Right court? Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Personal Jurisdiction

A

PJ is about the court’s power over the parties. Because P filed the case, the court automatically has power over P.
One question: can P sue D in this state?

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

PJ Two-step Analysis

A

1) Does PJ satisfy a state statute AND
2) Does PJ satisfy the Constitution (Due Process)

Same analysis whether the case will be filed in federal court or state court

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

Step One: statutory analysis

A

Each state is free to have its own statutes for in personam jdx. They vary, so content of statute is not testable. BUT, in most states, the statute says jdx is ok if the case meets the constitutional test.

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

Step Two: constitutional analysis

A

Does D have “such minimum contact with the forum so jdx does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?”

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

PJ step two: clearly constitutional when D is:

A

1) domiciled in the forum, OR
2) consent, OR
3) is voluntarily present in the forum when served with process

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

PJ step two: when unclear whether unconstitutional

A

Contact
Relatedness
Fairness

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

PJ - Contact

A

There must be a relevant contact between D and the forum state. Two factors:

1) The contact must result from purposeful availment: D’s voluntary act –> D must reach out to the forum (maybe by trying to make money in the forum, using the roads there, marketed a product there, etc.)
2) Forseeability: it must be foreseeable that D could get sued in this forum

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

PJ - Relatedness

A

Relatedness between this contact and P’s claim. Ask: does the P’s claim arise from D’s contact in forum?
If yes, specific PJ
If no, jdx is ok only if the court has general PJ

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

Specific PJ

A

When the claim arises from D’s contact with the forum

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

General PJ

A

D must be home at the forum.
Where is a human at home: where domiciled
Where is a corporation at home: where incorporated and where it has its principal place of business (PPB)

If the court has general PJ, then D can be sued there for a claim that arose ANYWHERE in the world.

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

Fairness

A

Looks to whether jdx would be fair or reasonable under the circumstances. ONLY assessed for specific PJ.

1) Burden on D and witnesses - BUT, the relative wealth of the parties is not determinative
2) State’s interest - forum state might want to provide a courtroom for its citizens, who are allegedly being harmed by out-of-staters.
3) Plaintiff’s interest

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

In Rem and Quasi in Rem Jdx

A

Power is not over D herself, but over D’s property in the forum. It must be attached by the court at the outset of the case.
To be constitutional, D’s contact with the forum must meet the constitutional test we just applied in in personam.

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

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ)

A

This is about the court’s power over the case.

State courts can hear any kind of case (except for cases arising under a few federal laws - patent infringement, bankruptcy, etc.). They have general SMJ.

BUT, federal courts have limited SMJ. They can hear cases with diversity of citizenship, and about federal questions.

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

Diversity of citizenship and Alienage Cases

A

1) the case is either between “citizens of different states” (diversity) OR between “a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country” (alienage) AND
2) the amount in controversy EXCEEDS $75,000

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

Who are the right kinds of litigants for a diversity or alienage case?

A

1) Complete diversity rule
2) Citizenship of a natural person
3) Citizenship of a corporation
4) Citizenship of an unincorporated association
5) Citizenship of decedents, minors, or incompetents

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

Complete Diversity Rule

A

Not good if ANY P is a citizen of the same state as ANY D.

Note: special rule that prohibits alienage if a green card alien is domiciled in the same U.S. state as a litigant on the other side of the case. If P (AZ) sues D (a green card alien who is domiciled in AZ) in federal court, there would be alienage but the statute would prohibit SMJ.

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

Citizenship of natural person

A

1) Determined by the U.S. state of person’s domicile.
2) Person cannot have more than one domicile
3) To establish a new domicile, there must be physical presence AND the intent to make that your permanent home (courts look at all relevant factors for intent)
4) Diversity is tested when the case is filed.

18
Q

Citizenship of a corporation

A

1) state or country where incorporated AND
2) state or country of it PPB (where it managers direct, coordinate, and control corporation activities –> the “nerve center”, usually the headquaters)
Corp. can be a citizen of two states at a time.

19
Q

Citizenship of an unincorporated association

A

1) Its citizenship of all of its members.
2) Where partnership was formed or its PPB are factors only for a corporation
3) Include ALL partners (general and limited)

20
Q

Citizenship of decedents, minors, or incompetents

A

1) Such persons must sue or be sued through a representative

2) BUT, use the citizenship of the decedent, minor, or incompetent; the citizenship of the representative is irrelevant

21
Q

Amount in controversy

A

1) P’s claim must EXCEED $75,000
2) Cannot count costs or interest on the claim (but can sometimes recover interest AS the claim)
3) Whatever the P claims in good faith is ok, unless it is clear to a legal certainty that she cannot recover more than $75,000
4) What the P wins is irrelevant to jdx. Jdx attaches at outset. BUT, a P who wins less than $75,000 may have to pay D’s litigation costs (basic expenses of litigation but not attorney’s fees)

22
Q

Aggregation

A

1) Adding two or more claims by the same P to meet the amount required for SMJ.
2) Factually unrelated claims can be aggregated
3) No limit on the number of claims that can be aggregated

23
Q

Equitable Relief

A

Two tests for non-monetary relief:

1) Plaintiff: did the injury to plaintiff decrease P’s property by more than $75,000? OR
2) Defendant: would it cost D more than $75,000 to comply with the injunction?

24
Q

Cases a federal court will NOT hear:

A

1) Divorce
2) Alimony
3) Child Custody
4) Probate an Estate

25
Q

Federal Question Cases

A

1) The claim in P’s complaint “arises under” federal law (federal constitution, legislation)
2) Citizenship of the parties is irrelevant
3) Amount in controversy is irrelevant

26
Q

Well Pleaded Complaint Rule

A

1) P’s claim itself must “arise under” federal law.(ask, “is P enforcing a federal right?”)
2) It is not enough that some federal issue is raised by the complaint
3) Unless the exam questions says that the claim is based on federal law, regular tort, contract, and property claims are state laws.

27
Q

Once a case is properly in federal court (either from diversity or FQ), do we have to test every single additional claim for federal SMJ?

A

YES. If the additional claim satisfies either diversity or FQ, it can be heard in the federal court case.

If the additional claim does NOT satisfy diversity or FQ, the federal court can still hear the claim if it invokes supplemental jdx.

28
Q

Supplemental Jurisdiction

A

Gets non-federal, non diversity claims into federal court if the case itself is already in federal court. Two steps:

1) Common nucleus of operative fact test
2) Limitations

29
Q

Common Nucleus of Operative Facts Test

A

The claim must share a “common nucleus of operative fact” with the claim that invoked federal SMJ. This test is always met when the claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence (T/O) as the underlying case.

30
Q

Limitation to supplemental jdx

A

Even if claims meet “the test” for supplemental jdx, they can be excluded:
Rule: In a DIVERSITY case, PLAINTIFF cannot use supplemental jdx to overcome LACK OF DIVERSITY

Even if we meet requirements for supplemental jdx, the court has discretion to decline jdx.

31
Q

Removal

A

D sued in state court might be able to remove the case to federal court. Removal transfers the case from a state trial court to a federal trial court. If removal was improper the federal court can remand the case back to state court.

32
Q

When, who, what for removal

A

1) D must remove within 30 days of service (not filing) of the first paper that shows the case is removable.
2) All Ds that have been served with process must join the removal.
3) P can NEVER remove
4) Any case that meets the requirements for diversity or FQ can be removed EXCEPT, for cases invoking diversity of citizenship, no removal if any D is a citizen of the forum (instate D rule), and no removal more than one year after the case was filed in state court.
5) D removes to the federal district “embracing” the state court where the case was filed

33
Q

How does a D remove?

A

1) P sues D in stae court. D files “notice of removal” in federal court, stating grounds of removal, which means federal SMJ (diversity or FQ)
2) D attaches all documents that were served on her in state action. D serves a copy of the notice of removal on adverse parties. Then D files a copy of the notice of removal in state court.

34
Q

Remand

A

1) If P thinks removal was improper for some reason other than lack of SMJ (D did not attach relevant papers to her notice of removal, etc.), she must move to remand no later than 30 days after notice of removal is filed.
2) If P thinks removal was improper because the federal court lacks SMJ, P can move to remand to state court at anytime.

35
Q

In federal court, what law applies?

A

When there is a diversity of citizenship case in federal court, look to the Erie Doctrine.

36
Q

Three Steps of the Erie Doctrine

A

1) Is there some federal law (constitution, statute, FRCP, federal rule of evidence) on point that directly conflicts with state law? If so, apply the federal law as long as it is valid. Based on the Supremacy Clause.
2) If there is no federal law on point, the federal judge must apply state law if the issue to be determined is substantive: elements of a claim or defense, statute of limitation, rules for tolling statutes of limitation, and conflict of law rules.
3) If there is no federal law on point and the issue is not one of the four listed above, the federal judge must determine whether the issue is substantive. Law is unclear but can look to these factors: outcome determinative, balance of interests, avoid forum shopping.

37
Q

Venue

A

Venue tells us exactly which federal court the case will be tried in.
1) P may lay venue in ANY district where ALL Ds reside OR a substantial part of the claim arose

But, if all Ds reside in different districts of the same state, P can lay venue in the district in which ANY D resides.

38
Q

Where do Defendants “Reside” for Venue Purposes?

A

1) Humans: in the district where domiciled

2) Corporations or non-incorporated: all districts where subject to PJ for this case

39
Q

Transfer of Venue

A

A federal district court may transfer the case to another federal district court. Original court is the transferor and the one to which the case is sent is the transferee.
1) Transferor can only transfer to a district where the case could have been filed, meaning that the transferee MUST be a proper venue AND have PJ over the D.

40
Q

Transfer Statutes

A

1) If the original district is a proper venue, that court can order transfer based on convenience of the parties and witnesses and on the interest of justice. Court looks to public and private factors showing that the transferee is the center of gravity.
2) if the original district is an improper venue, the court may transfer in the interest of justice OR dismiss.

41
Q

Forum Non Conveniens

A

When the more convenient court is in a different judicial system (foreign country), the original court does not transfer, but dismisses or stays the case (bc transfer is impossible)
FNC dismissal is almost never granted if P is the resident of the present forum.