Download Civil Procedure Outline: Subject Matter & Diversity Jurisdiction and more Exams Civil Law in PDF only on Docsity!
CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE FULL CIVIL PROCEDURE YEAZELL
SCHWARTZ 10TH EDITION LATEST FINAL EXAM UPDATED FOR 2025-
2026 ACTUAL QUESTIONS WITH 100% CERTIFIED, ELABORATED &
VERIFIED SOLUTIONS TOP SCORE ✓✓ ✓ ACE YOUR EXAMS
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction:
- The physical territory of sovereign.
- The power of a sovereign over a physical territory.
- The power of a court to hear a type of suit (Subject Matter Jurisdiction).
- The power of a court over parties in a suit (Personal Jurisdiction). 1.) Where does that power come from? 2.) What significance, if any, is there in the source of the power? The Illinois Constitution – Article VI Section 9 – Circuit Courts shall have original jurisdiction of ALL justiciable matters except… Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley 211 U.S. 149 (1908) A suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution. It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States, finding it improper to plead that a defense under federal law was anticipated, reversed the judgment and remanded to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§1331: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
Diversity Jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. §§1332:
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between:
- Citizens of different States;
- Citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state. Diversity citizenship :
- Where a person is domiciled (resides); 2) With the intent to remain indefinitely. Citizenship :
- Where a person resides;
- With the intent to remain indefinitely. A party’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is determined at the time the action is filed , and not at the time the claim arises. 28 U.S.C. §§1332 requires “complete diversity,” all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants, Strawbridge v. Curtis. Diversity? P- 1 (CA) D-1 (NY) P- 2 (NY) D-2 (NY) BUT Only minimal diversity (any plaintiff diverse from any defendant) is required for class action suits in which the amount in controversy EXCEEDS $5,000,000, §1332(d)(2)(A)- (C) ( The Class Action Fairness Act , CAFA) §1369 – Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction, requires only minimal diversity between adverse parties for mass torts from a single accident where at least 75 persons have died. The Interpleader Act, §1335 requires only minimal diversity between any two claimants. 28 U.S.C. §§1332(a) … civil actions … between – (1) Citizens of different States; (2) Citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except [between a citizen of a state and a PRA domiciled in same state]. (3) Citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are addition parties; and (4) A foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States. Pg 244 # 1.) P-1 (Mexico) D-1 (Japan) Neither party is a citizen of a state. 2.) P-1 (CA) D-1 (Mexico)
- Two plaintiffs with claims that are separate and distinct may not aggregate their claims.
- If one plaintiff meets the amount and another does not, they may sue together if their claims arise from the “same case or controversy.”
YES
P (FL) v. D (NJ) in NJ state court; Personal injury claim. **NO §1441(b)(2)
- A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title MAY NOT be removed if ANY of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.** As the last one, except P also brings federal civil rights claim. YES P (FL) v. A (NJ) and B (NY) in NY state court; Personal injury claim. NO P (PA) v. D (GA) $100,000 tort claim filed in PA court. Can D remove if her notice of removal is filed two months after being served? NO Six months later, P amends his complaint and now seeks $85,000. May D now remove? YES If D sought to remove, could P have the case remanded to state court by stipulating she would seek less than $75,000? NO If P’s complaint seeks $10,000, may D remove if she believes that if found liable, which she denies, the recovery would be far in excess of $75,000? The sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy. P (PA) v. D (GA) $10,000 tort claim filed in PA court. More than a year after filing, P amends his complaint and now seeks $85,000. May D remove? NO D seeks now to remove alleging P now at the time of filing the case was worth more than $100k. Acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action. §1442 – Civil and criminal actions against federal agencies or officers may be removed. §1453 – CAFA class action may be removed, AND the following shall not apply :
- 1 - year limitation
- Prohibition on in-state defendants
- Consent of all defendants §1445 – Suits against railroads, workers comp, VAWA, etc. may not be removed. Diversity Summary
- No amount in controversy for Federal Question; > $75,000 for diversity, but not required by Article III.
- Complete diversity required by §1332, but not required by Article III.
- No removal if any defendant is a citizen of the state where the action was brought, §1441(b)(2).
- One-year limitation on removal after amendment, §1446(c)(1).
Personal Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction – The power to render a binding judgment in a case:
- The subject matter of the case. o Federal courts – limited subject matter jurisdiction. o State courts – general subject matter jurisdiction.
- The person of the defendant. Pennoyer v. Neff 95 U.S. 714 (1877) Since the adoption of U.S. Const. amend. XIV, the validity of judgments against persons who have not been personally summoned or had notice of the proceeding may be directly questioned, and their enforcement in the State resisted, on the ground that proceedings in a court of justice to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom that court has no jurisdiction do not constitute due process of law. The judgment from the underlying action was invalid since the plaintiff was a non-resident of the state in which the action was brought and was not personally served. The validity of judgments against persons who have not been personally summoned or had notice of the proceeding may be directly questioned, and their enforcement in the State resisted, on the ground that proceedings in a court of justice to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom that court has no jurisdiction do not constitute due process of law. Two well-established principles of public law respecting jurisdiction: 1.) “… every State possess exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory. 2.) “no State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without its territory. Power over Persons and Property Within the Physical Jurisdiction:
- Persons – Personal Service of process within the territory ( in personam ).
has incurred there. Hence, we cannot say that the maintenance of the present suit in the State of Washington involves an unreasonable or undue procedure. It is enough that appellant established such contacts with the state that the particular form of substituted service adopted there gives reasonable assurance that the notice will be actual. “Certain Minimum Contacts” Imagine a corporation (GreatBigCorp) located in state X. It has its headquarters and manufacturing plants there.
- Would it violate Due Process for GBC to be sued in X for breaching a contract entered in X, with a person from X, to be performed in X? PERSONAL JURISDICTION
- Would it violate Due Process for GBC to be sued in Y for breaching a contract in entered in X, with a person from X, to be performed in X? GBC has no office in Y, but has conducted a deal in Y that is unrelated to the suit. NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION
- Would it violate Due Process for GBC to be sued in X, over something related to an entirely different business venture in Y? GENERAL PERSONAL JURISDICTION
- Would it violate Due Process for GBC to be sued in Y, where it recently opened a branch office to explore an entirely new business venture, if the suit is for breaching a contract in entered in Y, with a person from Y, and the contract to be performed in Y? SPECIFIC PERSONAL JURISDICTION
- The extent of D’s activities within the forum, and
- The relation to those activities to P’s claim
General Personal Jurisdiction Continuous and systematic activities in the forum state. Specific Personal Jurisdiction Single or isolated activity in the forum state McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. 355 U.S. 220 (1957) When a state court's jurisdiction is based on a contract that has a substantial connection with another state, due process is satisfied. In other words, a state court can enforce a judgment from another state, if there are "minimum contacts" with their own state. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgment of the Texas court of civil appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not preclude the California court from entering a judgment binding on International because McGee's suit was based on a contract that had a substantial connection with California. The insurance policy was delivered in California, the premiums were mailed from there, and Franklin, the insured, was a resident of California when he died. There was no contention that International did not have adequate notice of the suit or sufficient time to prepare its defenses and appear. Hanson v. Denckla
In Rem – Two parties claim title to land or ownership of a chattel. The suit decided who is awarded property. Quasi in Rem – The suit is not about the “rem.” Instead, the property within a state is attached as a means of asserting power over the owner, most often when the owner can not be found for service. Harris v. Balt: attachment of intangibles a basis for jurisdiction ( Quasi in Rem )
- Quasi in rem seizes a defendant’s property to assert power to resolve a claim unrelated to the property.
- Intangible property, such as debts, can be attached and serve as the basis for quasi in rem jurisdiction.
- Harris v. Balk acts as a substitute for in personam jurisdiction when a defendant is not physically present in the state for service.
- BUT – A person’s intangible property could travel to a state with which they have no connection (“minimum contacts”) and serve as a basis for quasi in rem jurisdiction. Shaffer v. Heitner 433 U.S. 186 The relationship among a defendant, the forum, and the litigation, rather than the mutually exclusive sovereignty of the states is the central concern of the inquiry into the constitutionality of an exercise of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment. In support of its ruling, the Court held that the minimum contacts test of International Shoe should have been applied to assertions of in rem as well as in personam jurisdiction. The Court noted that defendants' seized property did not have sufficient contacts with the state to support Delaware's assertion of jurisdiction over defendants. The Court further held that defendants had neither purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within the state, nor had any reason to expect to be brought before a Delaware court. Understanding Shaffer
- Nonresidents cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction based on the attachment of property that is unrelated to the suit.
- No more quasi in rem.
- For out of state persons, as well as corps, look to Int. Shoe minimum contacts’ test.
- States continue to have in rem. Example: You live in IL. You inherit a cabin and several acres in MN. You have never been to MN. You’re involved in two lawsuits, in both of which your new property plays a role.
- Neighbor child is injured on your property in MN. Suit in MN for attractive nuisance.
What role, if any, does your MN cabin play in establishing jurisdiction in MN?
- A minimum contact? YES
- Related to the claim? YES
- Does attachment matter? NO Personal Jurisdiction in MN
- You are in an auto accident in IL. P files suit in MN. What role, if any, does your MN cabin play in establishing jurisdiction in MN?
- A minimum contact? YES
- Related to the claim? NO
- Does attachment matter? NO No Personal Jurisdiction in MN World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson 444 U.S. 286 (1980) A state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum State. The concept of minimum contacts, in turn, can be seen to perform two related, but distinguishable, functions. It protects the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Supreme Court of Oklahoma's judgment denying defendants' petition for a writ of prohibition. The Court held that a state court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there existed minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state. The defendant's contacts with the forum state must be such that maintenance of the suit did not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, and the relationship between the defendant and the forum must be such that it was reasonable to require the defendant to defend the particular suit which is brought there. In the instant case, the Court ruled, there was a total absence in the record of those affiliating circumstances that were a necessary predicate to any exercise of state-court jurisdiction. Defendants carried on no activity whatsoever in Oklahoma; they closed no sales and performed no services there, availed themselves of none of the benefits of Oklahoma law, and solicited no business there either through salespersons or through advertising reasonably calculated to reach that state.
- WWVW establishes that for the sale of goods, “purposefully availed” means where the seller/producer, etc. has: o Directed activities o With the intent to market its product , o So that it can reasonably anticipate being hauled into court there.
entered into a contract and established a substantial and continuing relationship with the appellant, a Florida resident. The Court further found that the appellee had fair notice that he might be subject to suit in Florida. The court further found that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend due process and reversed the holding of the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings. McIntyre v. Nicastro 564 U.S. 873 The United States Supreme Court has stated that a defendant's placing goods into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers within the forum State may indicate purposeful availment. But that statement does not amend the general rule of personal jurisdiction. It merely observes that a defendant may in an appropriate case be subject to jurisdiction without entering the forum -- itself an unexceptional proposition -- as where manufacturers or distributors "seek to serve" a given State's market. The principal inquiry in cases of this sort is whether the defendant's activities manifest an intention to submit to the power of a sovereign. In other words, the defendant must purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Sometimes a defendant does so by sending its goods rather than its agents. The defendant's transmission of goods permits the exercise of jurisdiction only where the defendant can be said to have targeted the forum; as a general rule, it is not enough that the defendant might have predicted that its goods will reach the forum State. In products-liability cases, it was a defendant's purposeful availment that made jurisdiction consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The transmission of goods permitted the exercise of jurisdiction only where the defendant targeted the forum; generally, it was not enough that it might have predicted its goods would reach the forum State. The manufacturer directed marketing and sales efforts at the U.S., but the question was whether the New Jersey state court had the authority to exercise jurisdiction; thus, it was the manufacturer's purposeful contacts with New Jersey, not with the U.S., that alone were relevant. The manufacturer had no office in New Jersey; it neither paid taxes nor owned property there; and it neither advertised in, nor sent any employees to, the State. It did not have a single contact with New Jersey short of the product in question ending up in New Jersey. The Supreme Court of New Jersey's holding was error.
- “Respondent has not established that J. McIntyre engaged in conduct purposefully directed at New Jersey .”
- “The facts may reveal an intent to serve the U.S. market, but they do not show that J. McIntyre purposefully availed itself of the New Jersey Market … ”
- “ At no time did petitioner engage in any activities in New Jersey that reveal an intent to invoke or benefit from the protection of its laws.”
- “ New Jersey is without power to adjudge the rights and of J. McIntyre, and its exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process .”
What Does McIntyre Stand For? No Jurisdiction. A foreign company which has sold a machine in the US through an independent distributor has not purposefully availed the forum. To be subject to jurisdiction, Δ must have directed activities at the marketplace. No jurisdiction on these facts, but the next case could be different. Dissent - It is fair to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer who treated the US “as a single market.” It should not be able to hide behind an independent distributor. Abdouch v. Lopez 285 Neb. 718 (2013) Personal jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to subject and bind a particular entity to its decisions. Before a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the court must determine, first, whether the long-arm statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-536(Reissue 2008), is satisfied and, if the long-arm statute is satisfied, second, whether minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state for personal jurisdiction over the defendant without offending due process. The court concluded that plaintiff's complaint failed to plead facts to demonstrate that defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Nebraska. Defendants could not have anticipated being haled into a Nebraska court for their online advertisement. Although the website used to post the advertisement was interactive, the contacts created by the website were unrelated to plaintiff's cause of action. Furthermore, the pleadings failed to establish that defendants uniquely or
to render them essentially at home in the forum State. Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, depends on an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State's regulation. In contrast to general, all-purpose jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction. Endeavoring to give specific content to the "fair play and substantial justice" concept, the Supreme Court has classified cases involving out-of-state corporate defendants. First, jurisdiction unquestionably could be asserted where the corporation's in-state activity is "continuous and systematic" and that activity gave rise to the episode-in-suit. Further, the commission of certain "single or occasional acts" in a State may be sufficient to render a corporation answerable in that State with respect to those acts, though not with respect to matters unrelated to the forum connections. The heading courts today use to encompass these two International Shoe categories is "specific jurisdiction." Adjudicatory authority is "specific" when the suit arises out of or relates to the defendant's contacts with the forum.
- “A court may assert general jurisdiction… when their affiliations with the state are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum state.” The issue in this case was the difference to be made between the two kinds of personal jurisdiction, that is, general and specific. General jurisdiction means the state has authority to allow any claim against a defendant provided the defendant has organized and continuous relationship with the state. Specific jurisdiction means the state has authority to hear a claim against a defendant only in a specific instance where the state is connected to the subject of the claim. In the present case, as the accident and the manufacturer of the tire were both out of North Carolina, the state has no connection with the subject of the claim and hence has no specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction also could not be allowed because of the stream-of-commerce exception. Daimler AG v. Bauman 571 U.S. 117 (2014) All-purpose jurisdiction speaks of instances in which the continuous corporate operations within a state are so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities. Accordingly, the inquiry is whether that corporation’s affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the forum State. The corporation's slim contacts with the state were not so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation essentially at home in the state and subject to suit in the state for claims of the foreign residents for conduct which did not occur in or impact the state. Further, neither the corporation nor the U.S. subsidiary were incorporated or had a principal place of business in the state, which were paradigm bases for general jurisdiction, and the transnational context of the dispute implicated risks to international comity from the broad assertion of general jurisdiction.
- Sufficient contacts for “all-purpose jurisdiction” o Tens of thousands of cars sold o Billions of dollars of sales o Sales service and customer support
- “Jurisdiction would be unreasonable ” o “foreign plaintiffs suing foreign defendant based on foreign conduct.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) In order for a state court to exercise specific jurisdiction, the suit must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum. In other words, there must be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, an activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State’s regulation. For this reason, specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction. The state court's exercise of specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment limited a state court's personal jurisdiction such that a suit had to arise out of, or relate to the, defendant's contacts with the forum. California state courts lacked specific jurisdiction over nonresidents' state-law claims alleging injuries caused by drug manufactured by the corporation, which was incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, with substantial operations in New York and New Jersey. There was no adequate link between California and the claims. The nonresident consumers did not purchase or ingest the drug in California, they were not injured by the drug in California, and the fact that others were prescribed, obtained, and ingested the drug in California did not warrant specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims. Burnham v. Superior Court 495 U.S. 604 (1990) A court can take jurisdiction based on physical presence alone. A state court's assertion of personal jurisdiction satisfies the Due Process Clause if it does not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Deviations are permissible, but only with respect to suits arising out of an absent defendant's contacts with a state. The Court held that the forum state had personal jurisdiction over the husband in the pending divorce action because the requisite minimum contacts were satisfied by the husband’s physical presence in the forum, even if on unrelated matters. Due process was satisfied because service of process occurred while the husband was in the forum.
