, and give the resulting money to the plaintiff
constructive notice
pretend notice when the defendant cannot be found to inform of the suit - some states will put a notice in the newspaper. this is constructive because the defendant is unlikely to ever actually see the complaint
Bell v Novick Transfer ID and Proc Hist
Identification of the Case: Plaintiff – Ronald Bell Defendant – Novack Transfer Co. and Katie Marie Parsons Court - ??? Date - 1955
Procedural History:
Ronald Bell sued the defendants for negligence in the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore. Defendants moved to dismiss the declaration on the basis that: 1: there is no claim against the individual defendants, 2: it simply alleges that the negligence of the defendants caused the injury-inducing accident, and 3: it doesn’t specify what the negligent acts were
Bell v Novick Transfer Facts, Issues, and Holding
Facts of the Case:
• Ronald Bell was in a car and got into an accident with a tractor trailer operated by an employee of the defendant at an intersection
• An injury occurred on the part of Ronald Bell
Issues:
Whether the complaint made by the counsel of Ronald Bell sufficiently describes his accusations of negligence against the defendants
Holding & Disposition:
Motion overruled
Bell v Novick Transfer Rule and Rationale
Rule:
Rule 8: requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”
Rationale:
• Rule 8 imposes only this requirement
• If the defendant wants more information for the purpose of crafting his statement, he should obtain said information through “interrogatories under Rule 33, or other discovery procedure”
Bridges v Diesel Service Inc ID, Proc Hist, Facts, and Issues
Identification of the Case: Plaintiff – James Bridges Defendant – Diesel Service, Inc, Court - ??? Date - 1994
Procedural History:
James Bridges sued Diesel Service, Inc., under the ADA. The court dismissed the suit due to the fact that the counsel of the plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative approaches to the remedy of the complaint. The defendant filed for sanctions against the plaintiff
Facts of the Case:
• James Bridges claimed that the defendant had fired him for a disability
Issues:
Whether the insufficient legal research and seeking of administrative remedies for the complaint is severe enough to file for sanctions
Bridges v Diesel Service Inc Holding, Rule, and Rationale
Holding & Disposition:
Defendant’s motion for sanctions denied
Rule:
Rule 11
Rationale:
• The counsel’s signing of the court filing indicates that “a normally competent level of legal research” has not been conducted
• A “normally competent level of legal research” would show the plaintiff’s counsel that an EEOC filing must occur prior to the court filing
• Because Rule 11 is meant to deter future misconduct, and the plaintiff’s counsel appears to have learned their lesson (they immediately filed with the EEOC and requested civil suspension of the matter), no sanctions will be granted
• Because the error was procedural and not substantive, the complaint is not “patently unmeritorious or frivolous”
Hawkins v Masters Farms ID and Proc Hist
Identification of the Case:
Plaintiffs – Mary Ann Hawkins and Rachel Baldwin
Defendants – Master Farms, Inc., Harhge Farms, Inc., and Jack E. Masters
Court - ???
Date - 2003
Procedural History:
The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants in federal court, claiming that there is diversity among the parties. The defendants denied this claim and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, attacking the factual aspect of the plaintiffs’ claims of diversity subject matter jurisdiction
Hawkins v Masters Farms Facts and Issues
Facts of the Case:
• Mr. Creal, the deceased, got in a car accident with a tractor driven by Jack E. Masters, who is a citizen of Kansas
• Mr. Creal was at the time residing in Troy, Kansas with his wife and her children
• When the Creals met, he was living with his mother in St. Joseph, Missouri
• Mr. Creal began staying the night at Elizabeth Creal’s house, though he would stop at his mother’s house each day after work and then travel to Elizabeth’s house – expenses were split between the two
• Mrs. Creal moved into a new apartment in a different part of Troy, Kansas, and Mr. Creal functionally fully moved in, bringing his belongings and splitting the cost of a bedroom set with her. They also opened a joint checking account
• Mr. and Mrs. Creal married soon thereafter
• Mr. and Mrs. Creal purchased a house in a different part of Troy, his death occurring around two weeks afterward. On his death certificate, his residence is listed as Kansas
• In the time leading up to his death, Mr. Creal retained connections to the state of Missouri, listing that as his residence on many official documents, insurance forms, loan forms, etc
• An estate was opened after his death which listed his mother’s home address as his place of residence prior to the accident
• Before his death, the couple had been considering buying a house in Missouri, though they never went and actually looked at houses
Issues:
Whether the connections Mr. Creal retained with the state of Missouri in the months leading up to his death qualify the case for diversity jurisdiction, allowing it to be tried in federal court.
Hawkins v Masters Farms Holding, Rule, and Rationale
Holding & Disposition:
Mr. Creal was a citizen of the State of Kansas at the time of his death, so there is no diversity jurisdiction here. Motion to dismiss granted
Rule:
“For purposes of determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists, a person is a ‘citizen’ of the state in which he or she is ‘domiciled.’ For adults, domicile is established by physical presence in a place in connection with a certain state of mind concerning one’s intent to remain there.”
Rationale:
• Mr. Creal, at the time of his death, had fully moved into the State of Kansas with a clear intent to remain there
o Because he had lived there for a year, moved his possessions, and split the house bills with his wife in Kansas, it was clear that he had an intention to stay there
• Because of the extent of his actions in moving into the house in Kansas, his connections with Missouri are insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction
• Because the Creals never actually sought out a house in Missouri, the intention to stay in Kansas remains (“floating intention”)
Pennoyer v Neff ID and Proc Hist
Identification of Case: Plaintiff/ - Neff Defendant/ - Pennoyer Court - Date – 1877
Procedural History:
In the original suit, Mitchell sued Neff for failing to pay a lawyer’s fee. Neff was absent, so constructive notice was performed. Neff did not respond or show up for court and a default judgement was entered. Land later acquired by Neff in the state was attached and sold to Pennoyer, who was subsequently sued by Neff to retrieve his land. A court subsequently ruled that the affidavit used to acquire the constructive notice in the publication was invalid. Pennoyer appealed.
Pennoyer v Neff Facts, Issues, and Holding
Facts of the Case:
• suit was brought by Mitchell, a lawyer, against Neff, alleging that he had failed to pay his legal fees
• Neff, a non-resident, was given “constructive notice” in a publication within Oregon. He did not show up to court
• Mitchell won the suit by default
• After the judgement was entered, Neff acquired land in Oregon, which, unbeknownst to him, was attached by the court and sold to Pennoyer
• Neff returned to Oregon, discovered what had occurred, and sued Pennoyer, claiming that he still owned the land (which he had purchased from the government)
• The court which tried the case before the current court ruled that the judgement was invalid because the affidavit used to publish the constructive notice had defects and was thus invalid
Issues:
• Whether the Oregon court erred in confiscating the land which Neff did not own at the time of the judgement, and whether him not owning said land when the judgement was made means they lacked jurisdiction in the case
• Whether the method of serving notice here, constructive notice, was valid
Holding and Disposition:
The court cannot pass a judgement over which it lacks jurisdiction and then seize land later bought to validate the decision. Plaintiff also was not extended service of notice. Affirmed.
Pennoyer v Neff Rule and Rationale
Rule:
Constructive notice in situations where the would-be defendant is unlikely ever to see it is not valid.
A court’s jurisdiction is determined at the time of the case, and if void when the case is tried, is void thereafter.
Rationale:
• States cannot enforce their statutes outside of their own state
• if state courts could simply publish notice in a way that the would-be defendant would never see it, it would open the doors to rampant fraud and abuse; publication in this manner cannot create any greater obligation for the defendant to appear
• there are some contexts in which publication of notice could be appropriate, but this is not one of them
• the validity of every judgement is determined when it is rendered; if it is void at that time, it stays void forever
• In Webster v Reid, it was determined that a plaintiff seeking ownership of land sold under judgments recovered in suits where the defendant had not been extended service of process did not have rights to them
• The Fourteenth Amendment does not immunize court decisions in other states from questioning if they had jurisdiction in making the decision; if they lacked jurisdiction and the decision was invalid, other states need not enforce their decision
fact-based inquiry
law is easy, facts are central to case
floating intention
an intention which exists out there in the ether, but which is not solid and has not been acted upon
Statutes 1331 and 1332
narrows article 3 - look up for more detail
Rule 11 (find actual rule in supplement)
lawyers cannot bring claims to court with no factual basis and insufficient legal research behind them. sanctions may occur if they do
notice without the state was justified in Meyer v Mabee largely on the basis that
along with the privileges of living in the state, including protection of personal property and access to the law, come responsibilities and duties, such as appearing in court. absence from the state does not negate this
rule 8 states that
all that is required is “a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”
deposition
an interview under oath outside of the courtroom
removal
a procedural mechanism used by defendants to strategically change from state to federal forum. done by questioning plaintiff’s choice of forum. proper jurisdictional arguments required
torts are ________
state law, not federal
the case Bell v Novick Transfer Co. got to federal court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction
a party may seek federal court to
avoid a sympathetic jury for the other party
discovery
process through which parties obtain information not contained in complaint/defense
personal jurisdiction
the power of the course to hear the particular case against the particular defendant (specifically for defendant)
due process clause
no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
lawyers rarely sue their clients because
it opens them up to malpractice claims
default judgment
judgment passed against a party when they are absent
collateral attack
bringing a second action to attack a prior case
service of process
federal. a copy of the complaint and the summons
SAD person
suitable age & discretion
natural person
an actual person, as opposed to a corporation
affadavit
certification by a party setting out certain facts
according to Pennoyer v Neff,
every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory
in personam
personal jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
requirements:
- In-State Service (PRESENCE)
- Domicile
- Consent
- Implied
- Express
- Voluntary Appearance
in rem
personal jurisdiction over the land
requirements: -In-State Property -tangible -intangible Seized Pre-Judgment
express consent
something like a contract, where you explicitly consent to possible lawsuit
implied consent
your consent is implied through your activity, like doing business in the state
RUle 12(b), (h), and (g)
If you make a pre-answer motion (or make an appearance or litigate other issues) without raising an objection to personal jurisdiction, then the defense is waived. Personal jurisdiction issues must be raised at the earliest oppurtunity
Rule 4(k)(1)(a)
personal jurisdiction of a federal court shall be the same as the court of a state in which the federal court is sitting, unless a federal statute provides otherwise
special appearance
appearing before a court but not in the form of voluntary appearance
in rem vs. quasi in rem
in rem is used in cases where the ownership of the property itself is at stake. they use quasi in rem in cases where the property is used as a “jurisdictional hook” to justify the court claiming jurisdiction over the case
Shaffer v Heitner
Identification of Case: Plaintiff/Appellee – Heitner Defendants/Appellants – 21 present or former officers or directors of Greyhound Corporations or one of its subsidiaries Court - SCOTUS Date – 1977
Procedural History:
Heitner sued 28 directors or officers of the corporations for violating their duties to the corporation in which he held stock by taking actions which resulted in civil and criminal suits against them. He filed for sequestration of their stocks in the company. Delaware did so to 21 of them and notified the defendants by mail and by publication. They appealed, claiming that they were not given due process, that the shares were not available for attachment in Delaware, and that they lacked sufficient contacts in Delaware for the state to have jurisdiction
Facts of the Case:
• Heitner sued 28 former or current directors or officers of Greyhound or its unnamed subsidiary on the basis that they had violated their obligations to Greyhound by engaging in activities which ended them up in significant criminal or civil suits, damaging the company’s stock price (Heitner owned stock in Greyhound)
Issues:
Whether a Delaware statute allowing for the sequestration of shares of a Delaware corporation within the state belonging to officers/directors of said Delaware corporation to establish jurisdiction over a case is unconstitutional under the Due Process clause of the Constitution
Holding and Disposition:
Insufficient contacts exist between the officers of the corporation and the state of Delaware, and their status of officers of the corporation and ownership of stock in the corporation do not change that. Reversed.
Rule:
Rationale:
• The lower courts’ finding that “sufficient contacts” was an irrelevant metric in this case is based on the logic of Pennoyer
• International Shoe claimed – and SCOTUS agreed – that its principles applied to natural persons, not just corporations
• The strict view on jurisdiction laid out in Pennoyer has been weakened by subsequent decisions
• The minimum contacts standard of International Shoe is the standard for deciding if the court has jurisdiction over someone’s interest in a thing
• The presence of property in a state may imply ties to the state and justify jurisdiction in cases where the suit is related to the property itself; however, in this case the property in question has nothing to do with the complaint, and therefore does not create sufficient links with the state
• The primary purpose of the sequestration statute is to assume jurisdiction; however, “if a direct assertion of personal jurisdiction over the defendant would violate the Constitution, it would seem that an indirect assertion of the jurisdiction should be equally impermissible”
• The justification that the law simplifies things by avoiding the uncertainty present in International Shoe presents a cost which is too high – the cost of sacrificing “fair play and substantial justice”
• The purpose of the statute is to prevent defendants from avoiding suit by getting all their property out of the state, but the statute fails to address whether property is moved out of the state for that purpose
• The interest of the state asserted by plaintiff – to exercise control over and regulate corporations within the state – is not addressed by the Delaware legislature
• The plaintiff has failed to establish that in accepting their positions as officers in the Delaware corporation, they have “purposefully avail[ed themselves] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State…”
• Delaware has no statute that says that acceptance of a directorship implies consent to be summoned to Delaware courts
• It’s ridiculous to say that anyone buying stocks of a Delaware corporation consents to the above either
for diversity jurisdiction to exist,
NONE of the defendants can be of the same state as the plaintiff
federal courts usually have the same jurisdictional boundaries as
state courts. however, there are some isolated federal statutes or Rules that expand that power
J McIntryre v Nicastro
Identification of Case: Plaintiff – Robert Nicastro Defendant – J. McIntyre Ltd. Court - SCOTUS Date - 2011
Procedural History:
Nicastro sued J. It made it up to the New Jersey Supreme Court, who judged that they had jurisdiction over the case based on some of the facts below. Defendant appealed.
Facts of the Case:
• Robert Nicastro injured his hand while using a scrap-metal machine manufactured by defendant corporation
• The defendant corporation is incorporated in Britain and has never directly sold machines in New Jersey
• Defendants contract with an independent distributor in America which distributes nationwide
• Agents of defendant attended conferences in America on scrap metal to advertise along with distributor, but conferences were never held in New Jersey
• Four or less of the scrap metal machines of the type which gave rise to the suit ended up in New Jersey
• The distributor advertised the machines under defendant’s guidance
Issues:
Did the defendant sufficiently target New Jersey for the sale of goods such that it is volunteering to submit to the power of the state through “purposefully availing itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the form State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws”
Holding and Disposition:
Sufficient contacts not established. Reversed
Rule:
“The ‘substantial connection’ between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state”
Rationale:
• Asahi holds that the “chain of commerce” may submit a manufacturer to the power of a sufficiently targeted state
• Unlike the opinion of Justice Brennan in Asahi, it is not the defendant’s reasonable expectations of a lawsuit brought about by putting goods into the stream of commerce of the forum state, it is the defendant’s actions which must establish minimum connections. This is the law
• Even bringing up foreseeability as viable may incur substantial costs on litigants in simply arguing over the forum
• J. McIntyre targeted the markets of the United States, not New Jersey specifically
• The extents of defendant’s contacts with New Jersey are the individual machine which led to the suit
World-Wide v Woodson
Identification of Case: Plaintiffs/Appellees – Robinson Family Defendants/Appellants – World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. and Seaway Court – SCOTUS Date - 1980
Procedural History:
The Robinson family sued the four companies listed below for products-liability. The defendants sought a writ of prohibition against the District Court judge in Oklahoma in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. The writ was denied at that level. They appealed to the Supreme Court.
Facts of the Case:
• The Robinson bought an Audi from Seaway Volkswagen in New York
• The Robinson family bought a home in Arizona
• On their way to Arizona, in Oklahoma, they got into a car accident which resulted in their car catching fire and badly burning the mother and two children
• They sued Audi NSU Auto Union, Volkswagen of America, World-Wide Volkswagen (distributor), and Seaway (retailer)
• World-Wide and Seaway claimed that Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction
• Both Seaway and World-Wide are corporations located in New York
• Neither has any relationship – in terms of agents, advertising, or shipments – with Oklahoma
• Their relationships with the other two defendants are simply contractual
Issues:
Whether the defendant corporations, being largely unconnected to the state of Oklahoma, can have in personam jurisdiction exercised over them by Oklahoma’s courts.
Holding and Disposition:
Insufficient contacts. Reversed.
Rule:
The “minimum contacts” rule in International Shoe
Rationale:
• While economic interdependence between states has led to the relaxing of 14th Amendment restrictions, it is not irrelevant; it is still a tool for maintaining federalism
• The defendants have no ties with Oklahoma whatsoever – they don’t sell cars there, they do not advertise in a way which is “reasonably calculated” to reach Oklahoma, they do not avail themselves to the benefits of working in the State, etc
• The fact that cars are mobile and thus it was “foreseeable” that the car would end up in Oklahoma is insufficient – foreseeability on its own has never been enough to exercise in personam jurisdiction (Hanson v Denckla)
• If foreseeability was the metric, every seller of chattel would be appointing the chattel his agent for service of process
• The due process clause gives predictability to potential defendants such that they can structure their behavior in specific states
• The fact that the defendants may derive some profit from people who buy their cars and use them in foreign states is a stretch; it does not provide for sufficient contacts
Milliken v Meyer
- meyer knew he was sued in Wyoming
- attorney told him to ignore it based on meyer’s physica presence outside the state (he’s in Colorado)
- default judgment against meyer
- meyer brings lawsuit in Colorado
- SCOTUS says Wyoming had jurisdiction based on meyer’s domicile in Wyoming
- SCOTUS says that substituted service is acceptable as long as it is reasonably calculated to give defendant actual notice of suit
substituted service
anything that’s not in-state service
specific jurisdiction vs general jurisdiction in the context of cases like international shoe
specific - conduct is isolated and suit is related to conduct
general - conduct is continuous and systematic and suit is unrelated to conduct
Rule 4(k)(1)(a)
the personal jurisdiction of the federal court shall be the same as the court of the state in which the federal court is sitting…
why did Hanson v Denckla get up to SCOTUS
because you had two different courts in different jurisdictions saying opposite things - need an arbiter
central distinction between Hanson and McGee
purposeful availment!!!!
when looking at general jurisdiction with corporations, the SCOTUS usually looks at
whether the defendant corporation is “at home” in the jurisdiction
implication of Harris v Balk
everywhere your debt goes with the person who owes you, that is your transient property which can be used to establish jurisdiction and validate substituted service
In Shaffer, by what standard are the stocks “located” in Delaware
Delaware has a statute which dictates that that is the case - Delaware is the “situs” of all business there
Calder Effects Test
A defendant’s tortious acts can serve as a source of personal jurisdiction only where the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that the defendant’s acts (1) were intentional, (2) were uniquely or expressly aimed at the forum state, and (3) caused harm, the brunt of which was suffered - and which the defendant knew was likely to be suffered - in the forum state
general jurisdiction
jurisdiction in which defendant can be sued for all claims, even those unrelated to the place itself
shareholder’s derivative action
suit by shareholders against corporation for mismanagement
2 purposes of attachment
- ) to establish jurisdiction
2. ) to repay aggrieved party
the constitutional test for jurisdiction
International Shoe test
writ of prohibition
a procedural mechanism where one party, almost always the defendant, is saying that the presiding judge cannot hear the case. asked of the appellate court. fought by opposing party in court
