JURISDICTION

Question 1

Personal jurisdiction requires that the defendant be __ to the forum state’s jurisdiction, and that the defendant be __.

Answer 1

amenable, served with proper notice

Question 2

Amenability to personal jurisdiction is governed by the __, subject to the limits of the __ of the United States Constitution.

Answer 2

forum state’s law, due process clause

Question 3

Pennoyer v. Neff described three bases for state jurisdiction over persons and things. They are

Answer 3

a. IN PERSONAM: jurisdiction over the person
b. IN REM: jurisdiction over interests in property
c. QUASI IN REM: jurisdiction over seized property, where plaintiff’s claim is unrelated to the seized property.

Note that quasi in rem jurisdiction is arguably unconstitutional after Shaffer v. Heitner.

Question 4

Pennoyer based its jurisdictional formula on ( ) over persons and property within its borders.

Answer 4

state power

Question 5

Under Pennoyer’s in personam jurisdiction, a judgment in plaintiff’s favor

Answer 5

• would be binding in all states
• for the full amount of damages
• may be enforced repeatedly until fully collected

Question 6

Under Pennoyer’s in rem jurisdiction, a judgment in favor of plaintiff affects/ does not result in/ does not require

Answer 6

—affects everyone’s interests in a res (both parties and nonparties to the lawsuit)
—does not result in a money judgment
— does not require enforcement outside the forum

Question 7

Under Pennoyer’s quasi in rem jurisdiction, a judgment in plaintiff’s favor:

Answer 7

—entitles plaintiff to the property attached for jurisdiction
—is not a personal judgment
—is not enforceable against any other property
—may not be enforced more than once
—may not be enforced outside the forum

Question 8

Another type of jurisdiction discussed in Pennoyer is ( ), which involves the state’s authority to adjudicate such matters as divorce, adoption, citizenship and mental competence.

Answer 8

status

Question 9

(case name) altered Pennoyer’s rule for personal jurisdiction, replacing the concept of () with the new standards of () and () provided by the “minimum contacts test.”

Answer 9

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, state power, reasonable and fairness.

Question 10

traditional bases for in personam jurisdiction

The current test for amenability, following International Shoe and other cases, does not require the minimum contacts test if the defendant satisfies any one of the four “traditional” bases for in personam jurisdiction

Answer 10

Residence in the forum state
Consent to jurisdiction
Waiver of objection to jurisdiction
Physical presence in the forum when served

Question 11

Consent to jurisdiction has two forms, () consent and implied consent. () are an example of express consent, and () are an example of implied consent.

Answer 11

express, forum selection clauses, non-resident motorists statutes.

Question 12

If none of the traditional bases are present, a state may only exercise in personam jurisdiction over defendants who have minimum contacts with the state. The two categories of minimum contacts are () and ().

Answer 12

specific jurisdiction, general jurisdiction

Question 13

( ) is where the lawsuit arises from or relates to the nonresident defendant’s contacts with the forum state. ( ) is where the lawsuit is unrelated to the nonresident defendant’s contacts with the forum state.

Answer 13

Specific jurisdiction, general jurisdiction

Question 14

what is four contacts tests for specific jurisdicition?

Answer 14

a. purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of forum law;
b. should have foreseen that its activity would subject it to jurisdiction in the forum state;
c. could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum state;
d. placed its product in the stream of commerce and could foresee that it would be used in the forum state.

Question 15

General jurisdiction has one contact test, which is that defendant’s contacts are so ( ) as to render it ( ) in the forum state.

Answer 15

continuous and systematic, essentially at home

Question 16

the fair play and substantial justice test. This is a balancing test with five factors, which are:

Answer 16

—burden on the defendant
—plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief
—the forum state’s interest
—the shared interests of several states in furthering fundamental social policies —the judicial system’s interest in effective resolution of controversies

Question 17

If the defendant has no contacts with the forum (and does not meet one of the four traditional bases of jurisdiction), then there is ( ) over that defendant. If, on the other hand, defendant does have specific or general contacts, then the court must consider the ( ) test. This is a ( ) test with five factors, which are:

Answer 17

no personal jurisdiction, fair play and substantial justice test, balancing test

Question 18

federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331

⁃ Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule (Mottley) and its limits(Grables)

Answer 18

i. Federal question must be the basis of plaintiff’s claim.
ii. The limits of Mottley(Grable): three-part test, does the state law claim:
* Necessarily raise a stated(articulated) federal issue
* That is actually disputed and substantial(to the lawsuit, and defendant needs to contest it)
* Which a federal court may decide without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Question 19

federal question jurisdiction under article 3

(ii) Full extent of article 3 “arising under” jurisdiction

Answer 19

must be within article 3 limits, must be authorized by a federal statute

Question 20

federal question jurisdiction under article 3

broad pleading statute: forms an ingredient test (osborn test)

Answer 20

Congress may authorize federal jurisdiction in any claim in which federal law forms an ingredient of the suit.

Question 21

removal’s jurisdictional requirements

Answer 21

not waivable. objection can occur at any point before judgment if there’s no jurisdiction.

Basic Requirement for Federal Jurisdiction
(i) The case being removed must have been capable of original filing in federal court, that is, it must be within the “case or controversy” boundaries of Article III, Section 2
(ii) Plaintiff’s pleading in the state court must be based on some ground of federal jurisdiction, and defendant’s notice of removal must invoke a jurisdictional statute such as 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question), §1332 (diversity of citizenship), or any other statute authorizing litigation in federal court.

Removing Additional Claims Lacking Distinct Jurisdictional Basis
(i) Supplemental claims
⁃ The supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, allows for removal of additional claims under non-federal law that do not themselves satisfy federal question or diversity criteria, if they form a part of the same case or controversy as a claim that is eligible for federal jurisdiction.
(ii) Mixed federal and unrelated state claims
⁃ If a state court lawsuit has federal and unrelated state claims, the entire case may be removed to federal court. The federal court determines which claims lack original jurisdiction, and remands them to the state court.

Question 22

removal’s precedural requirments

Answer 22

it is waivable.
Notice
(i) Defendant(s) must file a Notice of Removal containing a short and plain statement of the basis for removal (that is, the jurisdictional and procedural grounds).
(ii) must include a copy of all state court pleadings, and must be filed in both the state and federal court and served on all parties.
Defendant unanimity
(i) all defendants must join in the removal notice, except for those not served.
Removal is automatic
(i) no need for the state or federal court to approve it.
time limits: within 30 days of defendants’s receipt of the initial state court pleading.

Question 23

prcedures applicable only to diversity removal

Answer 23

(i) Nonresident defendants only
⁃ In diversity cases, none of the defendants may be citizens of the forum state.
(ii) One-year rule
⁃ In diversity cases, removal must occur, if at all, within one year after filing; in federal question cases, removal may occur at any time.
⁃ When the case is not initially removable (no federal question or diversity) but becomes removable later in the case(diversity), removal must occur no later than one year after the case was filed in state court. 28 U.S.C. §1446(b).

Question 24

time limits to removal

Answer 24

(i) the Notice of Removal must be filed within 30 days of defendant’s receipt of the initial state court pleading; or right to remove is waived.
(ii) when it later becomes removable, the Notice must be filed within 30 days of defendant’s first receipt of an amended pleading,

Question 25

removal

Answer 25

가) Defendant’s right to move a state court case to federal court if it could have been filed there originally

Question 26

time limits of objection to removal

Answer 26

• lack of jurisdiction: may object at any time
• improper procedure: 30 days from filing of removal

Question 27

supplemental jurisdiction

Answer 27

1) You must have anchor claim to start with- diversity or federal question.
2) Supplemental jurisdiction then allows you to add related claims that are part of the same case or controversy.
3) Article 3: §2 creates federal jurisdiction over “cases and controversies”
4) The discretionary power of a federal court to permit all other claims supplemental jurisdiction that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they “form part of the same case or controversy” under article 3. (§1367).

Question 28

(j) Aggregation of Claims to Form the Amount in Controversy

(i) Single Plaintiff v. Single Defendant

Answer 28

⁃ A single plaintiff may aggregate the damages and other appropriate amounts from all claims, both related and unrelated, against one defendant to form the amount of controversy

Question 29

(j) Aggregation of Claims to Form the Amount in Controversy

(ii) Multiple Plaintiffs vs. Single Defendant

Answer 29

⁃ When two or more plaintiffs join in a single lawsuit against a single defendant, they CANNOT aggregate claims, related or unrelated, in order to achieve the $75k+.
⁃Two Exceptions
i. Joint and Undivided Interest
a. Multiple plaintiffs may aggregate if the claims are based on a common and undivided interest
i. E.g., a partnership is suing for a 76k debt, and each partner has half interest in the debt. Under this exception, they have a common undivided interest.
ii. Supplemental Jurisdiction Exception
a. In a multi-plaintiff suit, if one plaintiff meets the amount in controversy, then the other plaintiffs can be joined as supplemental

Question 30

나) Federal Question Cases: full supplemental jurisdiction

Answer 30

1) If the anchor claim is a federal question, any parties may use supplemental jurisdiction to add any related non-federal claim(state-law, perhaps common-law), or any related party, one that “arises from the same case or controversy(under article3)” as the federal question claim. 1367(a)
2) without regard to subject matter jurisdiction for the additional claims and parties. 1367(b)

Question 31

다) Diversity Cases: mixture of full and limited supplemental jurisdiction

Answer 31

(LIMITED) Most plaintiffs in diversity cases may only add claims against diverse parties against whom they already have a claim. related claims for $75,000 or less to a proper §1332 original diversity claim
(FULL) Defendants may add related claims of non-diverse parties without regard to the amount in controversy.(counterclaims or cross claims, third-party claims.)

Question 32

the rules enabling test

Answer 32

When federal and state law conflicts, and there is a federal directive on point. [the rules enabling test] apply the federal law as long as it:
(i) Is on point, and (ii) does not abridge, modify or enlarge substantive right, apply the federal rule.

Question 33

The rules of Decision(or Erie) Test

Answer 33

⁃ conflicts btw. state and federal law, when it’s substantive, Federal courts must apply state law in cases of diversity, except when it conflicts with federal law (the constitution). The Rules of Decision Act
- when it’s procedural, apply federal procedural law(such as FRCP) unless it violates twin aims of Erie;
i. avoid forum shopping
ii. avoid inequitable administration of justice
⁃ and it fails the Byrd Balancing Test:
i. State interest: importance of applying state law
ii. Federal interest: importance of applying federal procedural rules
iii. Effect on outcome(outcome determinative test): when it’s outcome detrminative, should apply state law unless federal interest outweighs.

Question 34

Determining which law to apply in federal court[Choice of law]

Answer 34

In diversity cases with no federal law conflicts:
(a) Apply the local state’s choice of law rules.[could be statutory or common law]
(b) Federal courts do not have a choice of law rule and cannot create one.
when there’s no statutory choice of law rule, or contract’s valid choice of law clause, “most significant relationship test” seven-factor balancing test to determine the applicable rule of law.