Finals Essay

Question 1

PJ -general

Answer 1

Personal jurisdiction is the court’s power over the person or property. To hear the case the forum court must have both 1) Authority under the state long-arm provisions; and 2) Constitutional authority.

Question 2

PJ - federal long-arm provisions

Answer 2

A federal court may only exercise PJ if state court in the state where the federal court sits could do so.

Question 3

PJ - state long-arm provisions - does not ref constitutional limits

Answer 3

Here, the court has authority under the state long-arm provisions because [facts].

Question 4

PJ - state long-arm provisions - up to const limits

Answer 4

Here, the state’s long-arm provisions allow PJ as long as the constitutional limits are satisfied, thus no separate analysis is needed.

Question 5

PJ - types

Answer 5

The court has constitutional authority to hear the case if the requirements for any of the following are met:

a) Consent or waiver;
b) Tag jurisdiction;
c) General in personam jurisdiction;
d) Specific in personam jurisdiction;
e) In rem jurisdiction;
f) Quasi in rem jurisdiction

Question 6

PJ - no property at issue

Answer 6

There is no property at issue in this case so in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction will not be discussed.

Question 7

PJ - consent

Answer 7

A court has PJ over a person if he consents to PJ. Here, the court has PJ over P becauseshe consented by filing the case in the forum state court. The court does [not] have PJ over D by consent because [facts].

Question 8

PJ - waiver

Answer 8

D waives objection to PJ by failing to raise the issue prior to or in conjunction with his initial answer to the complaint. Here, D did [not] waive objection to PJ because [facts].

Question 9

PJ - tag -rule

Answer 9

It is generally accepted that a state has tag PJ if: a) D was served while physically present in forum state; and b) D’s presence was not due to trick or fraud.

However, the constitutionality of tag jdx is not fully settled based on the court’s holding in Burnham.

Question 10

PJ - tag -rule - corporations

Answer 10

A forum state does not obtain PJ over a corporate D if the officers or directors were served within the forum state.

Question 11

PJ - tag - app - case law - Burnham

Answer 11

There, all 9 justices unanimously agreed there was jurisdiction over the defendant based on his voluntary presence in the state when served, but there was no majority opinion because they differed on the constitutional requirements of tag PJ. 4 justices stated tag PJ is constitutional simply because it is traditional.

4 other justices believed that the Court’s decision in Shaffer required a minimum contacts analysis even for tag jurisdiction. In that concurring opinion the justices stated that the exercise over a D based on his voluntary presence in the state would not violate due process, but did not address the “arising under” element of the Intl Shoe analysis indicating they possibly support a less strict minimumn contacts requirement for tag jurisdiction.

Question 12

PJ- tag - app - our case

Answer 12

Here, as in Burnham, D was voluntarily in the forum state when he was served because [facts].

Under the traditional view, this would be sufficient to establish tag PJ.

Under the view of the justices who thought Intl Shoe should apply, D’s presence in the state would count as a minimum contact.
What is not clear is whether the arising under element must also be satisfied.

However, despite this disagreement in the Supreme Court, a majority of circuit courts accept tag PJ as constitutional on the traditional basis.

Question 13

PJ - tag - conclusion

Answer 13

Thus, the most likely result is that the forum state does have tag PJ over D.

Question 14

PJ - GJDX - scope

Answer 14

When general in personam is present, the defendant can be sued on any claim even if the claim is unrelated to the defendant’s contact with the forum state

Question 15

PJ - GJDX - individual D

Answer 15

General in personam jurisdiction (GJDX) is present when an defendant who is an individual is domiciled in the forum state.

An individual is domiciled in the forum state if they:

a) have physical presence in the state with
b) intent to remain for an indefinite period.

Question 16

PJ - GJDX - individual - case refs

Answer 16

Gordon v. Steele - P moved away for college, had no definite plans to leave the state where college was located. Mas v. Perry - P had moved away for college but had no intent to remain in state where she was going to college

Question 17

PJ - GJDX - Rule - corp

Answer 17

A court has GJDX over a defendant that is a corporation if the defendant’s affiliations with the forum state are so continuous and systematic that they render it essentially “at home” in the forum state.

Question 18

PJ - GJDX - Rule - corp - at home

Answer 18

A corp/unincorporated entity is “at home” in its :

1) State of incorporation;

2) State of principle place of business (defined as in Hertz for diversity jurisdiction;

3) Other states under exceptional circumstances

Question 19

PJ - GJDX - App- corp

Answer 19

Here, D is incorporated in State A. The high level officers direct business from State A, which is likely to be considered their principle place of business.

However, only [x%] of D’s business takes place in State A. This is similar to the amount of business the defendant’s subsidiary in Daimler did in its forum state.

In contrast, here, D does more than 50% of its business in State B. It is plausible this is the type of exceptional circumstance where the Court would find that a corporation is at home in a state other than its state of incorporation and principal place of business.

A corporation with over half of its business in one state is likely to feel “at home” in the state and not surprised or burdened by having to defend itself in a court there for claims that arose anywhere in the world.

Question 20

PJ - GJDX - App - corp/org case ref

Answer 20

Daimler AG v. Buaman - subsidiary had significant facilities and a lot of employees in forum state, but sales amounted to only 2.4% of worldwide sales, so no GJDX.

Question 21

PJ - GJDX - Conclusion

Answer 21

Thus, the court does [not] have GJDX over D.

Question 22

PJ - SJDX - general

Answer 22

Specific in personam jurisdiction (SJDX) is present if 3 elements are satisfied:

1) D has minimum contacts with the forum;

2) Claim arises from those contacts; and

3) Personal jurisdiction is otherwise fair and reasonable

Question 23

PJ - SJDX - rule - min contacts - gen

Answer 23

First, the defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum state. Minimum contacts exist when the defendant has purposefully availed himself of the privileges and benefits of conducting activities in the forum state such that it is foreseeable he will be hailed into court there.

Purposeful availment generally requires an intentional targeting of the forum state.

Question 24

PJ - SJDX - app - min contacts - gen

Answer 24

Here, a court would likely find that D purposefully availed himself of the forum state when he did [facts]. This conduct amounts to intentional targeting of the forum state because [facts].

Question 25

PJ - SJDX - min contacts - general - case ref : WWV/Intl Shoe

Answer 25

Similar to Worldwide Volkswagen, D did not have any contacts with the forum state other than the fact his product ended up in the forum state after being purchased by a consumer. The court states there that mere foreseeability that a product might end up in a forum state was not sufficient to satisfy minimum the minimum contact requirement.

WWV and this case are distinguishable from International Shoe, where the defendant had intentionally targeted the forum state by hiring contractors to peddle its shoes to customers in the forum state.

Question 26

PJ - SJDX - min contacts - rule - single contact

Answer 26

Here, as in McGee v. Intl Life Ins. Co, a single, intentional contact may be sufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts test.

Like the D there, D targeted the forum state when he did [facts]. Even though this was D’s only contact with the state it is likely enough to satisy the minimum contacts test.

Question 27

PJ - SJDX - min contacts -0rule - contracts cases

Answer 27

In Burger King, the Supreme Court made it clear that an individual’s contract with an out-of-state party alone is not sufficient to establish minimum contacts.

The Court stated factors such as a) course of negotiation, course of performance, b) consequences of breach and c) terms of the contract must be evaluated to determine if there was purposeful activity directed at the forum state.

Question 28

PJ - SJDX - min contacts -app - contracts - choice of law provision

Answer 28

The court in Burger King also found, that while a choice of law provision alone is not sufficient to show a defendant, purposefully availed himself of the benefits of the forum state, such a clause combined with other factors reinforces the defendant’s deliberate affiliation with the forum state.

Here, there is also a choice of law provision, that combined with [facts], supports a court finding the minimum contact element is satisfied.

Question 29

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - issue - SOC

Answer 29

The law is unsettled as to what constitutes minimum contacts when a defendant places a product in the stream of commerce.

Question 30

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - SOC defined

Answer 30

This is a stream of commerce case because D is an out-of-state manufacturer [of component parts sold to another company that manufactured the finished product and sold it into the forum state][who sold its product to a wholesaler or retailer who then sold the product in the forum state].

Question 31

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - rule - SOC general

Answer 31

There are three alternative views from the Supreme Court as to how minimum contacts is satisfied in SOC cases:

1) Brennan’s Pure stream-of-commerce view;

2) O’Connors Stream of commerce “plus” view;

3) Steven’s middle ground view

Question 32

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - rule - SOC - pure

Answer 32

Under the pure stream of commerce view, all that is necessary is that the defendant placed its product into the stream of commerce with awareness that the product is being sold in the forum state.

Question 33

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - app - SOC - pure

Answer 33

Here, the pure stream of commerce test would be satisfied. By [selling the component parts to the manufacturer][selling its product to a wholesaler/retailer], D placed the product into the stream of commerce. D was also aware the product was being sold in [forum] because [facts].

Question 34

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - rule - SOC - plus

Answer 34

Under the stream of commerce “plus” view, there must be some activity purposefully targeted at the forum state in addition to placing the product into the stream of commerce.

Question 35

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - app -SOC - plus - ashahi

Answer 35

In Asahi, O’Connor suggested actions such as
1) catering to the market,
2) advertising in
3) directing communications to consumers in; or
4). contracting third parties to sell the product within the forum state

would amount to purposeful availment.

Here, a court would likely find the test was [not] satisfied because [facts]. D’s conduct is [like]][distinguishable from] the conduct of the defendant in Asahi because [facts].

Question 36

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - rule - SOC - middle ground

Answer 36

Under Steven’s view, the determination of minimum contacts would consider the volume of activity and the value of sales in the forum state, along with the hazardousness of the product.

Question 37

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - qpp - SOC - middle ground

Answer 37

Here, the minimum contacts case would also likely be satisfied. D does [% of business] in the forum state, and [other factors supporting].

Question 38

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - rule - int torts

Answer 38

The test for purposeful availment in intentional torts cases where the defendant’s tortious conduct in one state causes an effect in another state is whether the defendant’s conduct was expressly targeted to have an effect in the forum state (Calder Effects Test”). The court looks at the focal point of the conduct and the tortious activity.

Question 39

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - app - int torts - case ref - Walden

Answer 39

The fact that P may continue to feel the effects of D’s actions in the forum state is irrelevant. Like the Court held in Walden, the effect must be from the defendant’s express targeting of the forum, not from the unilateral acts of the plaintiff. Here, [explain why the effect was the unilateral act of P].

Question 40

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - app - int torts - case ref - Calder

Answer 40

Like in Calder, the defendant seemed to expressly target his conduct to have an impact in the forum state because he [used sources, knew the defendant’s career would be impacted, etc.].

Question 41

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - rule - internet -

Answer 41

The defendant posting something on the internet does not necessarily mean he purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of every forum state just because the internet is available everywhere. The posting must be expressly targeted to have an impact in the forum state in order for there to be minimum contacts.

Question 42

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - app - internet - case ref - Burdick

Answer 42

This is similar to the Burdick case where the court found a FB post about someone in the forum state, but involving activity in another state, where the defendant’s FB friends who saw the post were located, was not purposeful targeting of the forum state.

Question 43

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - rule - selling directly in/to forum

Answer 43

Directly selling an item or delivering an item to the forum state is likely to always be considered a minimum contact with the state.

Question 44

PJ - SJDX - Min contacts - app - selling directly in forum

Answer 44

Here, unlike in Worldwide Volkswagen, the defendant [sold][shipped] its product directly [to][in] the forum state.

The defendant’s activity was analogous to the national magazine publisher selling its magazines in the forum state in Keeton.

LIn addition, the Court held in McGee that even a single, intentional contact with the forum state was sufficient to create minimum contacts. D’s conduct was intentional because [facts].

Thus, like in Keeton and McGee, a court is likely to find that the defendant had minimum contacts because he purposefully directed his conduct at the forum state

Question 45

PJ - SDJX - min contacts - conclusion

Answer 45

In conclusion - a court will likely find D did [not] have minimum contacts with the forum state.

Question 46

PJ - SJDX - Arising - issue

Answer 46

Second, the claims must arise from those contacts.

Question 47

PJ - SJDX - Arising - SOC

Answer 47

It is not clear from Asahi whether a seprate “arising from” analysis is required for stream of commerce cases because none of the opinions addressed whether there was an additional conntection related to the case other than satisfying the related test. It could be said that putting the product into the SOC gives arise to the claim.

Question 48

PJ- SJDX - Arising - rule

Answer 48

Three are 3 possible tests for this element:

1) But-for;

2) Evidence test;

3) Ford “related to” test

Question 49

PJ- SJDX - Arising - rule - but for

Answer 49

Under the but-for test, a claim arises out of defendant’s forum state contacts if but-for D’s contacts with the forum, the claim would not have arisen.

Question 50

PJ - SJDX - Arising - but for -case ref - Intl Shoe

Answer 50

For example, in International Shoe, but for the defendant hiring contractors to peddle its shoes in the forum state, it would not have owed unemployment taxes to the state.

Question 51

PJ - SJDX - Arising - but- for -case ref - McGee

Answer 51

For example, in McGee, where but for the defendant selling a life insurance policy to an individual in the forum state, the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim due to the defendant failing to pay out on that policy would not have arisen.

Question 52

PJ - SJDX - Arising - app – but for

Answer 52

Here, like in [International Shoe][McGee] but for D [doing this,], P’s [claim] would not have arisen because [facts/analysis].

Question 53

PJ - SJDX - Arising - conclusion - But for

Answer 53

Thus, a court will likely find P’s claim arose from D’s contacts with the forum state if the court relies on the but-for test.

Question 54

PJ - SJDX - Arising - rule - evidence

Answer 54

Under the evidence test, a claim arises out of D’s forum state contacts only if D’s contacts offer evidence for at least one of the elements of the claim.

Question 55

PJ - SJDX - Arising - app - evidence - case ref

Answer 55

For example, in Intl Shoe, the defendant hiring individuals to peddle its shoes in the forum state likely could have been raised as evidence of why the defendant owed unemployment taxes to the state. Unemployment taxes are directly related to a company’s employment of state residents.

Question 56

PJ - SJDX - Arising - app - evidence - our case

Answer 56

Here, [un]like the situation in Intl Shoe, D’s forum state contacts would likely [not] offer evidence for an element of P’s claims because [facts].

Question 57

PJ - SJDX - Arising - conclusion - evidence

Answer 57

Thus, a court will likely find P’s claim did [not] arise from D’s contacts with the forum state if the court relies on the evidence test.

Question 58

PJ - SJDX - Arising - rule related to

Answer 58

Under the Ford related-to test, a claim arises out of defendant’s forum state contacts if the contact is sufficiently related to the claim.

Question 59

PJ - SJDX - Arising - app - related to - case ref - Ford

Answer 59

In Ford, the Supreme Court did not provide a brightline explanation of what constitutes “sufficiently related”.

The court considered the fact Ford was doing the same thing in Montana as they do elsewhere, and Ford’s significant ongoing connections with the forum state – including cultivating a market for new and used car sales through ongoing maintenance, repairs, replacement parts, advertising, customer support, etc. - as important to the determination of whether Ford’s contact with the forum state were sufficiently related to the plaintiff’s claim.

In addition, in distinguishing Ford from Bristol Meyers, where it found the claim did not arise from the defendant’s contacts despite similar types of on-going contacts, the Court noted that in Ford, the plaintiff had also been injured in the forum state.

Reference to the plaintiff alludes to the plaintiff’s and the forum state’s interest in having the claim heard there. Normally these interests are reserved for the fairness factor element of SJDX but appear to be relevant to the related to test.

Question 60

PJ - SJDX - Arising - app - related to

Answer 60

Here, [un]like in Ford…… However, this case is similar to Ford in that [facts].

Question 61

PJ - SJDX - Arising - conclusion - related to

Answer 61

Thus, it is [not] likely that a court applying the related to test would find that the arising out of element has been satisfied.

Question 62

PJ - SJDX - Arising - overall conclusion

Answer 62

In summary….However, since a majority of courts apply the but-for test, and that test is likely to be satisfied in this case, it is very likely that a court would find that the claim arose from the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.

Question 63

PJ - SJDX - Fairness - issue

Answer 63

Third, personal jurisdiction must be fair and reasonable.

Question 64

PJ - SJDX - Fairness - rule general

Answer 64

The Supreme Court has identified at least 5 fairness factors:

1) Burden on the defendant in defending the case in the forum state;

2) The forum state’s interest in adjudicating the claim;

3) The plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief;

4) The legal system’s interest in efficiency;

5) Shared substantive policies of the states

Question 65

PJ - SJDX - Fairness - rule - compelling case

Answer 65

Although this is a required element for SJDX, the Supreme Court clarified in Burger King that it is a rare case where the fairness analysis would preclude a finding of SJDX if the first two elements had been satisfied.

A defendant who has purposefully directed his activities into the forum state would have to present a compelling case of unfairness, demonstrating he would be at a severe disadvantage if the case is litigated in the forum state.

Question 66

PJ - SJDX - Fairness - app - case ref - Ashai

Answer 66

In Ashai, the only Supreme Court case where the finding of no SJDX turned on the fairness factors, all of the factor’s weighed towards it being unfair for the state to exercise SDJX over the defendant.

Question 67

PJ - SJDX - Fairness - app - our case

Answer 67

Here, most of the fairness factors do not weigh against the court exercising SJDX over the defendant.

The burden on the defendant is [light/heavy] because [facts].

The forum state’s interest in hearing the claim is strong because [facts].

The plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief in the forum state is strong because [facts].

The legal system’s interest in efficiency points towards the forum state since the witnesses and evidence are there.

The final factor has never been defined or explained by the Supreme Court, so does not seem to bear must importance. However, it could be said the states have a shared interest in adjudicating claims of this type because [facts].

Question 68

PJ - SJDX - Fairness - app - counter

Answer 68

The defendant will likely argue the burden to him to litigate in the state is great as compared to the plaintiff’s burden to litigating in a different state.

Plaintiff is a large, multinational corporation that has locations in multiple states and can easily defend a case in another state.

On the other hand, the defendant is a small business owner with very little wealth. Hiring out-of-state lawyers, paying for travel, including for witnesses, could be detrimental to his finances.

However, this is similar to the argument the defendant made in Burger King, which the Court did not find to be a compelling case of unfairness, noting that the relative wealth of the parties was not sufficient to create a severe disadvantage to the defendant in the forum state.

Thus, it is not likely this argument will be successful in this case.

Question 69

PJ - SJDX - Fairness - conclusion

Answer 69

Thus, a court will most likely find that it is fair and reasonable for D to defend the case in the forum state.

Question 70

PJ - SJDX - overall conclusion

Answer 70

In conclusion ……

Question 71

PJ - Quasi - Issue

Answer 71

The issue is whether the forum state has personal jurisdiction over the defendant’s property.

Question 72

PJ - Quasi - Rule

Answer 72

In Shaffer, the Supreme Court held that the SJDX test of International Shoe applies to jurisdiction involving property.

Question 73

PJ - Quasi - rule- ownership of property

Answer 73

If the defendant owns property in a forum state, he has purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of the forum state and can reasonably expect to be haled into court there.

Question 74

PJ - Quasi - rules and app

Answer 74

See SJDX

Question 75

SOP - issue

Answer 75

This issue is whether there was proper notice and service of process on the defendant.

Question 76

SOP - rule - general

Answer 76

Service of process must be both: 1) Of a manner authorized by statute or court rule; and 2) Constitutionally sufficient

Question 77

SOP - statute - issue

Answer 77

The FRCP govern service of process in federal courts.

To determine if service was proper under the FRCP we must examine:

1) Who served process on the defendant; and 2) Manner of service

Question 78

SOP - statute -rule - who

Answer 78

First, FRCP allow any person over the age of 18 who is not a party to the case to serve the defendant.

Question 79

SOP - statute - app - who

Answer 79

Here, X served the defendant, which [does not] satisfy[ies] the FCRP because X is [not] a party to the case.

Question 80

SOP - statute - manner - rule - indivdual

Answer 80

Second, the FRCP provides that service on an individual can be done by:

a) In-hand service;

b) leaving complaint and summons at D’s home with someone of suitable age who resides there;

c) Delivery to an agent of D authorized to receive service;

d) Following the rules established by
i) the state in which the district sits or
ii) the state in which process is made.

Question 81

SOP - statute - manner -app - indiv -general

Answer 81

Here, the manner of service was [facts], which satisfies the FRCP.

Question 82

SOP - statute - manner - app - indiv - D’s home

Answer 82

Here, the manner of service was at D’s home. The process server left the complaint and summon with X who was [not] a person of suitable age who resides there because [facts].

Question 83

SOP - statute - manner - rule - corp

Answer 83

Second, the FRCP provide that corporations can be served by:

a) Delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an officer, managing agent, or a general agent of the entity;

b) Delivering the papers to an agent authorized by law or by appointment to receive service of process;

c) Serving process under state rules in either:

i) the state where federal court sits; or
ii) the state where service is made.

Question 84

SOP - statute - manner - app - corp - general

Answer 84

Here, service was made to X. X was appropriate to receive service of process because [facts].

Question 85

SOP - statute- waiver - defined

Answer 85

The FRCP also define a process by which P may notify D of the action and request waiver of service of process.

Question 86

SOP - statute - waiver - failure to waive

Answer 86

Failure to waive without good cause results in an order to pay expenses of service and expenses in seeking recovery of those expenses.

Question 87

SOP - statute - waiver - D waives

Answer 87

Defendants who waive are given 60 days to respond to the complaint instead of the typical 21 days.

Question 88

SOP - statute -waiver - app

Answer 88

Here, P requested waiver of service, [but][and]D [failed to waive][waived]. Thus, [impact].

Question 89

SOP - statute - conclusion

Answer 89

Thus, the manner of service was appropriate under the FRCP.

Question 90

SOP - constitutional - issue

Answer 90

The manner of notice must also be constitutional.

Question 91

SOP - constitutional - rule

Answer 91

To satisfy the constitutional requirements, the manner of notice must be reasonably calculated to provide actual notice to the defendant.

Question 92

SOP - constitutional - app - FRCP

Answer 92

Generally, any manner authorized by the FRCP, other than the ability to use the state statutes/rules, will satisfy the constitutional requirements.

Therefore, P’s use of [method] as authorized by the FRCP satisfies the constitutional requirements.

Question 93

SOP - constitutional - rule - publication

Answer 93

Generally, publication alone is not sufficient to be reasonably calculated to provide actual notice unless there are no better options. The Constitution requires targeted notice when the defendants are known and locatable.

Question 94

SOP - constitutional - rule - had addresses

Answer 94

Here, P used [method] as authorized by X state statute. P’s use of [method] even though he had addresses for defendants. A court is likely to find, as did the justices in Mullane, that publication by newspaper was not sufficient for those defendants whom the plaintiff could identify and had addresses for.

Question 95

SOP - constitutional - app - no addresse/Baidoo

Answer 95

Here, P used [method] as authorized by X state statute. P will argue he had no better options because [facts]. This is similar to the Baidoo case where the state court found service by Facebook messenger was reasonably calculated to result in actual notice. In this case, as in Baidoo, P did not have a current address for D, but was able to communicate with D through [method]. P also called and notified D by [method] that he had been served, as did the defendant in Baidoo. Since D frequently logs onto X, and P is able to communicate with him by phone, this method is likely to be found to be sufficient to result in actual notice to D.

Question 96

Venue - determine proper - issue

Answer 96

The issue is whether X state is a proper venue for this case.

Question 97

Venue - determine proper - venue defined

Answer 97

Venue refers to the geographic location where the case is heard. Authorization for venue may be found in a general or a specialized statute and has no constitutional requirements.

Question 98

Venue - determine proper - GS - rule

Answer 98

The general federal statute provides 3 options for determining whether venue is proper:

1) A judicial district in which any D resides, if all Ds are residents of the State in which the district is located;

2) A judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; or

3) If there is no district in which an action may be brought under the other options, any judicial district in which any D is subject to the court’s PJ with respect to such action.

Question 99

Venue - determine proper - GS - resident - rule

Answer 99

First, venue is proper in any judicial district in which any D resides if all Ds are residents of the State in which the district is located.

Question 100

Venue - determine proper - GS - resident - individual

Answer 100

An individual is a resident of the state in which he is domiciled. An individual is domiciled in the state in which he has a) physical presence with b) intent to remain for an indefinite period.

Question 101

Venue - determine proper - GS - resident - app - individual - app

Answer 101

See SMJ – Diversity – same analysis

Question 102

Venue - determine proper - GS - resident - rule - corp/entity

Answer 102

A corporation/association/unincorporated entity is a resident in any judicial district in which the corporation is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction

Question 103

Venue - determine proper - GS - resident - rule - more than one district

Answer 103

If there is more than one judicial district in the state, each district is treated as it’s own state and the court must determine in which district the D has contacts.

Question 104

Venue - determine proper - GS - resident - app - corp/entityh

Answer 104

Here, D is subject to personal jurisdiction in [states].

Question 105

Venue - determine proper - GS - resident - one defendant

Answer 105

Here, there is only one defendant, thus X is a proper venue for D because he resides there.

Question 106

Venue - determine proper - GS - resident - multiple ds

Answer 106

Here, X is [not] a proper venue because [facts].

Question 107

Venue - determine proper - GS - substantial - issue

Answer 107

Second, venue is proper in any judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Question 108

Venue - determine proper - GS - substantial - rule - broad

Answer 108

The majority of courts define “substantial part of the events” broadly to include any judicial district which was part of the sequence of events giving rise to the claim.

Question 109

Venue - determine proper - GS - substantial - app - broad \

Answer 109

This is similar to Uffner, where the court found the plaintiff’s chosen venue was proper because that is where the event occurred that resulted in the insurance claim; the denial of which was the basis of the lawsuit.

Here, as in Uffner, X is where [event] happened. It was this event that caused [facts], which subsequently resulted in P’s y claim.

Because X was part of the sequence of events that led to the claim, it is likely a court will find X was a proper venue.

Question 110

Venue - determine proper - GS - substantial - app - broad - case ref - Uffner

Answer 110

Here, X is where [facts about what happened] occurred, which was part of the sequence of events giving rise to the claim because [facts].

Question 111

Venue - determine proper - GS - substantial - rule - narrow

Answer 111

A minority of courts apply a more narrow test which states a proper venue is only a place where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred if

a) D was responsible for the forum related event and
b) the event is a point of dispute between the parties.

Question 112

Venue - determine proper - GS - substantial - app - narrow - case ref - Uffner

Answer 112

For example, in Uffner, the defendant was not responsible for the forum related event (boat fire) and the dispute was whether a more thorough inspection of the boat was needed, which had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s chosen venue.

Question 113

Venue - determine proper - GS - substantial - app - nnarrow test

Answer 113

Here, venue would likely be found to [not] be proper because [fact].

Question 114

Venue - determine proper - GS - substantial - overall conclusion

Answer 114

Thus, the court would likely find X venue was proper.

Question 115

Venue - determine proper - GS - fallback -rule

Answer 115

Third, if there is no district in which an action may be brought under the other options, any judicial district in which any D is subject to the court’s PJ with respect to such action.

Question 116

Venue - determine proper - GS - fallback - app - does not apply

Answer 116

This does not apply since venue was found to be proper under both of the other options.

Question 117

Venue - determine proper - GS - fallback - app - when arises

Answer 117

This is generally only an issue with claims that arose outside of the US with non-US citizen defendants.

Question 118

Venue - determine proper - GS - fallback - app

Answer 118

Here, venue is proper in [forum states] because [facts]. OR Here, there is no proper venue in the United States.

Question 119

Venue Xfer - issue

Answer 119

The issue is whether the case can be transferred to another court.

Question 120

Venue Xfer - current not proper - rule

Answer 120

Because venue is not proper in X, the federal court must dismiss the case or transfer to a court of proper venue with personal jurisdiction over the defendant if it would be in the interest of justice.

Question 121

Venue Xfer - current not proper - rule - justice

Answer 121

Dismissal in these type of actions rarely occurs because it is more efficient and less costly for P if case is transferred versus dismissed. If the case is dismissed, P must re-file, resulting in additional filing fees and other expenses.

Question 122

Venue Xfer - current not proper - conc

Answer 122

[First, identify where venue is proper]. Thus, the court would likely transfer the case to [forum(s). OR if no venue proper: Thus, the court will likely dismiss the case.

Question 123

Venue Xfer - current proper - rule

Answer 123

A federal district court will transfer to another federal district court if 3 elements are satisfied:

1) Venue is proper in the forum;

2) Venue and jurisdiction would be proper in the transferee court (or waived); or

3) Transfer is in the interest of justice and services the convenience of the parties.

Question 124

Venue Xfer - current proper - venue proper - rule

Answer 124

First, venue must be proper in the current forum.

Question 125

Venue Xfer - current proper - venue proper - app

Answer 125

Venue is proper in X because [facts].

Question 126

Venue Xfer - current proper - xfer court - rule

Answer 126

Second, venue and personal jurisdiction would be proper in the transferee court (or waived).

Question 127

Venue Xfer - current proper - xfer court - app

Answer 127

Here, venue and personal jurisdiction would be proper in Y because [facts].

Question 128

Venue Xfer - current proper - justice - rule

Answer 128

Third, the transfer must be in the interest of justice and serve the convenience of the parties. Whether a transfer would satisfy this test is done by weighing the private and public interest factors.

Question 129

Venue Xfer - current proper - justice - private interest factors

Answer 129

1) P’s choice of forum;

2) D’s choice of forum;

3) whether claim arose elsewhere;

4) convenience of parties;

5) convenience of witness

6) ease of access to sources of proof

Question 130

Venue Xfer - current proper - justice - public interest factors

Answer 130

1) Transferee’s familiarityh with the governing law;

2) relative congestion of the calendars of the potential xferee and xferor courts;

3) local interest in deciding local controversies at home

Question 131

Venue Xfer - current proper - justice - app

Answer 131

Here, [analyze factors]

Question 132

Venue Xfer - current proper - justice - conclustion

Answer 132

Thus, the court is [not] likely to grant D’s motion to transfer to x forum.

Question 133

Venue Xfer - Forum non convenis - issue (fed court)

Answer 133

If venue is proper but the court determines a court outside of the federal system is more appropriate, the court may be able to dismiss the case under the judicial doctrine of “forum non convenis”.

Question 134

Venue Xfer - Forum non convenis - issue (state court)

Answer 134

If venue is proper but the court determines a court outside of that state’s system is more appropriate, the court may be able to dismiss the case under the judicial doctrine of “forum non convenis”.

Question 135

Venue Xfer - Forum non convenis - rule

Answer 135

Courts employ the same factors as a 1404 transfer, however, the private and public interest factors need to favor dismissal more strongly than a 1404 transfer.

Question 136

Venue Xfer - Forum non convenis - rule - foreign law less favorable

Answer 136

A court will deny the motion to dismiss if the foreign remedy “is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that there is no remedy at all.”

Question 137

Venue Xfer - Forum non convenis - app

Answer 137

See above – current forum is proper venue

Question 138

Venue Xfer - Forum non convenis - app - case ref - Piper Aircraft

Answer 138

Piper Aircraft v. Reyno: Venue in Scotland made more sense than US court because witnesses and plaintiffs were in Scotland even though the remedy for the plaintiffs in Scotland was less favorable than the remedy available in the plaintiff’s choice of forum.

Question 139

Venue Xfer - Forum non convenis - impact of dismissal

Answer 139

Plaintiff would have to re-file in the other system.

Question 140

Venue Xfer - Forum non convenis - conclusion

Answer 140

Thus, the court will most likely [not] grant the forum non convenis dismissal.