Right court?

Question 1

Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 1

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?

Question 2

PJ Two-step Analysis

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Step One: statutory analysis

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

Step Two: constitutional analysis

Answer 4

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

Question 5

PJ step two: clearly constitutional when D is:

Answer 5

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

Question 6

PJ step two: when unclear whether unconstitutional

Answer 6

Contact
Relatedness
Fairness

Question 7

PJ - Contact

Answer 7

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

Question 8

PJ - Relatedness

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Specific PJ

Answer 9

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

Question 10

General PJ

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

Fairness

Answer 11

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

Question 12

In Rem and Quasi in Rem Jdx

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ)

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Diversity of citizenship and Alienage Cases

Answer 14

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

Question 15

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

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Complete Diversity Rule

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

Citizenship of natural person

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

Citizenship of a corporation

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

Citizenship of an unincorporated association

Answer 19

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)

Question 20

Citizenship of decedents, minors, or incompetents

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Amount in controversy

Answer 21

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)

Question 22

Aggregation

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Equitable Relief

Answer 23

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?

Question 24

Cases a federal court will NOT hear:

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Federal Question Cases

Answer 25

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

Question 26

Well Pleaded Complaint Rule

Answer 26

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.

Question 27

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?

Answer 27

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.

Question 28

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Answer 28

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

Question 29

Common Nucleus of Operative Facts Test

Answer 29

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.

Question 30

Limitation to supplemental jdx

Answer 30

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.

Question 31

Removal

Answer 31

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.

Question 32

When, who, what for removal

Answer 32

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

Question 33

How does a D remove?

Answer 33

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.

Question 34

Remand

Answer 34

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.

Question 35

In federal court, what law applies?

Answer 35

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

Question 36

Three Steps of the Erie Doctrine

Answer 36

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.

Question 37

Venue

Answer 37

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.

Question 38

Where do Defendants “Reside” for Venue Purposes?

Answer 38

1) Humans: in the district where domiciled

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

Question 39

Transfer of Venue

Answer 39

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.

Question 40

Transfer Statutes

Answer 40

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.

Question 41

Forum Non Conveniens

Answer 41

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.