Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Docsity AI
Docsity AI
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search for your university

Find the specific documents for your university's exams

Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

Jurisdiction in Civil Law: Cases on Contracts and Venue, Study notes of Commercial Law

University of Florida (UF)Commercial Law

Several court cases related to jurisdiction in civil law, focusing on contracts and venue. Topics include consent in contracts, notice requirements, and self-imposed restraints on jurisdictional power. The document also covers the concept of forum non conveniens and the differences between federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction.

Typology: Study notes

2011/2012

Uploaded on 05/01/2012

kechristian
kechristian 🇺🇸

4.9

(12)

60 documents

1 / 12

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Civil Procedure – Civ Pro
us.docsity.com
C. Consent as a Substitute for Power
Includes
• Informed Consent
• Unconscious Consent
• Implied Consent
• Contractual Consent
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute (1991) p.141
• Facts:
o Shutes purchased tickets for 7-day cruise through travel agent in Arlington,
WA; got on the ship in LA
o Face of Ticket: “Subject to conditions of contract on pages 1-3”
§ one of the clauses stated that all disputes shall be litigated in the State
of FL
o Ms. Shute slipped and fell – brought negligence suit in USDC for Western
District of Washington
§ Carnival moved for SJ – claiming that Shutes were required to being
suit in FL
§ DC: refused to enforce the forum-selection clause
§ Court of Appeals: affirmed
§ Supreme Court: reversed
• Issue: Should a forum-selection clause contained on cruise tickets be enforced?
• Holding: Yes.
o Forum-selection clauses will not be upheld if there is bad-faith motive,
accession is obtained by fraud or overreaching, or if there was no notice of the
provision.
• Analysis
o they argue that even if they had read the contract, there was no room for
negotiation as to the clause
§ therefore, they argue that there was no consent
o Carnival: in deciding that they will take this cruise, as opposed to many other
available options, they are consenting
o Court Looked at:
§ Carnival had its principal place of business in FL and leaves from FL
ports
o Had they not met the personal jurisdiction, would there have been jurisdiction
in WA?
§ sliding scale – interactive websites, agents selling in the state
§ entered into contract in Washington
ú arises out because factual causal relation but the claim is not a
contractual claim
ú there is a little bit of an issue with minimum contacts
02/12/2008
D. The Constitutional Requirement of Notice
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa

Partial preview of the text

Download Jurisdiction in Civil Law: Cases on Contracts and Venue and more Study notes Commercial Law in PDF only on Docsity!

C. Consent as a Substitute for Power Includes

  • Informed Consent
  • Unconscious Consent
  • Implied Consent
  • Contractual Consent Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute (1991) p.
  • Facts: o Shutes purchased tickets for 7-day cruise through travel agent in Arlington, WA; got on the ship in LA o Face of Ticket: “Subject to conditions of contract on pages 1-3” § one of the clauses stated that all disputes shall be litigated in the State of FL o Ms. Shute slipped and fell – brought negligence suit in USDC for Western District of Washington § Carnival moved for SJ – claiming that Shutes were required to being suit in FL § DC: refused to enforce the forum-selection clause § Court of Appeals: affirmed § Supreme Court: reversed
  • Issue: Should a forum-selection clause contained on cruise tickets be enforced?
  • Holding: Yes. o Forum-selection clauses will not be upheld if there is bad-faith motive, accession is obtained by fraud or overreaching, or if there was no notice of the provision.
  • Analysis o they argue that even if they had read the contract, there was no room for negotiation as to the clause § therefore, they argue that there was no consent o Carnival: in deciding that they will take this cruise, as opposed to many other available options, they are consenting o Court Looked at: § Carnival had its principal place of business in FL and leaves from FL ports o Had they not met the personal jurisdiction, would there have been jurisdiction in WA? § sliding scale – interactive websites, agents selling in the state § entered into contract in Washington ú arises out because factual causal relation but the claim is not a contractual claim ú there is a little bit of an issue with minimum contacts 02/12/ D. The Constitutional Requirement of Notice

Due Process

  • Nexus
  • Notice o FL Long Arm Statute – Subsection (c) What is required to give constitutionally sufficient notice? Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) p.
  • Facts o NY Banking Law §100c provided for accountings of fund to be made 12- 15 months after the establishment of a common trust fund, and then for every three years thereafter § common trust fund: pools small trust estates into one fund for investment administration o Mar 1947, Bank petitioned NY Surrogate's Court for settlement of its first account as common trustee § by this time there were approximately 113 trusts participating in the fund o only notice of the settlement proceedings required by §100c to beneficiaries was by publication despite the fact that many of the beneficiaries lived outside the state of New York. § when the fund had started, however, Bank had sent notice by mail of the future proceedings Mullane was appointed special guardian and attorney for those parties known or unknown who had any interest in the income of the fund, and Vaughan was appointed to represent those parties with interest in the principal. § Mullane appeared specially to object to the statutory provision for notice, claiming that it was inadequate to afford the due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment § TC: overruled objections, overruled by NY SC and NY Ct. of Appeals § US SC: affirmed in part (id/location unknown) and reversed in part (id/location known)
  • Issue: Can a state dispense with notice if the whereabouts of the property owner are known?
  • Holding: No. o The reasonableness, and hence the constitutional validity, of any chosen methods may be defended on the ground that it is in itself reasonably certain to inform those affected, or, where conditions do not reasonable permit such notice, that the form chosen is not substantially less likely to bring home notice than other of the feasible and customary substitutes. § can be inherently reasonably likely to give notice § if that is not possible, has to be as good as any of the other ways to give notice

(B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process. Due Process

  • Nexus o long arm statute o constitutional (minimum contacts/fair play)
  • Notice o Rule 4 o constitutional (reasonableness) Rule 4 – note, only covers summonses (a) what the defendant needs to know to properly defend in the case needs to be contained o this is the basis for the defense insufficient service of process (b) plaintiff is required to carry out service of process (within the statutory period) (c) must be made by someone over the age of 18 and must not be a party (d) waiver of service of process o send form by mail requesting defendant to waive service – would include the request for the waiver and the waiver itself in the mail o this eliminates the requirement for making service of process o why would defendant do this? § defendant has the duty to avoid costs in service of process ú if refusing to waive increases costs, plaintiff can recover the costs from defendant § extends time the defendant has to respond from 20 to 60 days (e) if defendant does not waive, or plaintiff does not ask to waive, must use one of these methods (1) following state laws of where service is made or state where trial will be, or federal methods (k)(1)(a) in the usual cases, reach of jurisdiction of federal district courts is determined by state’s long arm statute (k)(1)(b) 100 mile rule – applies only to parties joined as additional parties o allows assertion of personal jurisdiction, regardless of long arm statute, as long as defendant within 100 miles of the court (k)(1)(c) jurisdiction when authorized by federal statute 02/13/ E. Self-Imposed Restrains on Jurisdictional Power: Long Arm Statutes as a Restraint on Jurisdiction 1. Long Arm Statutes as a Restraint on Jurisdiction Gibbons v. Brown (1998) p.160 (see notes 01/30/2008)

2. Venue as a Further Localizing Principle 28 USC §1331 : The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. - gives jurisdiction to the district courts – all U.S. DC have the power to hear that kind of case (subject matter jurisdiction) 28 USC §1391 : Venue generally (a) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity may be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. o this clause makes clear that this is purely a fall back provision – otherwise, must use (1) or (2) (b) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. o instead of using personal jurisdiction, says where that defendant may be found o corporate, some number of sales, individuals personal service or process (c) Corporation is a resident of any state in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction. - residence is one of the variables for determining venue (d) An alien may be sued in any district. - alien cannot bring suit in any jurisdiction – applies to individuals and foreign corporations - must be subject to personal jurisdiction Problems p.

  1. diversity, so under 1391(a) – resides in So. District of NY so venue is proper there under (a)(1); under (a)(2) if the goods are nonconforming, may be able to sue in New Mexico – would need to know more about the claim and which parts applied; cannot use 1391(a)(3) because (1) definitely, and (2) may applies – there is another place that we can sue
  2. (assuming contract not formed within the US) – contract can only be in fed ct because of diversity so operating under 1391(a)(1); cannot use (a)(1) or (a)(2) so we are under (a)(3) – you can get personal jurisdiction over both in So. Dist. of NY so that would probably be the best place to bring suit

o Corporations can be found where they conduct business – Court finds that there is no evidence in the record that they conduct business in the Eastern District § evidence points to Western District of VA as where business is conducted

3. Declining Jurisdiction: Transfer and Forum Non Conveniens 1404 (a) “where it might have been brought” – where venue would have been proper originally; conditions being interest and convenience - available to all parties 1406: this is what ended up happening in the Dee-K case 1631: allows you to transfer jurisdiction even in the court does not have it a. Forum Non Conveniens Forum Non Conveniens - as opposed to the above transferability regulations, this applies to states as well as federal - only available to defendants (transfer available to both parties) - unlike transferability, requires dismissal – usually comes with condition of requiring defendant to consent to waiving any personal jurisdiction or statute of limits claims - give less discretion to the trial court, more to plaintiff (unless foreign plaintiff) Leading Case: Gilbert - Private Factors: o relative ease of access to sources of proof o availability and costs of obtaining witnesses o possibility of view of premises - Public Factors: o court congestion o local interest in having local trials at home o interest in having diversity case in a forum that is aware of the laws o avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws or in the application of foreign laws o unfairness of burdening citizens of unrelated forum with jury duty 02/18/ Forum non conveniens: used to go from one court system to another; involves a dismissal and a refilling of the case - Available to state court systems and available to federal courts for international matters

  • Are we allowing courts to get rid of cases they don’t want to hear? it is clearly a factor (don’t want foreign plaintiffs using the United States court system when they could do it in their home country) §1404: are we allowing courts to get rid of cases they don’t want to hear? Hopefully it isn’t a factor Piper Aircraft v. Reyno (1981) p.
  • Facts o small commercial aircraft crashed in the Scottish highlands § engine made in PA by Piper, propellers in OH by Hartzell, operated by Scottish air taxi service, and owner was organized in UK where the wreckage from the crash is also located o Reyno appointed administratrix of decedent’s estates – began separate wrongful-death actions against Piper and Hartzell in Superiour Court of CA claiming negligence and strict liability § R admits sued in US because more favorable than Scottish law § Δs removed to federal DC in CA § P then sought transfer to Middle Dist. of PA (where business is) on grounds of convenience and H moved to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction or in alternative to transfer with P ú DC transferred to federal district court in PA § Δs sought to dismiss on grounds of forum non convienens ú DC granted ú 3 rd^ Circuit Court off Appeals Reversed ú Here: Reversed (reaffirmed the dismissal)
  • Issue: Proper forum?
  • Holding: The Court of Appeals erred in holding that plaintiffs may defeat a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law that would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiffs than that of the present forum o Rule: If the alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory and there is no remedy at all, then it may be given substantial weight in the court’s decision to keep it in the American court system (not the case with Scotland) o Rule: Because the central purpose of any forum non conveniens inquiry is to ensure that the trial is convenient, a foreign plaintiff’s choice deserves less deference o Rule: Differences in procedural systems are not a sufficient reason to bar forum non conveniens dismissals o Rule: The fact that two different types of law would be used in this suit is more favorable toward the case being moved to Scotland for Scottish law to try it
  • Analysis

CHAPTER 3: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

A. The Idea and Structure of Subject Matter Jurisdiction If a court doesn’t have it then it renders whatever it does void; Extremely important to have Transcends adversary system; concept of jurisdiction that is so basic that it cannot be waived (structural concept that relates to structural government)

  • Federal government a government of limited powers; true to federal courts
  • If federal courts rendered judgment where they had no subject matter jurisdiction it would affect the state and the individuals as well; therefore it is guarded closely Two Main Categories
  • Federal Question Jurisdiction
  • Diversity Jurisdiction B. Federal Question Jurisdiction Federal Question Jurisdiction:
  • Arising under federal law; applies to the whole case if it arises under federal law o Implication: Includes any related state law
  • Courts have interpreted it broadly as a constitutional matter o Osborn v. United States: all cases of any federal ingredient may be filed in the United States as a federal matter
  • Narrower definition for statutory test with respect to original jurisdiction: § o Language has always been interpreted more narrowly than the constitutional standard § for cases filed originally in the trial court, there has to be a stricter test for cases arising under federal law than the constitutional standard o Congress could change this and say with all cases of any federal ingredient may be filed in the United States as a federal matter, but they have not o Dual insulations: political pressure and broad caseload 02/19/ Louisville& Nashville Railroad v. Mottley (1908) p.
  • Facts o Mottleys were injured in a railway accident; to settle their claims the railroad in 1871 gave them a lifetime pass good for free transportation on the line o Several decades later, Congress, believing that railroads were using free transportation to bribe public officials, made free passes unlawful § the railroad thereupon refused to honor the Mottleys’ passes, citing the new federal legislation o The Mottleys sued in federal court for specific performance, alleging - Δs concede these are the issues

§ (a) that act of Congress referred to does not prohibit the giving of passes under the circumstances of the case; and (statute does not apply) § (b) that if the law is to be construed as prohibiting, it conflicts with the 5th Amendment because it deprives the plaintiffs of their property without due process of law o Federal Trial Court: granted Motleys the requested relief § Defendants appeal to the Supreme Court § SC did not look at the merits – ordered dismissal by circuit court for lack of jurisdiction

  • Issue: Is there a federal question?
  • Holding: No. Although allegations show that very likely, in the course of litigation, a question under the Constitution would arise, they do no show that the suit (ie plaintiff’s original cause of action) arises under the Constitution. o Rule: A suggestion of one party that the other will or may set up a claim under the Constitution or laws of the US does not make the a suit one arising under that Constitution or those law – federal question must be implicated in the original complaint.
  • Analysis: o Neither party raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction – yet, the SC raises it on their own motion § Court will always check to see if their really is a basis for claim to be decided § Why is issue not waived when Δ doesn’t object? FRCP 12(h) § What if the SC decided on the merits and then afterwards, party realizes that there is no subject matter jurisdiction? Can they subsequently bring suit in state court? ú No. Implicitly, by rendering a judgment, the SC must have decided that there was subject matter jurisdiction (even though it may not have been briefed/litigated). o Constitutional Test: Is there any federal issue in the case? § If this was applied, the Court would have subject matter jurisdiction – the only issues are the validity of the contract based on federal law and constitutionality o Here: the Court uses “well pleaded complaint rule” and determines no federal question jurisdiction § Πs are suing for breach of contract seeking specific performance – state law creates the cause of action for breach § the federal issue would come into play in the Δs answer (affirmative defense) § Rule: The federal questions must be properly pleaded in the original complaint to be a federal question; anticipating that they will arise in the defense is not sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction (“arising under...”).