Civ Pro, Outline, Professor Glen Staszewski, Fall 2012, Lecture notes of Civil procedure

CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE. CIVIL PROCEDURE- Course about where lawsuits can be brought (personal AND subject matter jurisdiction must be satisfied).

Typology: Lecture notes

2022/2023

Uploaded on 03/01/2023

mortimer
mortimer 🇺🇸

4.4

(5)

214 documents

1 / 39

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Civ Pro, Outline, Professor Glen Staszewski, Fall 2012
1
CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE
CIVIL PROCEDURE- Course about where lawsuits can be brought (personal AND subject matter jurisdiction must be satisfied)
and how litigation is conducted)
Federal Courts- limited jurisdiction
State Courts- general jurisdiction
PERSONAL JURISDICTION- determines where courts can enter an enforceable judgment against the D; is a geographic
limitation on the places where P may choose to sue D for particular claim determines which courts can enter enforceable
judgment against D (focus on which states) & how D can challenge it; if personal jurisdiction is not raised, it is waived
OVERVIEW
o Constitutional requirement- personal jurisdiction is a constitutional requirement for both state and
federal courts. A judgment rendered against a person over whom the court has no personal jurisdiction
violates that person’s right to due process
o Common law statutes for personal jurisdiction:
Long-arm statutes-
Long arm statutes usually constitution when there are min contacts and service
Ability of local courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreign ("foreign" meaning out-of-
state) defendants, whether on a statutory basis or through a court’s inherent
jurisdiction (depending on the jurisdiction).
This jurisdiction permits a court to hear a case against a defendant and enter a
binding judgment against a defendant residing outside the jurisdiction concerned.
Generally, the authority of a court to exercise long-arm jurisdiction must be based
upon some action of the defendant, which subjects him or her to the jurisdiction of
the court
Venue statutes- a civil action can be brought:
A judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of
the state in which the district is located
A judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omission giving rise to
the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action
is situated
If there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought, any judicial
district in which any defendant is subject to the courts personal jurisdiction with
respect to such action
Transfer statutes- Can change venue for convenience of the parties and witnesses to any
other district where it might have been brought or where all parties have consented
Forum non-convenience (Judicial doctrine)- courts will occasionally dismiss case pursuant
to this so that it can be brought in another forum (usually not used)
o Two categories of personal jurisdiction:
In personam (jurisdiction over person)- needs to be provided with personal service of process
within state
In rem (jurisdiction over property)- property has to be within state and property has to be
attached at outset of cases
Differences between in personam and in rem:
o In personam jurisdiction is obtained by serving defendant personally with
process. In rem is obtained by seizing property.
o POWER THEORY OF JURISDICTION- states have jurisdiction over people and property within their borders
Forms of Jurisdiction (in personam, in rem, consent, domiciled in state)
In personam
o Service of process- proper service of process is also necessary before a
court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Any judgment
rendered without reasonable notice violates defendant’s due process
rights and therefore is invalid
Rule 4- Can Serve Someone by:
Following the state law
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17
pf18
pf19
pf1a
pf1b
pf1c
pf1d
pf1e
pf1f
pf20
pf21
pf22
pf23
pf24
pf25
pf26
pf27

Partial preview of the text

Download Civ Pro, Outline, Professor Glen Staszewski, Fall 2012 and more Lecture notes Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!

CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE

CIVIL PROCEDURE - Course about where lawsuits can be brought ( personal AND subject matter jurisdiction must be satisfied) and how litigation is conducted)

  • Federal Courts - limited jurisdiction
  • State Courts- general jurisdiction PERSONAL JURISDICTION - determines where courts can enter an enforceable judgment against the D; i s a geographic limitation on the places where P may choose to sue D for particular claim determines which courts can enter enforceable judgment against D (focus on which states) & how D can challenge it; if personal jurisdiction is not raised, it is waived
  • OVERVIEW o Constitutional requirement - personal jurisdiction is a constitutional requirement for both state and federal courts. A judgment rendered against a person over whom the court has no personal jurisdiction violates that person’s right to due process o Common law statutes for personal jurisdiction:Long-arm statutes-
  • Long arm statutes usually constitution when there are min contacts and service
  • Ability of local courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreign ("foreign" meaning out-of- state) defendants, whether on a statutory basis or through a court’s inherent jurisdiction (depending on the jurisdiction).
  • This jurisdiction permits a court to hear a case against a defendant and enter a binding judgment against a defendant residing outside the jurisdiction concerned.
  • Generally, the authority of a court to exercise long-arm jurisdiction must be based upon some action of the defendant, which subjects him or her to the jurisdiction of the courtVenue statutes - a civil action can be brought:
  • A judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located
  • A judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omission giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated
  • If there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the courts personal jurisdiction with respect to such action ▪ Transfer statutes - Can change venue for convenience of the parties and witnesses to any other district where it might have been brought or where all parties have consented ▪ Forum non-convenience (Judicial doctrine) - courts will occasionally dismiss case pursuant to this so that it can be brought in another forum (usually not used) o Two categories of personal jurisdiction:In personam (jurisdiction over person)- needs to be provided with personal service of process within state ▪ In rem (jurisdiction over property)- property has to be within state and property has to be attached at outset of cases
  • Differences between in personam and in rem : o In personam jurisdiction is obtained by serving defendant personally with process. In rem is obtained by seizing property. o POWER THEORY OF JURISDICTION - states have jurisdiction over people and property within their borders ▪ Forms of Jurisdiction (in personam, in rem, consent, domiciled in state)
  • In personam o Service of process - proper service of process is also necessary before a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Any judgment rendered without reasonable notice violates defendant’s due process rights and therefore is invalid ▪ Rule 4- Can Serve Someone by:
  • Following the state law
  • Delivering a copy to the individual
  • Leaving a copy at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of a suitable age
  • Delivering to an agent authorized ▪ Mullane (1950)- “an elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections
  • Personal service is ALWAYS adequate
  • Person needs to have adequate notice
  • Personal service is to tell people about law suit and give them a chance to object
  • Personal service needs to be reasonable under the circumstances
  • In rem
  • Consent- o Personal appearance - waiver o Statutory Consent - If you conduct business within state, have to appoint agent within state to accept services o Contract - agreement o Implied Consent
  • Domiciled in State (general jurisdiction) (Hawkins) o People - physical presence in state and intent to remain o Corporations - “principal place of business” ▪ Place where a corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities ▪ Place of incorporation and corporate headquarters- “nerve center” o PROCEDURES FOR CHALLENGING PERSONAL JURISDICTION (has to be challenged immediately or the court will deem you to have consented) ▪ Take a default judgment and conduct a collateral attack
  • Risky ▪ Special Appearance
  • Available in some states
  • People can show up and challenge personal jurisdiction without being personally served while doing so ▪ Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction ▪ File an answer in response to complaint and raise personal jurisdiction as an “affirmative defense” and then move to dismiss the case
  • MODERN CONSTITUTIONAL TEST OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION - these decisions developed the current minimum contacts test o Important Aspects of Minimum Contacts: ▪ 1) Minimum contacts applies to both individuals and corporations ▪ 2) Limitations on minimum contacts found in long-arm statutes ▪ 3) D may have sufficient contacts within a state to support minimum contracts even though she did not act within the state
  • If D commits act outside the state and knows it will cause harmful effects within the state, she will be subject to jurisdiction for claims arising out of that act ▪ 4) Minimum contracts analysis focuses on the time when the D acted, not at the time of the lawsuit

contention that the defendant did not have adequate notice of the suit or sufficient time to defend itself o Hanson (1958)- Donner went to a trust company in DE when she lived in PA and got a trust; Donner moved to FL; although Donner received trust income and carried on some trust administration in FL, the trust company did not have minimum contacts with FL ▪ Essential that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its law ▪ D must have made a deliberate choice to relate to the state in some meaningful way before she can be made to bear the burden of defending there ▪ Criteria:

  • 1. purposefully avails itself to the forum state
  • 2. invokes the benefits and protections of its law o Shaffer (1977)- DE ct can’t obtain personal jurisdiction over defendant bc defendant did not have minimum contacts; just bc defendant has property within the state, without other ties, does not constitute minimum contacts ▪ Issue - Whether a DE Statute allows a ct of that state to take jurisdiction of a lawsuit by sequestering any property of the defendant that happens to be located in DE?
  • NO, defendants only allowed to be tried in states where they have “minimum contacts” with the state ▪ Criteria for personal jurisdiction:
    1. Need minimum contacts o property is only one form of contact ▪ 2. All assertions of state court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the International Shoe standard. o sufficient minimum contacts o traditional notions of fair place and substantial justice o World Wide Volkswagen (1980)- Ps sued in OK for injuries suffered by an accident involved the defective car that was purposed by D; P purchased the car in NY while they were NY residents; D did not do business in OK; OK ct could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car dealer and regional distributor from NY bc defendants had no contacts, ties, or relations with OK did not seek any direct benefit from OK activities sufficient to require it submit to jurisdiction there ▪ Was it foreseeable that a car would go to OK?
  • Yes, but forseeablility is not enough alone to establish personal jurisdiction o Forseeability is NOT minimum contacts ▪ What is necessary for defendant to have minimum contacts?
  • Purposefully avails itself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum state
  • Delivery products into the stream of commerce with expectation they be bought in the forum state (exp. customizing an item for a market) o Stream of commerce - when a defendant distributes its goods in multiple states through a third party; although defendant knows that some of its goods go to a particular state, it does not know exactly which products go where ▪ Ways D’s goods can reach the forum state:
    1. An out-of-state component manufacturer sells components to a manufacturer of a finished product outside the state; then that manufacturer incorporates the component into a finished product and distributes the finished product in the forum state o The party at the beginning of the stream of commerce DID NOT import the product into the forum state itself o Exp. Asahi
    1. Manufacturer sells finished products to a wholesaler outside the state, the wholesaler then resells to a retailer in the forum state, and the retailer resells to the consumer o The party at the beginning of the stream of commerce DID NOT import the product into the forum state itself o Issue with personal jurisdiction : Whether purposefully injecting goods into the stream of commerce constitutes purposeful availment with a state in which one of those goods causes injury? ▪ Reasons for minimum contacts test:
  • Fairness to defendants - shouldn’t have to go defend themselves in places where they have no contacts
  • Federalism - maybe have jurisdiction in NY, but not in OK
  • APPLICATION OF THE MODERN CONSTITUTIONAL TEST o Asahi (1987)- brought suit in CA st ct claiming the rear tire was defective; Asahi ships valve from Japan to Taiwan; the Japanese manufacture sold tires with the value throughout the world, including in the U.S.; There was evidence that Asahi was aware that the values sold to Japan would end up in the U.S.; Asahi made no direct sales in CA and had no offices or agents there, and didn’t control the system of distribution that carried its products into the state ▪ Whether the mere act of selling goods outside the forum state that will likely be imported into the forum state for resale suffices to support jurisdiction?/ Whether purposefully injecting goods into the stream of commerce constitutes purposeful availment with a state in which one of those goods causes injury?
  • (A) Minimum Contacts? o O’Connor Plurality (not binding bc only 4/9 justices)-Asahi had no minimum contacts in CA bc didn’t take any purposeful action directed towards the forum state
  • Difference between “mere awareness" and "purposeful availment": o The "substantial connection" between a defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must derive from an action purposely directed toward the forum State, and the mere placement of a product into the stream of commerce is not such an act, even if done with an awareness that the stream will sweep the product into the forum State absent additional conduct indicating an intent to serve the forum state market o Brennan’s Concurring- Asahi did Asahi has minimum contacts because they put their products into commerce and the product is ending up in CA ▪ injecting goods into the stream of commerce with foreseeable destination o As long as a participant in this process is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise. ▪ sending goods into the stream of commerce in substantial quantities constitutes purposeful availment whether or not the original maker knows that the goods will be sold in a particular state o Stevens Concurring - CA jurisdiction over Asahi would be “unreasonable and unfair”
  • Sliding Scale Test (3-prongs) o 1. Clearly doing business in forum= minimum contacts o 2. Interactive websites (viewver may enter information that affedcts th site but not enter into a transaction; courts look to all the circumstances, including the level of activite and whether the site is commercial in nature) o 3. Posting information= no minimum contacts ▪ Calder - D subject to personal jurisdiction in CA for allegedly defamatory article written I FL, since the article was to be circulated in CA the P lived there, and the Ps career was centered there
  • Effects Test (Calder) (2-prongs) o Defendant must have expressly aimed intentional conduct at the forum state o Defendant must have known that this intentional conduct would cause harm in the forum o “STREAM OF COMMERCE” CASES- USUALLY A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT THAT ENDS UP IN THAT STATES COMMERCE ▪ McIntyre v. Nicastro (2011)- employee was hurt using a machine that was from an English company; Supreme court specified how to analyze stream of commerce cases (says there needs to be more than 4 products put into the stream of commerce)
  • NJ courts could NOT exercise personal jurisdiction over an English manufacturer that neither marketed goods in the state nor shipped them there
  • Merely placing the product into the stream of commerce is not enough to subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction, even f the defendant knows the product will end up in the forum o Plurality (Kennedy; 4 justices) - defendant did not take purposeful action that was directed at the forum state ▪ 1. Due process protects petitioner’s rights to be subject only to lawful authority (as determined by ”traditional practice”; at no time did petitioner engage in any activities in NJ that reveal an intent to invoke or benefit from the protections of its laws ▪ 2. Criticizes Bennan’s Asahi opinion and the dissent on the grounds that they are “inconsistent with the premises of lawful judicial power”; “Freeform notions of fundamental fairness divorced form traditional practice cannot transform a judgment rendered in the absence of authority into law” ▪ DUE PROCESS= POWER (stemming from traditional practice; NOT FAIRNESS (or Reason) ▪ Would say wealth matters o Breyer Concurring (2 justices) - plaintiff failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that it was constitutionally proper to exercise jurisdiction over McIntyre based on previous court proceedings (Volkswagon) ▪ Claims that “this is an unsuitable vehicle for making broad pronouncements that refashion basic jurisdictional rules,” because this case does not implicate “modern concerns,” such as those raised by the Internet o Ginsburg Dissenting (4 justices)- defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction in NJ because it put its product in the stream of commerce, knowing that it could be sold there (irrespective of its use of a national distributor) ▪ DUE PROCESS- FAIRNESS AND REASON; NOT SOVEREIGN POWER (or tradition)

Would say wealth doesn’t matter

  • GENERAL JURISDICTION AND THE CONTINUTED IMPORTANCE OF CONSENT o GENERAL JURISDICTION- “CONTINUOUS AND SYSTEMATIC” CONTACTSGoodyear (2011)- bus accident outside of Paris killing two boys from NC; attribute to the Goodyear tiers from Turkey - The foreign subsidiaries of the Goodyear USA were not subject to general jurisdiction in NC bc their attenuated connections to the State fall short of the “continuous and systematic general business contacts” necessary to empower NC to entertain suit against them on claims unrelated to anything that connects to the State - Supreme Court acknowledged that general jurisdiction could exist in the proper case, but found that there were insufficient contacts for general jurisdiction o PRESENCE IN STATE- ALLOWS A STATE TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER ANYONE WHO WAS SERVED WHILE PRESENT IN THE STATEBurnham (1990) - CA court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident who was personally served with process while temporarily in the state ; Tag Jurisdiction = state can assert jurisdiction over a person who temporarily enters the state - Scalia view (4 justices; Part II) o Bright Line Rule - among the most firmly established principles of personal jurisdiction in American tradition is that the courts of a state have jurisdiction over nonresidents who are physically present in the state ▪ “Traditional practice” from Pennoyer - jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard - Scalia (3 justices, Part III) o Criticizes “the subjectivity, and hence, inadequacy, of Brennan’s approach” - Brennan’s view (4 justices, concurring) o Case by Case Inquiry - the Due Process Clause generally permits a state court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant if he is served with process while voluntarily present in the forum state Nonetheless, it is necessary to “undertake an independent inquiry into the fairness of the prevailing in-state service rule.” The critical insight of Shaffer is that all rules of jurisdiction, even ancient one, must actually satisfy contemporary notions of due process. o Concurs in judgment because “in this case, it is undisputed that petitioner was served with process while voluntarily and knowingly in the state of CA” = CA court has general jurisdiction ▪ Knowingly and voluntarily present in the forum state - Stevens’s view (concurring)- didn’t join either side bc it was a “very easy case” and jurisdiction was present o Tradition + Fairness + Common Sense = Easy Case o CONSENT- PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS A PERSONAL DEFENSE, SO A PARTY MAY WAIVE IT EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY TAKING ACTIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEFENSECarnival Cruise (1991)- got tickets for a cruise and was injured on cruise, and the ticket had a clause on it stating that any suit must be filed in FL - Forum selection clause is enforceable - “fundamental fairness” did not preclude the enforcement of a forum-selection clause contained in tickets issued by cruise line to its passengers when there was no bad faith, fraud, or overreaching (i.e. FL was a sensible place to conduct the litigation) and plaintiffs “essentially conceded” that they had notice of the provision

HOW TO ANALYZE PERSONAL JURISDICTION:

Start with these questions:

1. IS THERE GENERAL OR SPECIFIC JURISDICTION? a. If General: i. IS D “DOMICILED” IN THE FORUM STATE? Hawkins 1. If yes, there is valid personal jurisdiction ii. DOES D HAVE “CONTINUOUS AND SYSTEMATIC CONTACTS WITH THE FORUM STATE? Goodyear

  1. If yes, there is valid personal jurisdiction b. If Specific: i. DID D CONSENT TO PERSONAL JURISDICITON? Carnival Cruise ii. WAS D PRESENT IN THE FORUM STATE WHEN “PROCESS WAS SERVED” ON HIM (IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION)? Pennoyer and Burnham
  2. If yes, there is valid personal jurisdiction iii. DOES D HAVE “MINIMUM CONTACTS” WITH THE FORUM STATE? International Shoe
  3. If yes… a. Are the contacts sufficient? i. Level of activity (is it a single isolated or continuous and systematic contact?) ii. Relatedness to claim b. Does the maintenance of the suit offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”? i. Fairness (traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice) ii. Reasonable form of notice? To support arguments for PL or DF for specific jurisdiction:
  • Would it be fair play and substantial justice for the court to have jurisdiction? o Is there a burden on the defendant (distance to travel), does the forum state have an interest, does the plaintiff have interest (plaintiff from state or it is convenient), does the federal system have interest? Asahi
  • Does D have “substantial connections” with state, does the state have a manifest interest, and did D have adequate notice? McGee
  • Did D “purposely avail itself” to the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its law? Hanson
  • Did D “purposefully direct” his activities at residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that “arise out of or relate to” those activities? Burger King
  • For internet : Did D clearly do business in the forum (min. contacts), have interactive websites (look at circumstances), or just post information (no min. contacts? Pavlovich o Sliding Scale or Calder
  • Stream of Commerce : o Did D “purposefully avail itself” of the privileges of conducting activities” in the forum state by delivering products into the “stream of commerce” with expectation they’d be bought in the forum state? World-Wide Volkwagon o Did D take purposeful action directed towards the forum state? Asahi- plurality o Did D inject goods into the stream of commerce with a foreseeable destination? Asahi- concurrence o Did conduct rise to the level of purposeful availment, which requires a constitutional determination that is affected by the volume, value, and hazardous character of the components? Asahi- Steven’s concurring o Did D take purposeful action that was directed at the forum state by placing the product into the stream of commerce, knowing the product would end up in forum? ( merely placing product into stream of commerce is not enough ) McIntyre

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION - whether the court has authority to adjudicate a particular type of case; if subject matter jurisdiction is not raised, it is not waived because a court may still not have the power to hear a case

  • GENERAL : o Federal Court has jurisdiction if: ▪ Federal questions (1331)- cases that “arise under” federal law ▪ Diversity cases (Article 3, 1332)- complete diversity in citizenship and greater than $75, in claim ▪ Supplement jurisdiction (Article III and 1367)Removal o Positives about federal court: ▪ Shorter dockets ▪ Moves faster ▪ Diverse jury pool ▪ Experienced lawyers
  • FEDERAL QUESTIONS (1331)- requires that the claim “arise under” federal law; must be a substantial federal claim o 3 sources of “federal questions”: ▪ cases arising under the national Constitution ▪ cases arising under federal law ▪ cases arising under treaties o Well-pleaded Complaint Rule - asks whether the federal element is necessary to plaintiff’s case ▪ Plaintiff has to raise cause of action in complaint ▪ Purpose- efficiency (helps sort cases before too much money and time has been spent)  Louisville (1908)- Plaintiff was injured while riding a train; settled by giving Plaintiff free transportation for life; then a act of Congress was past and forbade the giving of free passes - There was no federal subject matter jurisdiction because issues of federal law were used as a defense; the actual claim was for breach of contract under state law - A suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the U.S. for purposes of 1331 only when the plaintiff’s well pleaded complaint is based upon federal law
  • DIVERSITY CASES (ARTICLE 3, 1332) o How to establish diversity: ▪ Diversity must exist at the commencement of the action ▪ Plaintiff must include a statement in her federal complaint alleging diversity is satisfied ▪ Plaintiff bears the burden to prove diversity o 2 Requirements of 1332: ▪ 1. Diversity- pl and df who are “citizens of different states” or “citizens or subjects of a foreign state” ▪ 2. Must involve an “amount in controversy” in excess of $75, o Article III - citizens of different states; nothing at $75,000 or more (that is a statutory requirement) o 1332 : ▪ (a) complete diversity in citizenship and greater than $75,000 in claim  Actions between: - (a)(1) citizens of different states o Redner (2000)- fed. District court dismissed a case against NY defendants for lack of sub. matter jurisdiction bc there was no diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff wasn’t a citizen of France (while would have authorized diversity under 1332(a)(2)) nor a citizen of CA (which would have established diversity jurisdiction under 1332(a)(1)) - (a)(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state , except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State;

States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties ▪ In re Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (2007) - district court denied defendants motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction because the state and federal claims were connected by common and operative facts (they were intertwined) and there was no compelling reason for the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction  1367 (c)- prevents the use of supplemental jurisdiction over claims brought by plaintiffs against parties joined under certain listed rules

  • The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if— o (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law o (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction such that federal court doesn’t want anything to do with it (if state case is strong, federal court dismisses because doesn’t want it) ▪ Szendrey-Ramos (2007)- the district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction because the Puerto Rico law claims predominated over plaintiff’s federal claim under Title VII and there were novel and complex issues of Puerto Rico law o (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or o (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction o Hypos : ▪ 1: Employer sues company for sexual harassment under federal statute Can sue in federal court  What if plaintiff wants to add a state law claim for IIED?
  • Can there be supplemental jurisdiction? o Yes
  • Is there any reason for federal court to decline? o No because the state claim doesn’t substantially dominate  What if plaintiff wants to add a state law claim for assault and battery?
  • Is there supplemental jurisdiction? o Yes
  • Is there any reason for federal court to decline? o No because the number of state law claims does not matter!!  What if plaintiff also wants to sue the perpetrator for assault and battery (perpetrator is an employee as well and all of them are from the same state)?
  • Is there diversity jurisdiction? o No because they are all from the same state
  • Does the claim derive from the same nucleus (is there supplemental jurisdiction)? o Yes because it is still the same story ▪ 1367(a)- “Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties” ▪ 1367(b)- only applies in diversity cases  What if the federal claim is dismissed and there is only a state claim left? What should the federal court do?
  • Dismiss state claim pursuant to 1367(c)  What if supplemental state law claims are dismissed?
  • under Statute of Limitations, defendant has 30 days to re-file in state court ▪ 2: Plaintiff (employee) from Michigan  Defendant (employer) from Illinois  Suing for sexual harassment, but it is a state law claim
  • Does federal court have jurisdiction? o Yes because diversity jurisdiction of citizenship  New plaintiff supervisor from Michigan
  • Is there supplemental jurisdiction? o No because of 1367(b)- if the source of federal jurisdiction is diversity, cant use supplemental jurisdiction to get around complete diversity
  • REMOVAL- CASES FROM STATE COURT TO FEDERAL COURT (1441) o 1441 : ▪ When is case removable? generally a case in state court may be removed when it could have been filed originally in federal court  The federal court to which the case is removed must have diversity, federal question, and/or supplemental jurisdiction over all claims in the case  Certain expectations to the well-pleaded complaint rule apply when removal is based on a federal question
  • 1441(a)- general rule o if complaint is filed in state court and the case complies with federal court, defendant can remove case to federal court.
  • 1441(b)- exceptions diversity jurisdiction o removal is not allowed if one or more defendants is a member of the state where case is brought o diversity must be at the time judgment it entered, rather than at the time the case is removed from state to federal court o When removal is based on diversity, special rules apply: ▪ prevents a defendant sued in her home state from removing ▪ diversity must exist both when the case is filed and at the time of removal ▪ a diversity case ordinarily cannot be removed more than one year after it was field
  • 1441(c) - allows removal of federal claims brought along with certain “separate and independent” claims that are not removable o state law claim that doesn’t arise out of the same nucleus of federal claim cannot be removed o but if original complaint has federal law claims and state law claims related the federal claim o if the state law claims are not related to federal claim, federal court can remand the claims not related to federal claim back to state court. o 14461446(a)- notice of removal takes case from state court to federal court  must be within 30 days to file notice of removal from the time defendant is served with notice of complaint  all defendants must consent to removal. ▪ 1446(b)(3) - a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable ▪ 1446(c)- new “bad faith” clause attached to this section  diversity based on citizenship

▪ There is NO provision of Constitution that authorizes federal courts to apply general law in diversity cases  Article III  Article I- gives congress certain powers o Statutory/Statute (RDA) o Precedent (Swift v. Tyson)  Results in :

  • Forum shopping (plaintiff will choose forum that will be most favorable)
  • Inequitable administration of the law (no uniform decisions)Developing a Test AFTER ErieGuaranty Trust (1945)- lower court erred by refusing to apply the state statue of limitations based on a contrary federal practice
  • Court held that Erie applied only to matters of substance, not procedural
  • Court held that the issue (Statute of limitations) should be treated as a substantive rule under Erie o Any rule that could affect the outcome should be considered substantive under Erie.
  • Outcome-determinative Test: o Federal courts sitting in diversity should apply a state law that conflicts with federal practice when disregarding the state law would significantly affect the outcome of the litigation ▪ Problem with this test: virtually any procedural matter can change the outcome of a case; therefore, the test would require federal courts to apply many state rules that seem clearly procedural
  • After this case, everything was seen as outcome- determinative test state will always win under this test, which was problematic because then applying state law ALL the time  Byrd (1958) - the federal court was not required to follow a State Supreme Court decision holding that the trial court, rather than a jury, should determine whether the plaintiff was a statutory employee who was covered by the state workers’ compensation statute.
  • The requirement appeared to be merely a form and mode of enforcing the immunity, and not a rule intended to be bound up with the definition of the rights and obligations of the parties, and the importance of the federal practice outweighed the likelihood of a different result in state court o Question: whether disregarding state court would change the outcome?  says it might! o Balancing Test - court balances federal practice versus the likelihood of a different outcome in state court ▪ federal court follows own practice
  • Exp. : Differences between state and federal law in determining if person was a “statutory employee”: o State law would say the judge decides o Federal law would say jury decides ▪ Issue: Whether a judge or jury decided the case could affect the outcome? ▪ Is this a substantial/procedural issue?  Procedural- because a judge/jury decision is a manner or mode of enforcing legal rights  Substantive- because could affect the outcome of the case if a judge or jury

decides (therefore, who decides does matter)  juries are more sympathetic to individuals (especially against large corporations)  judge will just interpret statue the way thinks appropriate

  • Current Relevance- still used to apply to judge-jury questions and is often invoked by the lower courts on other issues  Hanna (1965)- service of process in a diversity case in federal court is governed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro.
  • Rule 4 - governs service of process in federal court, even in a diversity case
  • Disregarding state law would not facilitate forum shoppingwould just make plaintiff follow Rule
  • Article III requires lower federal courts and creating rules of procedure for them to follow
  • Would the decision in Hanna change the outcome in the Guaranty Trust case? o Guaranty Trust involved Statute of Limitations o There was no FRCP that governed state law in Guaranty Trust ▪ If federal court disregarded Statute of Limitations, there is a likelihood of a different outcome in Guaranty Trust ▪ Under Byrd balancing, still apply the Statute of Limitations therefore, Guaranty would still be good law o If don’t follow state law:Would prevent forum shopping- a practice where Ps choose a legal forum simply because of the probability of a more favorable ruling ▪ Would lead to inequitable administration of the lawHypo: What if looking at:Pleadings
  • State Law has a very detailed pleading requirement
  • Federal Law requires providing notice of pleading o Which applies? ▪ Federal law applies if you do the above application for the Rules Enabling Act and therefore, Rule 8 can apply (above application= forum shopping and inequitable admin)  Voir dier
  • State law includes detailed questions by lawyers
  • Federal law includes cursory question by judge o If there is a diversity case in federal court, then does the state or federal rule apply? ▪ Voir dire would be procedural, BUT who is on jury can have influence on outcome (substantive)  therefore, it’s a gray area ▪ Voir dier is not in FRCP and not a codified act  it is just how federal judges conduct this ▪ Area of debate :Whether there is a federal rule of statute governs situation, would applying it conflict with state law?
  • 3 approaches :

Civ Pro, Outline, Professor Glen Staszewski, Fall 2012 HOW TO ANALYZE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION: Start with these questions:

1. IS THE CLAIM A FEDERAL QUESTION? (“ARISE UNDER” FEDERAL LAW?) a. If yes, federal court has subject matter jurisdiction 2. IS THERE COMPLETE DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP? a. If yes, federal court has subject matter jurisdiction i. Corporation: nerve center Hertz ii. People: domicile 3. IS THERE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION? (FEDERAL AND STATE CLAIM) a. If yes, federal court has subject matter jurisdiction i. Primary claim arises under federal law ii. Besides federal claim, plaintiff also claims a state claim (exp. breach of contract with is state law) and the state claim is tact on then by supplemental jurisdiction can exercise authority over the claim 4. CAN THERE BE REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT? (CASE COULD HAVE ORIGINALLY BEEN FILED IN FEDERAL COURT) a. If yes, federal court has subject matter jurisdiction i. Federal court to which the case is removed must have 1. Diversity, 2. federal question, AND/OR 3. Supplemental jurisdiction To support arguments for PL or DF for FEDERAL QUESTION:

  • Arise Under Federal Law? 28 USC § 1331 o Fed’l questions requires that the claim “arise under” federal law o Must be a substantial federal claim
  • Is the Federal Element Necessary? Louisville o Well-pleaded Complaint Rule- a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the U.S. for purposes of 1331 only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint is based upon federal law (asks whether the federal element is necessary to plaintiff’s case) ▪ Louisville (1908)- There was no federal smj because issues of federal law were used as a defense; the actual claim was for breach of contract under state law
  • Is the Federal Element used as a Defense? Louisville o Can’t use the federal claim as defense To support arguments for PL or DF for DIVERSITY:
  • Are the parties NOT citizens of different states? Redner, 1332 (a)(2) o Lack of smj because not from different states
  • Where are the people domiciled? Hawkins o Established by physical presence in a place in connection with a certain state of mind concerning one’s intent to remain there.
  • Where is the corporation domiciled? Hertz o A corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any state by which it has been incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business o “ Nerve Center Test ”- where the corporations high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporations activities To support arguments for PL or DF for SUPPLEMENTAL jurisdiction:
  • Do the two claims (federal and state) arise from “a common nucleus of operative facts”? In re Ameriquest
  • Are the two claims (federal and state) sufficiently related? Article 3
  • Does the state claim substantially predominate over the federal claim? Szendrye-Ramos o State law claims that are predominate over federal claim o If there are novel and complex issues of state law
  • Do the claims “form part of the same case or controversy”? Article 3 To support arguments for PL or DF for REMOVAL:
  • Are the federal jurisdictional requirements met at the time judgment is entered? Caterpillar
  • Did the party file notice of removal within 30 days from the time defendant is served with notice of complaint? 1446(a)
  • Did the party try to remove a diversity case after it was pending for more than a year? 1446 (c) o Bad faith clause o UNLESS plaintiff has been acting in bad faith to prevent defendant from removing the case
  • If federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, when can the case be remanded? 1447 If federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, case should be remanded to state court at ANY time OR whenever federal court figures it out

LITIGATION AS A MEANS OF RESOLVING DISPUTES AND SECURING REMEDIES

  • General Facts: O Most disputes are resolved outside of the litigation process O 3% of cases result in trial ½ bench trial, ½ jury trial O More than 97% of litigation is in state courts (this is because of the subject matter jurisdiction that federal courts have)
  • Reasons not many cases go to litigation: O Defendants don’t defend (result in default judgment for plaintiff) O Many cases settle ▪ The cost of litigation is usually a big driver in deciding to settle O Federal courts will make decisions to dispose of the case before trial (like lack of jurisdiction, etc.) O Cases can take a long time to be resolved if go to trial (maybe years)
  • Why to engage in litigation : O Seeking Damages ▪ Compensatory- the “make whole” belief ▪ Restore injured party into place they would have been if weren’t for the other party ▪ Punitive- done after compensatory damages - To deter/punish - The size of this award is low ▪ Specific Relief- injunction (to do/refrain from doing something) ▪ Declaratory judgment- can seek declaration of their rights (typically where plaintiff is seeking to be protected) ▪ Provisional Remedies (emergency relief)- granted by court before court has time to reach a final decision on merits - Potentially troubling - When waiting until the final decision will be too late O Exp. abused spouse who wants temporary restraining order
  • Rule 65 O (a)- Preliminary Injunction (PI) ▪ cannot be issued without notice to defendant ▪ is an immediately appealable order don’t have to wait until final decision is made. ▪ Winter (2008)- Plaintiffs complained that the Navy’s sonar training program harmed marine mammals, and that the Navy should have prepared an environmental impact statement before commencing its latest round of training exercises; Navy argues the plaintiffs should demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable injury, and not just a possibly in order to obtain preliminary relief. - Court suggest that the 9th^ Cir. Court’s standard that only requires a “possibility” of irreparable harm in some circumstances is too lenient and that Ps must demonstrate that irreparable harm is “likely” in the absence of a preliminary injunction o Irreparable harm must be LIKELY and not be “possible” - Even if Ps have shown irreparable injury from the Navy’s training exercises, any such injury is outweighed by the public interest o Therefore, these factors require denial of the injunctive relief - Elements for obtaining a preliminary injunction : o 1. That he is likely to succeed on the merits ▪ Is P going to prove his side? o 2. That he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief ▪ P has to show that he or should would suffer a likelihood (not just possible) irreparable harm in the absence of injunction o 3. That the balance of equities tips in his favor, and ▪ to make sure court is helping P more than hurting D o 4. That an injunction is in the public interest O (b)- Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) ▪ typically occurs before decision is made ▪ typically ask for TRO first, then when that expires, will ask for a PI