Federal Civil Procedure Flashcards
Jurisdiction over the Person
State law must authorize jurisdiction, and the exercise of such jurisdiction must be constitutional
A. Types of Personal Jurisdiction
B. Statutory Limitations on Personal Jurisdiction
C. Constitutional Limitations on Personal Jurisdiction
Types of Personal Jurisdiction
- In personam- forum has personal jurisdiction over defendant
- In rem- forum has power to adjudicate rights of all persons to a particular item of property; defendant personally bound
- Quasi in rem (2 types)
Quasi in rem type I
court adjudicates rights of parties in property based on
property being in the forum; close connection between case and property provides minimum contacts
Quasi in rem type II
court attaches property to bring defendant into forum on
unrelated claim; defendant must have minimum contacts with forum
Statutory Limitations on Personal Jurisdiction
- Federal court must analyze personal jurisdiction as if it were a court of the state in which it is located
a. State law must authorize jurisdiction
b. Most, if not all, states authorize jurisdiction over a defendant who:
1) Is present in forum state and personally served with process therein;
2) Is domiciled in forum state;
3) Conducts systematic and continuous business in the state such that the defendant is “essentially at home” therein;
4) Consents to jurisdiction; or
5) Commits an act covered by the long arm statute
Constitutional Limitation on Personal Jurisdiction
- Traditional rule—physical power
- Modern due process standard—contact and fairness
Modern due process standard- contact & fairness
a. Defendant must have such minimum contacts with the forum such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him is fair and reasonable
1) Consider whether defendant purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of state law and whether he could have anticipated being brought into state court
b. Notice also required
1) Traditional methods of personal service satisfy notice requirements
2) Requirement that agent notify defendant
3) Requirement for cases involving multiple or unknown parties
Subject Matter Jurisdiction for Federal Courts
A. Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction
B. Federal Question Jurisdiction
Diversity of Citizenship
- Complete diversity
- Jurisdictional amount in excess of $75,000
- Erie doctrine and law applied in diversity cases- state substantive law, federal procedural law
- Exceptions to diversity of citizenship doctrine- no probate, divorce, alimony, or child custody cases
- Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act
Complete Diversity
a. Every defendant must be of diverse state citizenship from each plaintiff—this is
“complete diversity”
b. Must have complete diversity when action commenced
1) Interpleader exception
c. Alienage jurisdiction—citizen of U.S. state and foreign citizen
d. Questions of citizenship
e. Realignment of parties according to their true interest
1) Shareholder derivative actions
f. Supplemental jurisdiction
g. Subsequent addition of parties and claims
Questions of citizenship
1) Individuals—domicile
2) Corporations—every state/country where incorporated and one state/country of principal place of business, which is the place from which the corporation’s high level officers direct and control its activities
3) Unincorporated associations and limited liability companies—citizenships of its members
4) Legal representatives—domicile of the represented person
5) Class actions—domiciles of the named members
6) Nonresident U.S. citizens—not a citizen of any state and not an alien
Supplemental jurisdiction
1) Must be one claim with original jurisdiction
2) Supplemental claim must arise from a common nucleus of operative fact as
the original jurisdiction claim such that the claims should be tried together
Subsequent addition of parties & claims
1) Intervention of right—no supplemental jurisdiction
2) Substitution of parties—citizenship of original party controls
3) Impleader—supplemental jurisdiction as to claim of Defendant v. Third-Party Defendant; claim of Plaintiff v. Third-Party Defendant must have original jurisdiction in diversity case
4) Cross-claims—supplemental jurisdiction
Jurisdictional amount in excess of $75,000
a. Amount in controversy does not include interest and costs or counterclaims
1) Attorneys’ fees and interest that are recoverable by statute or as part of claim are included
b. Aggregation
c. Supplemental jurisdiction over claims by permissively joined plaintiffs not
exceeding $75,000 possible in diversity cases
d. Counterclaims
Aggregation
1) One plaintiff may aggregate claims against a single defendant
2) One plaintiff may not aggregate separate claims against several defendants
3) One plaintiff may sue several defendants on a joint liability claim if it exceeds $75,000
4) Several plaintiffs may aggregate claims against one defendant if seeking to enforce single title or right
Counterclaims
1) Compulsory counterclaim may invoke supplemental jurisdiction
2) Permissive counterclaim needs original jurisdiction
3) Citizenship generally not an issue—if diversity exists between Plaintiff v. Defendant, it exists between Defendant v. Plaintiff
Federal Question Jurisdiction
- Federal question must appear in complaint
- Implied federal right of action possible
- Supplemental jurisdiction
a. Pendent claims—federal court has discretion to hear state law claim if it arises from a common nucleus of operative fact as the federal claim such that the claims should be tried together
b. Pendent parties—must be common nucleus of operative fact - Specific statutory grants of exclusive federal jurisdiction
Venue
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Distinguished—Venue Is Proper Geographic District
B. General Rules
C. Residence for Venue Purposes
D. Transfer
E. Law Applicable on Transfer
General Rules for Venue
- Venue proper in federal district where any defendant resides (if all defendants reside
in same state), where a substantial part of events or omissions occurred, or where a substantial part of property situated - Fallback provisions—if no district satisfies above, venue proper where any defendant is subject to court’s personal jurisdiction
- Unlike subject matter jurisdiction, venue can be waived
Residence for Venue Purposes
- Individuals—domicile
- Business entities—where subject to court’s personal jurisdiction
- Nonresidents—any judicial district
Venue Transfer
- Original venue proper—transfer for convenience to venue where case might have been brought or to venue to which parties consent
- Original venue improper—transfer to venue where case could have been brought to correct error
a. Dismissal if transfer not available or if some extraordinary circumstance exists
Law Applicable on Transfer of Venue
- Original venue proper—A transfer solely on convenience grounds carries the law of the transferor court (including choice of law) to the transferee court unless the transfer was ordered to enforce a forum selection clause
- Original venue improper—Law of transferee court applies
Removal Jurisdiction
Defendant can remove an action that could have been brought originally in federal court
A. Requirements
B. Procedure for Removal
Requirements for Removal
- Original jurisdiction
- State court need not have had jurisdiction
- Only defendants may remove
- Venue-federal district where state action was filed