Download Personal Jurisdiction and Subject Matter Jurisdiction in US Courts and more Study notes Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!
I. Overview and Intro to Civil Procedure I..a II. Personal Jurisdiction II..a The Fountainhead II..a..i Pennoyer v. Neff II..a..ii A state court must have personal jurisdiction to bind a defendant to a judgment. In a case where property owned within a state is not in controversy, the defendant is not a resident of that state, the defendant is not personally present within the state, and the defendant has not otherwise authorized service, the state does not have personal jurisdiction and any judgment rendered is void. II..b Consent Statutes II..b..i Hess v. Pawloski II..b..i..1 DF consented to be served in that State because he was driving on their highways. II..b..i..2 A state can enact and enforce regulations designed to protect an important public interest, even against non-residents, as long as the regulations treat residents and non- residents equally. II..c Minimum Contacts II..b..i..3 International Shoe Co. v. Washington II..b..i..3..1 Table Quality of Contacts Quan tity Of Cont acts
Relat ed- give rise to liabili ties sued on
Un- Relate d or uncon nected
Conti nuou s and Syste matic
YES.
Perso nal Jurisd iction
Speci
Gener ally NO….. YES. If soooo contin uous that it
fic Jurisd iction
would be fair to sue you on any action
Gende ral Jurisdi ction if at home other wise NO Singl e or isolat ed conta cts
If really relate d they CAN BE perso nal Jurisd iction -Hess
Speci fic Jurisd iction
NO.
Person al Jurisdi ction
II..b..i..3..2 International shoe are paying Washington residents to work for them (continuous and systematic) and it is related II..b..i..3..3 In order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he is not present within the territory of the forum, he must have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. II..b..i..4 World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson II..b..i..4..1 Family purchased car in NY to drive to AZ got into wreck in OK
II..d..i..5..d The parties’ actual course of dealing II..d..i..5..d..i All four must be evaluated in determining whether the DF purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum II..d..i..6 2 prong purposeful availment test Purposeful Availment
Reasonableness (Fair Play and Substantial Justice) Purposefully avail yourself of minimum contacts
- Cannot be random, fortuitous or attenuated contacts or unilateral activity of another party
- Has to be contacts of the DF himself (use shoe chart) - PL’s interest - Burden on DF - Interest of State - Interstate interest in efficient resolution of controversies - Shared substantive social polices of another state
.a Stream of Commerce .b J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd v. Nicastro .c PL worked on machine manufactured by DF in England. PL seriously injured his hand .d Example for test: II..b..i..3..4 Company A (Indiana) sales their product to company b (ohio) who is their distributor, who sales it to C who is a consumer who lives in TX. C sues A and B in a Texas Court. Do not need to do stream of commerce for B because B sold it directly to C and the state C is in. Only need to do the stream of commerce if they did not directly sale the product to the consumer into that state. Can do it
for A though. As to be at least one step removed. II..b..i..3..5 A (Indiana) designs a Texas long horn shirt specifically for Texas. Again they sale it to B in Ohio who then sales it to C in Texas. There is jurisdiction. It was sold in the forum, designed in the state and it was targeted for the state .e General and Specific Jurisdiction I..b General Jurisdiction II..e Continuous and systematic. Contacts are unrelated. Where company is considered “at home” (examples: corporate head quarters, central place of business) I..c Specific Jurisdiction- stream of commerce argument II..a..iii Affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy-more related-contacts related to lawsuit I..d Personal Jurisdiction II..b..ii Need to split contacts into two groups. Those contacts that are related and those contacts that are unrelated. Then used the contacts that are correct when talking about jurisdiction (specific and general) II..b..iii Each state must enact legislation allowing its courts to exercise personal jurisdiction II..b..iii..a Step1: State Statutory Authorization of Personal Jurisdiction II..b..iii..a..i PJ over people served in the State II..b..iii..a..ii PJ over domiciliaries of the state II..b..iii..a..iii In rem statute II..b..iii..a..iv Long arm statues- main one to worry about- she will give it to us on the test II..b..iii..a..iv..1 Goes to full extent of Due process II..b..iii..a..iv..2 Enumerated List II..d..i..4..b Literally construct it- have to fit into category II..d..i..4..c To go to full extent of due process
II..b..i..6..1 PL in Georgia, ordered a customized truck made by DF in Wisconsin. DF did not deliver correct truck. PL sued under long-arm statute II..b..i..6..2 New York Rule II..d..i..5..d..ii A tort is only deemed to have been committed in a State if the tortuous act is deemed to have been committed there, and not merely the injury resulting therefrom occurred therein II..b..i..6..3 Illinois Rule II..b..i..6..3..a A tort resulting in damage inside the State is deemed to have occurred in the State regardless of where the tortuous act took place.
If there is a personal jurisdiction issue in the federal court look at rule 4K
- Then to state statutory
- In rem-loop in for state statutory-use it if person as property in the state and allows you to get out of the long arm statue- however damages are limited to the property
- Domicilary
- Served in state
- Long arm statues
- Enumerated
- Strictly
- Full extent for due process
- Or just say to full extent
- Then go to Constitution- once here you can argue about other things besides the property you argued about in in rem. - Purposeful availvent-Minimum contract - Specific or general jurisdiction - Relatedness to lawsuit and what the contacts are - Type of case: - Contract-BK case - Product that ended up in another state- Stream of commerce - Maybe talk about Zippo if there is an internet case-passive/active website - Unilateral act of a third party is not a contact of the DF - bilateral act - Reasonableness - 5 factors
If they consent to jurisdiction then do not need to go through the steps above. Then you just use the state statutory.
4k1a to state statutory then to the constitution 4k1b, 4k1c and 4k2 a and b-just go to constitution
.j Due Process Notice Requirements & Statutory Notice Requirements .k Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. .l Notice of service of process must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information, and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance. .m Constitutional Standard of notice II..b..i..3..7 Reasonable calculated to apprise interested parties II..b..i..3..8 Must convey required information II..b..i..3..9 Afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance .n National Dev. Co. v. Triad Holding Corp. I..e Khashoggi had 12 houses all over the world. He was served at his NY home. I..f Sufficient indicia of permanence-Most import to prove I..g 4D-Waiving Serving I..g..a sent out by first class mail I..g..b Have to allow DF 30 days I..g..c Have to allow 60 days if sent outside judicial district of US I..g..d Stick II..b..iii..a..v If person refuses to waive summons then they are responsible for the fees incurred II..b..iii..a..vi Service fees II..b..iii..a..vii Lawyer’s fees I..g..e Carrot II..b..iii..b..ii If you waive service you get extra time- it goes form 21 days to 60 days I..g..f Statute of Limitation I..g..g When do they say service has happened? II..b..iii..a..iv..3 When it is filed
I..i..a..v If you only do a/b or b/ c then the court will allow you time to do A,B and C. III. Subject Matter Jurisdiction I..j Federal District Courts II..i Limited subject matter jurisdiction- only certain cases II..j To file claim has to have II..b..i..7 Constitutional Authorization- Article 3 II..b..iii..b..iii Congress has power to create the lower courts and power to give them jurisdiction II..b..iii..b..iv Judicial power to hear II..b..iii..b..iv..i Federal law jurisdiction II..b..iii..b..iv..ii Between citizens of different states- Diversity II..b..iii..b..iv..iii Between a state or citizens and foreign states- Alienage II..b..i..8 Statutory Authorization-Congress must additionally do this. I..k State/Trial Courts II..a..v General subject matter jurisdiction II..a..vi If can file in state court you need to file with right court. Like traffic court, divorce court, small claims court and general trial court I..l State and Federal Courts II..b..v Concurrent subject matter jurisdiction II..d..i..8 If person satisfies subject matter jurisdiction of both state and federal II..d..i..9 This is the norm I..m Jurisdiction Stripping II..b..i..9 Congress stripping the federal courts of different topics I..n Parties cannot II..d..iii Consent to subject matter jurisdiction II..b..i..6..4 Cannot give the courts power that is unconstitutional II..d..iv Waive subject matter jurisdiction II..b..iii..c Lack of authority so no need to waive II..b..iii..d Any party or court can raise the issue at any time in the case, even after the court has entered judgment II..d..v Can the pl who filed in the Federal court waive the issue or subject matter jurisdiction-----Yes
I..o Diversity Jurisdiction II..b..i..3..10 Strawbridge v. Curtiss II..b..iii..b..v PL’s from Mass sued DFs from Mass. One DF is from Vermont II..b..iii..b..vi No jurisdiction because only one DF is from different state II..b..iii..b..vii § 1332 States II..b..iii..b..vii..a All parties must be completely diverse II..b..iii..b..vii..a..i All DFs have to be from different state than all PLs. II..b..iii..b..vii..a..i..1 PL from Mass, 100 Df from VA and one from Mass. The one DF from Mass ruins complete diversity II..b..iii..b..vii..a..i..2 Minimal diversity II..b..iii..b..vii..a..i..2..a One PL from Mass then have 100 DF from Mass and one from VA. II..b..iii..b..viii Citizenship of people: Domicile II..b..iii..b..ix Citizenship of class action- citizenship of the class representative even if it is only one. II..b..iii..b..ix..a Each of class members must independently meet the jurisdiction amount. I..p Citizenship of Corporations and Associations II..b..i..4..4 Wherever they are incorporated or II..b..iii..a..iv..4 This could be as many states as corporations wants II..b..i..4..5 The principal place of business-PPB- Nerve Center II..b..i..4..6 Citizenships for unincorporated association (entity) II..b..iv..2..iii Include II..b..iv..2..iii..a Partnership II..b..iv..2..iii..b Union II..b..iv..2..iii..c LLC II..b..iv..2..iv Citizens of all states where members are citizens I..q Amount in Controversy and Aggregation Rules I..q..i Pg 212-214,
II..d..i..4..d..a..i..1 In this case they couldn’t address the quite title action unless they talk about the federal tax cod II..d..i..4..d..b Actually disputed II..d..i..4..d..c Substantial (does the Federal Government have an interest) II..d..i..4..d..d Federal court can hear w/o disturbing the congressional distribution of state/federal responsibilities II..d..i..4..d..d..i If there is a federal cause of action II..d..i..4..d..d..i..1 If Yes F 0E 0 then federal question subject matter jurisdiction II..d..i..4..d..d..i..2 If NO F 0E 0 docket shift from state to federal II..d..i..4..d..d..i..2..a If it has a microscopic effect of Federal division/state of labor then yes II..d..i..4..d..d..i..3 If it is going to be a horde of cases then no federal question II..d..i..4..d..d..i..4 If rare then yes federal question II..d..i..11 § 1331 II..d..i..5..f More narrow than arising under Const. Article 3 II..d..i..5..f..a A federal ingredient in the case II..d..i..12 Why do we have federal question jurisdiction- USE II..b..iv..1..d Uniform interpretation II..b..iv..1..e Sympathetic interpretation II..b..iv..1..f More expertise (federal judges) I..s The well-pleaded complaint rule I..g..h Federal rule has to be in complaint I..t Substantial Federal Question embedded in State Law Claim I..u Removal Jurisdiction I..i..b § 1441
II..b..i..6..3..c if it had been filed in federal court it would have had federal subject matter jurisdiction II..b..i..6..3..d Must prove there is a federal cause of action I..i..c Removal II..b..iv..1..a..iv Means removing from state to federal court II..b..iv..1..a..v Have to file a notice of removal in Federal Court (USDC) I..q..i..2..b..iv File in Federal court that encompasses the state court which the case was removed from I..q..i..2..b..v That state court no longer has jurisdiction- can’t do anything II..b..iv..1..a..vi Becomes removable- 30 days II..b..iv..1..a..vi..a For diversity- only have 1 year unless bad faith-doesn’t tell how much more time II..b..iv..1..a..vi..b No time limit for federal question jurisdiction (5,10,15 years) II..b..iv..1..a..vii § 1442 (a)(b)(2) II..b..iv..1..a..viii § 1446 (b)(2)(a)(b)(c) II..b..iv..1..a..ix § 1446 (c)(2)(a)(b) I..i..d Remand II..b..iv..1..b..iii Sending it back to state court II..b..iv..1..b..iv Federal-State II..b..iv..1..b..v Within 30 days of notice II..d..i..4..d..a..ii Anything other then lack of subject matter jurisdiction II..d..i..4..d..a..ii..i Late in filing removal II..d..i..4..d..a..ii..ii Instate DF rule II..d..i..4..d..a..ii..iii All DFs joining notice II..b..iv..1..b..vi For lack of subject matter jurisdiction II..b..iv..1..b..vi..a Can file motion to remand at anytime I..i..e Example I..i..e..1 Pl (Mass) sues Df (OH) for $100, II..d..i..4..d..d..ii Could PL file in OH federal court?
II..b..iii..b..vii..d (2) Substantial part of events giving rise to action/claim II..b..iii..b..vii..e (3) FALL BREAK ONLY- Where DF is subject to personal jurisdiction 1 and 2 cannot work in any judicial district of the US before on 3 II..b..iii..b..vii..f Examples: II..b..iii..b..vii..f..a If there was a state with 4 districts and there was one DF in one district and 2 DF in the 2 nd^ district can they be sued in the third and fourth district? II..b..iii..b..vii..f..a..i No, b/c there has to be a least one DF in district you want to sue in II..b..iii..b..vii..f..b Pl (Mass) involved in accident (Maine) w/ DF (New York) DF is served while in Mass. Is venue correct? II..b..iii..b..vii..f..b..iNo b/c like § 1309 (1): DF can be served in New York and (2): he can be served in Maine II..b..iii..f § 1391 (c)(3) II..b..iii..g Transfer of venue Transferor-USDC Transferee-USDC
1404 Proper Proper (or with consent of all parties) Convenience of
- Parties
- Witnesses and
- Interest of justice 1406 Improper Proper- Personal Jurisdiction & Venue must be proper Goldlawr- can be Goldlawr 1404 or a Goldlawr 1406
No Personal Jurisdiction Proper with Personal Jurisdiction
.o Forum Non Conveniens .p From USDC to Foreign Court .q Remove II..d..vi State F 0E 0 Federal II..d..vii Remand II..d..viii Federal F 0E 0State .r Transfer
II..b..i..3..11 Fed F 0E 0 USDC F 0E 0USDC(whole USA) II..b..i..3..12 State F 0E 0County^ F 0E 0 County (in state) .s Forum Non Conveniens- FNC II..b..i..4..7 Federal F 0E 0Foreign II..b..i..4..8 State F 0E 0 Foreign II..b..i..4..9 State F 0E 0 State .tWhat is the Standard of FNC I..v IS there an alternate forum (DF may waive/consent to make Personal Jurisdiction, etc) where case may be filed I..w Gilbert Factors-Must know for test!!!- District Court I..g..i Private Interest of litigants II..b..iii..a..viiiRelative ease of access to sources of proof II..b..iii..a..ix Availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling (Do not have power to make the Scottish employees show up) II..b..iii..a..x The cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses II..b..iii..a..xi Possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to action (plane crash site, factory where manufactured) II..b..iii..a..xii And all other practical problems that make trial of case easy, expeditious and inexpensive I..g..j Public Interest of Forum II..b..iii..b..x Administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion II..b..iii..b..xi The “local interest in having localized controversies decided at home” II..b..iii..b..xii The interest in having a trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action II..b..iii..b..xiiiThe avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law
II..d..i..17 You cannot contest the merits of the Pl’s claim- you waived it by doing the collateral attack II..d..i..18 There is a question on whether you can use collateral attack on a default judgment where the sole issue is lack of subject matter jurisdiction VI. Pleading (notice pleading for Indiana) II..o The Complaint II..b..i..10 Jurisdiction (8(a)-Short and plain statement) II..b..i..11 Claim II..b..i..12 Prayer (demand for a relief) – seeking relief over the $75,000 limit II..b..iii..h PL can “demand damages in an amount to be shown at trail” II..p Defensive Pleading (Motions and the answer) II..d..x 12(b)(6) II..b..iii..a..xiii not checking for evidence II..b..iii..a..xiv only looks to the face of the complaint II..b..iii..a..xv Point is to determine whether the PL has alleged a claim cognizable by the law II..b..iii..a..xvi Only care if the claim you are stating has legal remedy II..q Amended Pleadings- 15(a) II..b..i..3..13 Can amend the complaint once w/ o court approval II..b..i..3..13..1 Up to 21 days after filing the first complaint or II..b..i..3..13..2 21 days after you receive an answer II..b..i..3..14 Can amend again but need approval by DF’s written consent or courts permission II..b..iii..a..iv..7 Usually courts will allow once amendment as well. II..b..i..3..15 Ashcroft v. Iqbal II..b..i..3..15..1 2 prong approach I..q..i..2..c Identify allegations that are conclusions- NOT entitled to presumptions of truth I..q..i..2..c..i Get rid of legal conclusion and facts that are conclusory
I..q..i..2..d Assuming else is true: determine if plausibly states a claim I..q..i..2..d..i How to determine plausibility? II..d..i..4..d..a..iii Standard II..d..i..4..d..a..iii..a Sufficient factual matter [is entitled to presumption of truth] to allow a court to draw a reasonable inference that DF is liable for misconduct alleged II..d..i..4..d..a..iii..b Merely consistent w/ liability is insufficient [if facts are consistent with either legality or liability- then not enough] II..d..i..4..d..a..iv Context I..q..i..2..a..i..3 Specific I..q..i..2..a..i..3..i Court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense I..q..i..2..a..i..4 Obvious alternative explanation- more likely explanation I..q..i..2..a..i..4..i The DF’s gave them explanation II..r Veracity in Pleadings and other Filings II..b..i..4..11 Voluntary dismissal II..b..i..4..3..e Pl can voluntarily dismiss their case as long as before DF files a response II..b..i..4..3..f After that it has to be agreed by DF- settlement II..b..i..4..12 Involuntary dismissal I..q..i..4 If pl fails to prosecute/fails to try their case II..b..i..4..13 Dismiss w/ prejudice I..i..a..vi Cannot re-file
