Jurisdiction and Venue

Question 1

Define: Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 1

The power of a court to hear a case over a particular person

Question 2

Two types of Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 2

General and Specific Jurisdiction

Question 3

Define: General Jurisdiction

Answer 3

a Defendant is generally liable for acts committed inside or outside of the state when there is consent, presence, or domicile

Question 4

Define: Consent (General Jurisdiction)

Answer 4

Express: e.g. D signs a contract where they agree to be sued in the state

Implied: D fails to object to personal jurisdiction in first response to complaint.

Question 5

Define: Presence (General Jurisdiction)

Answer 5

1. Actual physical, voluntary presence in the state: even if D is in state for a brief time, if served while in the state, then that state will have general personal jurisdiction unless coerced into going into the jurisdiction or served while appearing in court
2. Continuous and Systematic Contacts

Question 6

Define: Domicile (General Jurisdiction)

Answer 6

2. Person: domiciled in one state - state where permanent home where D intends to stay indefinitely

1. Corporation - two domicile:
   a. state in which it is incorporated, and
   b. the state where its headquarters is located
2. Partnership/LLC - where its partners or members are citizens

Question 7

Define: Specific Jurisdiction

Answer 7

the lawsuit must arise out of the contacts with the state

(the state and the U.S constitution must grant jurisdiction)

Question 8

Michigan Long Arm Statutes

Answer 8

Defines when a D may be sued in MI

1. Tort - D does any act in MI that results in a Tort
2. Business Transaction: D transacts any business in MI from which lawsuit derives
3. Contract- D enters into a K for services to be rendered or materials to be furnished in MI from which lawsuit derives

4) Matrimony, 5) Insurance, 6) Property

Question 9

Personal Jurisdiction allowance under U.S Constitution

Answer 9

Personal Jurisdiction is constitutional if the D engaged in such minimum contacts that it would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Question 10

Purposeful Availment

Answer 10

When D submits themselves to the benefits and protections of the state.

(advertising, even a little bit, is likely purposeful availment)

Question 11

When is Personal Jurisdiction not constitutional?

Answer 11

1. Casual and Isolated Contact: the D’s contact with the state is merely a casual and isolated contact (ex: give business card on vacation in state X that eventually leads to a sale at shop in home state Y)
2. No Contact: the D has no contact with the state

Question 12

How can a D challenge personal jurisdiction?

Answer 12

1. Direct Attack
2. Collateral Attack

Question 13

Define Direct Attack (Personal Jurisdiction)

Answer 13

The D must appear in the original action and ask the court to dismiss case (P may still refile in correct state)

Important: if D wants to object to Personal Jurisdiction, they must raise their objection in their first response or the objection is waived.

Question 14

Define: Collateral Attack (Personal Jurisdiction)

Answer 14

When D ignores the suit entirely and makes a “collateral attack” when the P asks for the judgment to be enforced and D challenges that enforcement.

Question 15

Define: in rem Jurisdiction

Answer 15

when property ownership or use is in question - states courts have power to determine all rights to the property within its borders

Question 16

Define: Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Answer 16

the power of a court to hear a certain type of case

Question 17

Four Categories of Federal Subject-Matter Jurisdiction conferred by Congress

Answer 17

1. Federal Question Jurisdiction
2. Diversity Jurisdiction
3. Supplemental Jurisdiction
4. Statutes that Confer Jurisdiction

Question 18

Define: Federal Question Jurisdiction

Answer 18

Arises out of:

1. a federal question created by federal law, or
   ex: cases that arise out of U.S Constitution or Fed. Statutes such as civil rights or freedom of speech.
2. created by state law but depends on a substantial federal question
   ex: quiet title claim regarding a federal taking

Note: the fed. Issue must appear on the face of P’s complaint

Question 19

Define: Diversity Jurisdiction

Answer 19

Two requirements:

1. there must be complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and Defendants
2. amount in controversy must be over $75,000.00

a. cannot be $75,000 on the dot, must be over by at least a penny
b. requires good faith allegation that claim is over $75,000 unless there appears to be legal certainty that claim is really worth less.

Question 20

Define: Complete Diversity

Answer 20

No plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant

Person: domiciled in only one state - where their home is that they plan to stay indefinitely

Corporation: state where incorporated and state where headquarters are located

Question 21

Diversity Jurisdiction with Aliens (“Alienage Jurisdiction”)

Answer 21

1. Pure Alien vs. Alien will not be allowed
2. Perm. Resident Alien v. Resident of same state is not allowed
3. American Citizens domiciled elsewhere cannot sue on diversity (domiciled outside of the U.S)
4. Corporation as Alien: if corp. is incorporated in the U.S but has headquarters abroad, the corp. is both an alien and a U.S citizen (defeats jurisdiction in a suit that involves another alien)

Question 22

When does diversity have to exist?

Answer 22

At the time the P files suit.

Question 23

Can different plaintiffs add their claims together to exceed the $75,000 limit?

Answer 23

No, unless they are seeking to enforce a single title or right in which they have a common or undivided interest

Question 24

Define: Supplemental Jurisdiction

Answer 24

When there is a federal jurisdictional basis for one claim but the other - federal Court has discretion to assert supplemental jurisdiction over both claims if they service from a common nucleus of operative fact.

1. P asserts a federal claim and wishes to tack on a state law claim - fed. court may exercise jurisdiction over state law claim
2. D or a party added after the initial lawsuit asserts a claim against the P or other parties

Question 25

Supplemental Jurisdiction Exception in Diversity Cases

Answer 25

If the primary jurisdictional basis is diversity, the P cannot use supplemental jurisdiction against a non-diverse party

Question 26

When can a federal district court decline to exercise jurisdiction?

Answer 26

1. the claim raises a **novel or complex issue** of state law 2. the state claims **predominate substantially** over the federal claims 3. the district court has **dismissed** all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or 4. in **exceptional cases** when there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction

Question 27

Define: Jurisdiction conferred by a statute

Answer 27

Examples: truth-in-lending laws, antitrust cases, patent cases, bankruptcy cases

Question 28

Define: Removal

Answer 28

Defendants may remove an action from state court to the federal court that **geographically embraces** it is the plaintiff could have initially brought the case in federal court. Note: D bears burden to show that fed. jurisdiction exists at the time of removal

Question 29

Can a defendant remove a case solely because it contains a federal defense?

Answer 29

No

Question 30

What matters do federal courts NOT have jurisdiction over?

Answer 30

1. child custody 2. probate 3. inheritance

Question 31

Procedure for Removal

Answer 31

1. all D's must agree to remove the case 2. D's must file a proper notice of removal (within 30 days of when D receives a case paper), which should contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal and be signed under Rule 11 (filed in federal court where action is pending) 3. Notice must be sent to adverse parties and state court Note: in a diversity case, the D may **not** remove a case **more than one year** after the original action was filed

Question 32

Effect of notice of removal

Answer 32

Once filed, the D's must give notice to the adverse parties and to the state court. The state court then loses all power over the case and the federal court has power over the case (even if fed. court does not have jurisdiction)

Question 33

Define: Remand

Answer 33

When plaintiffs wish to dispute removal

Question 34

Process for Remand

Answer 34

If Plaintiffs wish to file a motion to remand due to a failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the rule, plaintiffs must do so within 30 days after removal or they waive their objection Note: P's can make motion to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time Note: court has discretion to remand a case to state court once all federal claims have been resolved

Question 35

Define: Venue

Answer 35

Determining which, of several courts having the power to hear a case, should hear a case?

Question 36

When Federal Venue is Proper

Answer 36

1. In a **district where any defendant resides** if **all defendants reside in the state state**, OR 2. in a district where a **substantial part of the event or omissions** giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of property that is subject to action is situated, OR 3. **Fallback**: is venue cannot be established by the above provisions, venue is proper where any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

Question 37

When may venue be waives by the defendant?

Answer 37

When they do not object to venue in the complaint in their first response

Question 38

Venue status when case removed from state court

Answer 38

it does directly to the federal court of the district in which the state action was pending - ignore other venue rules

Question 39

Define: Transfer to Proper Venue

Answer 39

if case is filed in wrong venue, a federal court may either dismiss the case or transfer it to another federal court Note: there also needs to be personal jurisdiction over the defendant in the transferee state Law of transferee court (court receiving case) will apply

Question 40

Define: Transfer to more Appropriate Forum

Answer 40

a federal court has the authority to transfer a case to another federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice. There still needs to be subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. The law of the transferor court (court sending case to another court) will apply even if it the P who initiates the change of venue.

Question 41

Define: Forum non conveniens

Answer 41

* A court with proper jurisdiction and venue may dismiss a case where the **interests of justice** indicate that it should be litigated in a different forum. * **Factors include:** availability of witnesses and evidence, enforceability of a judgment, harassment of parties, administrative difficulties * **Burden is on Defendant** to show other state is substantially more appropriate than the forum state * **For federal Courts:** this almost always means a choice between a federal court and a court of a foreign country * **For State Courts:** this means a choice between the present court and the courts of another state or foreign country.

Question 42

Define: Erie Doctrine

Answer 42

A federal court is required to apply the **substantive law of the state** in which it sits, including the state's conflict of law rules. However, federal courts apply **federal procedural law** in diversity cases.

Question 43

When is the Erie Doctrine an issue??

Answer 43

When the following two elements are present: 1. the **federal court** has to decide a claim that **does not arise under federal law,** and 2. there is a **conflict between state law and federal law** and the federal judge has to decide which law to apply.

Question 44

Erie Doctrine Rule.

Answer 44

If there is a conflict, under the Rules Enabling Act, **federal law generally applies to any procedural issues** unless the federal rules “abridge, enlarge, or modify” any substantive right

Question 45

Define: Federal Common Law

Answer 45

1. Does not exist in federal cases based on diversity jurisdiction 2. Two basic categories of federal common law: a. where congress has given courts the power to develop law (bankruptcy, admiral, civil rights, international relations law) b. where the federal rule is necessary and state law would frustrate federal objectives (usually only comes up when case would directly affect U.S gov)