Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

FRCP > Personal Jdx 1 > Flashcards

Personal Jdx 1 Flashcards

1
Q

PJ is about whether

A

fair for D to be pulled into this court

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

For PJ first ask if

A

state statute allows

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

After determining if statute allows PJ then

A

ask if constitutional

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

PJ is limited by

A

Due Process

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

4(k)

A

service establishes PJ for general jdx in state where district court located

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Rule 4 is FRCP says

A

refer to state rules of PJ

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

In personam is the power to

A

enter money judgment against D, follows D

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

In rem is power over

A

property in state’s borders for claims against that property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Quasi in rem is basically

A

abandoned in Shaffer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Pennoyer is about

A

territorial Jdx

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Pennoyer rule

A

served while in forum/consents to PJ/D domiciled there

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Pennoyer holding

A

no PJ in first suit so Neff keeps the land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Pennoyer was replaced by

A

International Shoe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Pennoyer reason 1

A

The property was not attached when jurisdiction was first attached, so it can’t be attached later to a judgment that has nothing to do with it.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Pennoyer reason 2

A

Due Process cabins Full Faith and Credit Clause. Okay to seize land but notice given insufficient (had to know property at stake).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Under Conneticut you _____ if follow procedures

A

seize property against absent D

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

International shoe is about

A

minimum contacts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

IS rule

A

For out of state D to be subjected to in personam jurisdiction, due process requires that the D have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (Doesn’t define anything)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

IS holding

A

company has PJ because sufficient minimum contacts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

IS reason 1

A

Company activities were continuous and systematic enough (as opposed to casual presence/isolated activities) to satisfy the demands of Due Process.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

IS reason 2

A

Not unfair because of benefits received (protection of society, contracts only useful due to WA courts, salesmen living there)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

IS doesn’t overturn Pennoyer for __ only for __

A

in territory rules, out of

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What are the two prongs in IS test

A

contact and fairness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Specific Jdx established based on ____

A

Extent to which defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state [Minimum Contacts Analysis]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Stream of commerce theory for specific jdx

A

If D can reasonably predict its products will make their way to a forum state in sufficient numbers (WWV) to establish specific jurisdiction, then selling on an open market = availment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

SoC definitely does not __

A

support general jdx (Daimler)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Brennan/Ginsburg Soc theory

A

contact if put component into stream and can reasonably anticipate it gets to state C, and make money off that

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Scalia/Kennedy SoC theory

A

Brennan + show intent to serve State C, without additional targeting no purposeful availment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Do we have final answer on SoC

A

no, plurality in Nicastro disapprove but not binding

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

WWV holds for SoC that

A

Foreseeability relevant to availment but not enough product ends up in state, whether foreseeable will be sued there (circular?)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Walden holding

A

P contacts irrelevant to PJ, D must target state

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Hanson holding

A

Minimum contacts at the time the DF acted, not the time of the lawsuit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

For minimum contacts need to know __

A

extent to which D purposefully availed himself of the state + extent to which P’s claims arise out of or are related to those activities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice prong

A

whether PJ constitutionally reasonable (Burger King test)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

BK factor 1

A

burden on D

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

BK factor 2

A

Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

BK factor 3

A

Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

BK factor 4

A

Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

BK factor 5

A

Shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Daimler holds there is no ____ test in general jdx

A

reasonableness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Asahi holding

A

Can skip the minimum contacts analysis if the reasonableness test lands conclusively against jurisdiction (was an F-cubed case).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

WWV about

A

foreseeability not enough for purposeful availment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

WWV rule

A

Mere foreseeability that a product could end up in a certain state does not meet minimum contacts or purposeful availment of the forum.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

WWV holding

A

No specific jurisdiction over the NY-based distributors.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

WWV reason

A

If foreseeability was the test, “every seller of chattels would in affect appoint the chattel his agent for service of process”

46
Q

BK holding

A

Jdx upheld because DF did establish minimum contacts and it was fair.

47
Q

BK reason 1

A

DF “reached out” beyond his state and created continuing obligations in FL. (Purposeful availment).

48
Q

BK reason 2

A

Also burden to be unfair that so gravely inconvenient that D severe disadvantage. High bar, didn’t care about distance or relative wealth.

49
Q

Specific jdx usually decided under ___ and then only ___

A

first two prongs, discuss third for something to talk about

50
Q

Nicastro takeaway

A

still no binding SoC precedent

51
Q

Nicastro plurality reason 1

A

Difference from IS, (sales intentionally directed at state). Targeted US but not NJ specifically. sovereignty first, fairness to D almost like a defense

52
Q

Nicastro plurality reason 2

A

Says no sovereign power here, No Jdx over unconsenting D

53
Q

Nicastro plurality reason 3

A

In Fed system, if state can reach out and grab D, deprives other state of right to adjudicate

54
Q

Nicastro plurality critique

A

But foreign countries not coequal in Fed system? (Critique)

55
Q

Brennan concurrence Nicastro

A

don’t need SoC, Determined by WWV
Sovereignty is power to govern, broader than Jdx

56
Q

Ginsburg Nicastro dissent

A

Most important fact: don’t care about the law just want money in the email
Nicastro specific
Accuse Kennedy of retrograding on due process analysis

57
Q

Ford rule

A

Arise out of OR relate to. If little D activity in the forum, arise out of. If lots, relate to is good enough no causation required.

58
Q

Ford reason 1

A

Not overruling BMS, distinguish because about specific Jdx

59
Q

Ford reason 2

A

P not forum shopping, in home state

60
Q

Ford reason 3

A

Selling the car not a contact, but so many contacts in state

61
Q

Ford reason 4

A

Language sounds like continuous and systematic but not give Gen Jdx

62
Q

Ford reason 5

A

Building and maintaining market there so people want Fords even if secondhand so fairness supported Jdx

63
Q

Ford footnote 5

A

even if P just arrived in state doesn’t matter (ads didn’t induce)

64
Q

Ford critique

A

too big to fail PJ?

65
Q

After BNSF, current court believes general jdx ___

A

almost just based on domicile. No more continuous and systematic contacts test for general Jdx.

66
Q

Goodyear rule

A

For general Jdx over a corporation, they must have systematic and continuous contacts with the forum state so as to effectively render it at home in that state.
SoC does not warrant a determination of general jurisdiction.

67
Q

Daimler reason 1

A

If allowed, companies would be subject to suit in every state they sold substantially in. Billion in sales in CA but small percentage of worldwide sales.

68
Q

Daimler reason 2

A

No reasonable test in general Jdx (Sotomayor proposes but it fails). If not, P gets to forum shop (chattels as agents of service)

69
Q

Sotomayor concurrence Daimler

A

Could rule personal jdx would be unreasonable given that it is an F-cubed case with a more appropriate forum in Germany, under the Asahi test. Will shift the risk of loss from huge corporations to individuals harmed by their actions.

70
Q

BNSF takeaway

A

even major assets don’t confer general jdx

71
Q

BNSF rule

A

A state court may not exercise general personal jdx over a railroad unless in-state activities are so continuous and systematic as to render it at home in the state.

72
Q

In BNSF, Majority not ____ but seems to be

A

overruling anything, limiting reach of courts to grab Ds

73
Q

If large amount of business but not incorp or PPB must __

A

do specific jdx for PJ

74
Q

BNSF Opens possibility of ___

A

third state but hard to see when possible (maybe NJ in BMS

75
Q

BMS takeaway

A

occurrence must be in forum state for specific pj

76
Q

BMS rule

A

If occurence not in forum state no specific Jdx. DF’s relationship with a third party is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction, even when third parties can bring similar claims.

77
Q

BMS holding

A

No specific jdx; sliding scale approach violated Due Process.

78
Q

BMS reason 1

A

Anything else going back to general Jdx and Walden P activity in forum irrelevant.

79
Q

BMS reason 2

A

Jdx trumps joinder, must litigate in home states

80
Q

Consequence for Ps in BMS

A

. (Proportionality for discovery now 8x smaller)

81
Q

What if BMS class action

A

current standard is that as long as there is no PJ issue over the claims of the named plaintiffs, a nationwide class action is ok, because absent plaintiffs are not parties.

82
Q

After BMS, ___ in part now depends on PJ

A

joinder

83
Q

Shaffer rule

A

Property in a state is not enough to bring suit against D in that state. There must be minimum contact, just like in personam jurisdiction.

84
Q

Shaffer holding

A

quasi in rem jdx violates Due Process. IS governs both in rem and in personam actions.

85
Q

Shaffer reason 1

A

jurisdiction over a thing is just jurisdiction over the interests of persons in a thing.

86
Q

Shaffer reason 2

A

Property in a state can bear on jurisdiction by providing contacts when the claims are related to the property. Here not enough availment.

87
Q

How would Shaffer come out now

A

DE long-arm statute now says that by accepting a directorship of a DE corp, you are consenting to jurisdiction

88
Q

Burnham takeaway

A

“Tagging” in forum state is always sufficient (binding rule, not binding reason)

89
Q

Burnham rule

A

A non-resident is properly served if he is physically present in the forum state, General Jdx, No due process violation.

90
Q

Scalia plurality in Burnham

A

long-standing tradition, so comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Legislatures are free to amend this if they would like, but they have not. Physical presence replaces minimum contacts, no IS test.

91
Q

Brennan plurality in Burnham

A

determine fairness via IS test. (Shoe replaced Pennoyer)

92
Q

Carnival takeaway

A

Forum selection clauses presumptively valid

93
Q

Carnival rule

A

Parties may consent to a forum via a forum selection clause, regardless of whether it was negotiate because they are not fundamentally unfair.

94
Q

Carnival reason

A

No IS analysis needed, about K fairness not Due Process.

95
Q

Mallory rule

A

P States can require you to consent to general Jdx to do business there, IS test not required.

96
Q

Mallory holding

A

Mallory can sue Norfolk in Penn despite fact that Norfolk domiciled in VA and so was Mallory at time of filing (lived in Penn for minute but exposed to carcinogens in Ohio and VA)

97
Q

Mallory reasoning

A

Penn Fire controls here, not overruled or affected by IS

98
Q

If Mallory stayed in Penn seems like

A

like Ford analysis

99
Q

Critique of Mallory

A

doesn’t this just make Daimler barrier easy moot, Long arm basically coercing consent

100
Q

Venue is

A

where an action should be brought if there are multiple courts with jdx

101
Q

Venus is the P choice unless

A

the location of the parties or the site of the injury makes venue inappropriate elsewhere.

102
Q

Remedy for improper venue is

A

always transfer, never dismissal

103
Q

Fed statute about venue

A

1404

104
Q

1404(a)

A

Federal courts have discretion, for the sake of “convenience” to transfer a case to any other district court where the action could have been brought.

105
Q

Remedy for PJ under 1404(a)

A

12(b)(1) dismissal or transfer to a district court that does have PJ.

106
Q

1404 cannot

A

transfer a federal case to a state court (remand is only for returning cases removed from state court).

107
Q

Defendants can move for, and courts should grant under 1404 transfer of venue if

A

traditional common law factors of forum non conveniens apply:

108
Q

Forum non conviens frequently applies in

A

Frequently in international cases. While availability of compulsory process matters to FNC, differences in substantive law and remedy do not.

109
Q

Courts can condition venue transfer on

A

defendant’s waiver of personal jurisdiction and/or statute of limitations defenses.

110
Q

Courts can dismiss for venue if ___

A

transfer not possible

111
Q

Even if satisfy all Q of personal Jdx, still have

A

venue Q

FRCP (18 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions