Federal Civil Procedure

Question 1

Personal Jurisdiction - Two Step Analysis

Answer 1

1) Satisfy the state statute; AND
2) Satisfy the Constitution’s due process requirements.

Question 2

Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis

Answer 2

Does the D has “such Minimum Contacts with the forum so jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?”

Question 3

Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Clear Bases of PJ

Answer 3

1) Domiciled in the forum;
2) consents; OR
3) is voluntarily present in the forum when served with process.

Question 4

Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Contact (2)

Answer 4

There must be a relecant contact between D and the forum state which must result from 1) purposeful availment and must be 2) foreseeable.

Question 5

Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Contact - Purposeful Availment

Answer 5

The defendant must reach out to the foum OR cause an effect in the forum.

Question 6

Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Contact - Foreseeability

Answer 6

It must be foreseeable that the defendant would be sued in this forum.

Question 7

Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Relatedness

Answer 7

The Plaintiff’s claim must arise from the Defendant’s contact with the forum.

Question 8

Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Relatedness - Specific Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 8

Where the claim arises from the D’s contact with the forum.

Question 9

Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Relatedness - General Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 9

To have general PJ the defendant must be “at home” in the forum.

General PJ means the D can be sued there for a claim that arose anywhere in the world.

Question 10

Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Relatedness - General Personal Jurisdiction - “At Home”

Answer 10

People:

Where domiciled.

Corporations:

1) Where incorporated; AND
2) Where it has its principal place of business.

Question 11

Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Fairness

Answer 11

USED IN SPECIFIC PERSONAL JURISDICTION ONLY

Whether the jurisdiction would be fair (or reasonable under the circumstances).

Question 12

Personal Jurisdiction - Constitutional Analysis - Fairness Factors (3)

Answer 12

1) Burden on the D and witnesses - D must show that it puts him at a severe disadvantage in the litigation.
2) The State’s Interest - The forum state may want to provide a courtoom for its citizens, who are allegedly being harmed by out of staters.
3) Plaintiff’s interest - may be injured and wants to sue at home.

Question 13

In Rem and Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

Answer 13

The power is over the D’s property and not the D herselt. It must be attached by the court at the outset of the case.

To be constitutional, D’s contacts with the forum must meet the constitutional test applied in in personam.

Question 14

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Cases a State Court Cannot Hear

Answer 14

Cases arising under some federal laws - e.g. patent infringement, bankruptcy, some federal securities and antitrust claims.

Question 15

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Limited SMJ of Fed Cts (2)

Answer 15

1) Diversity of Citizenship
2) Federal Question

Question 16

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity of Citizenship Requirements (2)

Answer 16

1) The case is either (a) between “citizens of different states” (diversity) OR (b) between “a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country (alienage); AND
2) The amount in controversey exceeds $75,000.

Question 17

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity of Citizenship - Complete Diversity Rule

Answer 17

Diversity is destroyed if any plaintiff is from the same state as any defendant.

Question 18

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity of Citizenship - Alienage and Greencards

Answer 18

Alienage is prohibited if a green card alien is domiciled in the same U.S. state as a litigant on the other side of hte case.

Question 19

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity of Citizenship - Citizenship of Natural Persons

Answer 19

The US state of her domicile.

You may only have one domicile at a time.

Question 20

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity of Citizenship - Citizenship of Natural Persons - Establishing a New Domicile (2)

Answer 20

1) Physical presence in the new state of domicile; AND
2) the intent to make that your permanent home.

Factors:

Taking a job, buying a house, registering to vote, joining civic organizations.

Question 21

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity of Citizenship - Citizenship of Corporations

Answer 21

1) The state or country where incorporated; AND
2) the state or country of its principal place of business.

Question 22

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity of Citizenship - Citizenship of Corporations - Principal Place of Business

Answer 22

A corporations PPB is its “nerve center,” where it directs, coordinates, and controls corporate activities.

Question 23

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity of Citizenship - Citizenship of Decedents, Minors, or Incompetents

Answer 23

Such persons must sue or be sued through a representative. The representative’s citizenship is irrelevant.

Use the citizenship of the decedent, minor, or incompetent.

Question 24

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity of Citizenship - Amount in Controversy

Answer 24

Plaintiff’s claim must exceed $75,000.

Whaterver the Plaintiff claims in good faith is OK, unless it is clear that she cannot recover more than $75,000.

Question 25

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity of Citizenship - Amount in Controversy - Interest on Claim

Answer 25

Cannot count interest on the claim towards requirement, but you might be able to recover interest as the claim.

Question 26

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity of Citizenship - Amount in Controversy - Aggregation

Answer 26

Adding two or more claims to the amount requirment.

Factually unrelated claims may be aggregated to meet the amount requiremnt.

No limit to the number of claims that may be aggregated.

Cannot aggregate claims against multiple defendants.

However, with joint claims the number of parties is irrelevant.

Question 27

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity of Citizenship - Amount in Controversy - Equitable Relief

Answer 27

Two tests:

1) Plaintiff’s viewpoint: is the value decreased by more than $75,000; OR
2) Defendant’s viewpoint: is the cost of complying with the injunction greater than $75,000.

Question 28

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Diversity of Citizenship - Exclusions from Diversity (4)

Answer 28

1) Divorce cases;
2) Alimony cases;
3) Child custody;
4) Approbate/Probate

Question 29

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Federal Question

Answer 29

The Plaintiff’s complaint “arises under” federal law.

Question 30

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Federal Question - The Well Pleaded Complaint Rule

Answer 30

It is not enough that some federal issue is raised by the complainant, the claim itself must “arise under” federal law.

“Is the plaintiff enforcing a federal right?”

Question 31

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Supplemental Jurisdiction

Answer 31

Gets, non-federal, non-diversity claims into Federal court. The case itself must already be in federal court because it invoked either DV or FQ.

Question 32

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Supplemental Jurisdiction Test

Answer 32

In order to invoke supplemental jurisdiction, a claim must share a “common nucleus of operative fact” with the claim that invoked federal subject matter jurisdiction.

This test is always met when “the claim arises from the same transaction or occurence as the underlying case.”

Question 33

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Supplemental Jurisdiction - Special Limitation

Answer 33

In a diversity case, a plaintiff cannot use supplemental jurisdiction to overcome a lack of diversity.

Question 34

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Supplemental Jurisdiction - Discretionary Factors of the Court

Answer 34

Even if the requirements are for supplemental jurisdiction are met, the court has discretion to devline jurisdiction.

It can do so if the state law claim is complex or state law issues would predominate in the case.

OR if the underlying claim is dismissed early in the case.

Question 35

Removal

Answer 35

Transfers the case from a state trial court to a federal court.

If removal was improper, the fedearl court can “remand” the case back to state court.

Question 36

Removal - Timing

Answer 36

The defendant must remove within 30 days of service (not filing) of the first paper that shows the case is removable. Usually means 30 days as of service of process.

Question 37

Removal - Cases Elibigle for Removal

Answer 37

General Rule:

Any case that meet the requirements for DV or FQ.

Exceptions:

1) No removal if any D is a citizen of the forum (instate D rule) AND
2) No removal more than one year after the case was filed in state court.

Question 38

Removal - How to Remove

Answer 38

Defendant files a “notice of removal” in Federal Court, stating the grounds of removal, which means SMJ.

In all cases, the D attaches all documents that were served on her in state action.

She serves a copy of the “notice of removal” on addverse parties.

Then she files a copyu of the “notice of removal in state court.”

Question 39

Remand - How To Remand

Answer 39

If the Plaintiff thinks the case should not have been removed, she moves to remand to state court.

Remand for Lack of SMJ:

P may move to remand at any time.

Remand for any other reason:

P must move to remand within 30 days after notice of removal was filed.

Question 40

Choice of Law in Fed. Court - Eerie Doctrine

Answer 40

IN A DIVERSITY CASE:

Supremacy Clause:

Applies federal law, so long as it is valid, where some federal law on point directly conflicts with state law.

Otherwise:

Substantive issues: Apply State Law

Procedural issues: Apply Federal Law

Question 41

Choice of Law - Eerie Doctrine - Clearly Substantive Issues (4)

Answer 41

1) Elements of a claim or defense;
2) statute of limitations;
3) rules for tolling statutes of limitations, AND
4) conflict (or choice) of law rules.

Question 42

Choice of Law - Eerie Doctrine - Factors where unclear (3)

Answer 42

1) Outcome Determinative: if applying or ignoring the state rule affects the outcome of the case then it is probably a substantive rule.
2) Balance of Interests: Does either federal or state system have a strong interest in having its rules applied?
3) Avoid forum shopping: Will it make parties flock to federal courts?

Question 43

Choice of Law - Federal Common Law

Answer 43

Where Congress passes a statute that creates a new claim but fails to provide a statute of limitations for that claim, federal courts will provide gap fillers, which is federal common law.

Other examples: international relations; admiralty; disputes between the states; the right to sue a federal officer for violating one’s federal rights.

Question 44

Venue

Answer 44

Tells us in which federal district is proper to lay venue.

Question 45

Venue - General Rule

Answer 45

The plaintiff may lay venue in any district where:

1) all defendants reside; OR
2) a substantial part of the claim arose.

Question 46

Venue - “Residence”

Answer 46

Humans:

Reside in the district where domiciled.

Corporations:

Reside in all districts where they are subject to personal jurisdiction. (Incorporation and PPB).

Question 47

Venue - General Rule for Transfer of Venue

Answer 47

A federal district court may transfer the case to another federal district court but only to a district where the case could have been filed.

The transferee benue must be a proper venue AND have personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.

Question 48

Venue - Transfer of Venue - Exception

Answer 48

The court can transfer venue to any district (even an improper venue) if all parties consent AND the court finds cause for the transfer.

Question 49

Venue - Transfer of Venue - Transfer Statutes - Proper Venue

Answer 49

If the original district is proper venue, the court can order transfer based on convenience of parties and witnesses and on the interest of justice.

Question 50

Venue - Transfer of Venue - Transfer Statutes - Proper Venue - Factors for Transfer

Answer 50

Becaus transfer overrides P’s choice of forum, a courd looks to Public and Private factors that show that the transferee is the center of gravity of the case.

Public:

What law applies; what community should be burdened with jury service; the desire to keep local controversy in a local court.

Private:

Convenience - Where the evidence and the witnesses are.

Question 51

Venue - Transfer of Venue - Transfer Statutes - Improper Venue

Answer 51

The Court has discretion to:

1) transfer in the interest of justice; OR
2) dismiss the case.

Question 52

Forum Non Conveniens

Answer 52

Where another court that is the center of gracity makes more sense than the present court, the court does not transfer, but:

1) Dismisses the case; OR
2) Stays the case.

Based on the same public and private factors, but requires a strong showing.

Usually where a claim might be more appropriate in a foreign court.

Question 53

Forum Non Conveniens - “Adequacy”

Answer 53

The other court must be both available and adequate.

A court is adequate if the plaintiff will get his day in court, it is irrelevant whether the same remedies are avaiable.

Question 54

Service of Process

Answer 54

D is entitled to notice that she has been sued.

Consists of:

1) summons (formal court notice of sut and time for a response); AND
2) a copy of the complant.