Download Jurisdiction and Venue in Civil Actions and more Exams Civil Engineering in PDF only on Docsity!
Civil Procedure Outline Full Civil Procedure
Yeazell Schwartz 10th Edition| All Chapters
Covered| Rated A+
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);
- 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 ü 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) ü §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. ü 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.
Diversity – Amount in Controversy 28 U.S.C. §§ (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-
- A single plaintiff may aggregate unrelated claims
- 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.”
28 U.S.C. §§
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction , the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties. § A (IL) B (IL) Federal civil rights: wrongful discharge § State law: wrongful discharge X State law: tort in the parking lot (c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if –
- The claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
- The claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
- The district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
- In exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ (a) Generally.—Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. (a) Removal based on diversity of citizenship.— 1) In determining whether a civil action is removable on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.
- 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.
P (FL) v. D (NJ) in FL state court; $100,000 personal injury claim. YES P (FL) v. D (NJ) in NJ state court; Personal injury claim. NO 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. **§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.**
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 ).
- Property – Constructive Notice: publication and attachment prior to judgment (in rem). Pennoyer in Action A files suit in MN A (MN) v. B (ND) (owns land in MN) B served in ND, moves to dismiss in MN.
- B’s motion to dismiss granted – no personal service in MN = NO PJ B served in ND, defaults and challenges in ND enforcement action.
- B’s collateral attack granted – no person service in MN = PJ B served in MN, moves to dismiss in MN.
- B’s motion to dismiss denied – personal service in MN = PJ B served in MN, defaults, challenges in ND enforcement action.
- B’s collateral attack denied – personal service in MN = PJ A attaches B’s land in MN, gets judgment. B tries to enjoin sale.
- B’s motion to enjoin sale denied – IN REM IF,… Constructive notice provided. A serves B by publication without attaching B’s land, gets default judgment; B challenges ND enforcement action.
- B’s collateral attack granted – no attachment in MN – NO IN REM International Shoe Co. v. Washington 326 U.S. 310 (1945) Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam , if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."
The activities carried on in the state of Washington on behalf of the Corporation were neither irregular nor casual. They were systematic and continuous throughout the years in question. They resulted in a large volume of interstate business, in the course of which appellant received the benefits and protection of the laws of the state, including the right to resort to the courts for the enforcement of its rights. The obligation which is here sued upon arose out of those very activities. It is evident that the operations of the salesmen in Washington established sufficient contacts or ties with the state to make it reasonable and just, according to traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice, to permit the state to enforce the obligations which appellant 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
Hanson v. Denckla 357 U.S. 235 (1958) A defendant cannot be called upon to defend an action in a different State unless they have “minimal contacts,” with that State. 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. Florida courts lacked jurisdiction in rem over the action involving the trust, since the trust situs was in another state, and that those courts also lacked jurisdiction in personam over the trustee because there were no minimum contacts with Florida prerequisite to the exercise of power over him. And, since it was found that under Florida law a trustee is an indispensable party over whom the Florida court must acquire jurisdiction before it has power to enter judgment in a proceeding affecting the validity of the trust, the Florida decree was held of no effect, and not entitled to full faith and credit in Delaware. McGee – mailed contract to CA leading to continuous payments from CA to TX. International Shoe – Employed salespersons within the forum state. BUT Hanson – DE bank did nothing purposefully directed at FL, no “certain minimum contact.” In order to determine “certain minimum contacts, consider:
- The extent of D’s contracts within the forum.
- Has D “ purposely availed ” itself of the forum.
- The relation of those activities to P’s claim.
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.
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. Further Refining Minimum Contacts JURISDICTION
- International Shoe o 11 - 13 salespersons in the state soliciting orders for sales of shoes in suit about UC tax for the salespersons.
- McGee o Insurance contract mailed to state to insure in-state person in suit about claim on policy. NO JURISDICTION
- Hanson o Defendant’s connections with must be as a result of defendant having “purposefully availed” itself of the forum, and not by the “unilateral” activity of plaintiff.
- WWVW o A product in a state through no action of defendant does not allow jurisdiction. Defendant must have directed activities at the forum state , with the intent to market its product , so that it can reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. Illinois Long Arm Statute – 735 ILCS §2-209: Act submitting to jurisdiction—Process. (a) Any person, … who … does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits … to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any such acts: (1) The transaction of any business within this State; (2) The commission of a tortious act within this State; (3) The ownership, use, or possession of any real estate situated in this State; (4) Contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this State at the time of contracting; (5) – (14)
Burger King v. Rudzewicz 471 U.S. 462 (1985) Once it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum state, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice. The United States Supreme Court held that Florida courts had jurisdiction under the Florida long-arm statute because a party that avails itself of the protections and benefits of the law of a forum state is subject to personal jurisdiction of that state. The Court found that the appellees had 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.
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 expressly aimed their tortious conduct at Nebraska. Personal jurisdiction over defendants could not be created by a telephone call from plaintiff's representative to the owner. Such contact was insufficient for personal jurisdiction purposes. Minimum Contacts & the Internet Zippo “Sliding Scale”
- Conducting Business – PJ o Entering contracts
- Interactive – IT DEPENDS o Exchange information o Weigh- § Level of interactivity § Commercial nature
- Passive – NO PJ o Posts information Calder “Effects Test”
- Calder – PJ because Effects of intentional tort aimed at CA, where Jones lived and worked. o “D expressly aimed it’s tortious conduct at the forum …” o “… acts are performed for the very purpose of having consequences felt in the forum state.”
- Fiore – NO PJ because no “intentional contact” intended to cause harm in forum.
General Jurisdiction
For individuals:
- Domicile
- Can be sued on ALL claims, including unrelated claims. For corporations:
- Principal place of business & state of incorporation.
- Can be sued on all claims, including unrelated claims. Goodyear-Dunlop v. Brown 564 U.S. 915 (2011) Opinions in the wake of the pathmarking International Shoe decision have differentiated between general or all-purpose jurisdiction, and specific or case-linked jurisdiction. A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so "continuous and systematic" as 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.
