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

Civil Law Jurisdiction: Contacts, Specific Jurisdiction, Transfer & Forum Non Conveniens, Study notes of Law

Law

An overview of the legal concepts of personal jurisdiction and minimum contacts in civil law. It covers various cases, including Pennoyer v. Neff, International Shoe v. Washington, McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., Hanson v. Denckla, Schaffer v. Heitner, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, and Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court. the different types of jurisdiction, such as in rem, quasi in rem, general jurisdiction, and specific jurisdiction. It also discusses the concepts of minimum contacts, purposeful availment, and forum non conveniens. useful for university students studying civil procedure, law, or jurisdiction.

Typology: Study notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/12/2022

ekadant
ekadant 🇺🇸

4.3

(32)

267 documents

1 / 11

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Pennoyer v. Neff
- “Collateral Attack” - legal challenge on a different prior case
- “Full Faith and Credit” - all states recognizing judgments made in other states on specific case
- 3 Types of In Rem
- In Rem - using land that the claim is based on - still somewhat used to help get juris
- Quasi In Rem - unrelated land as a stand in for personal service in state - Overturned
- 5 ways to get jurisdiction
- Attach property - quasi in rem - no longer valid
- Service in state - easiest and still effective way
- Resident - D is a resident of the state where claim is brought
- Agent/Representative - D appoints someone to stand in for their in state service
- Voluntary - D shows up to answer claim and volunteers personal juris
MINIMUM CONTACTS
International Shoe v. Washington
- “Minimum contacts” - if someone benefits from laws/protection in state, may have pers juris
- “Traditional Notions of Substantial Justice and Fair Play” - must be fair amount of contacts
- “General Jurisdiction” - juris over D irrespective of nature of claim - any case
- “Specific Jurisdiction” - D’s activity in the forum state enough in relation to actual claim
McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.
- Single, isolated activity (contract/payments) maybe enough for min contacts if substantial enough
- State has a high interest in protecting the rights of citizens, especially against corporations
Hanson v. Denckla
- “Purposeful availment” - D must avail itself of privilege and benefits/protections of forum state
- Not sufficient to have unilateral contacts on behalf of P toward D
- Cannot contract with someone, move to other state and send payments, then sue in new state
Schaffer v. Heitner
- Applies minimum contacts of Shoe to “in rem” as well as “in personam” cases - just a contact
- Only “in rem” remaining to get juris on its own is if the property itself is in dispute
SPECIFIC JURISDICTION
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
- Insufficient contacts - no selling, advertising, other activity in state
- Contacts must be enough for D to reasonably anticipate being haled to court there
- Mere “stream of commerce” or “foreseeability” is not sufficient on their own for personal juris
Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court
- Minimum contacts not enough, must consider “fair play” factors
- Stream of commerce vs. stream of commerce plus - SOC not enough without extra (ads, support)
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa

Partial preview of the text

Download Civil Law Jurisdiction: Contacts, Specific Jurisdiction, Transfer & Forum Non Conveniens and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Pennoyer v. Neff

  • “Collateral Attack” - legal challenge on a different prior case
  • “Full Faith and Credit” - all states recognizing judgments made in other states on specific case
  • 3 Types of In Rem
    • In Rem - using land that the claim is based on - still somewhat used to help get juris
    • Quasi In Rem - unrelated land as a stand in for personal service in state - Overturned
  • 5 ways to get jurisdiction
    • Attach property - quasi in rem - no longer valid
    • Service in state - easiest and still effective way
    • Resident - D is a resident of the state where claim is brought
    • Agent/Representative - D appoints someone to stand in for their in state service
    • Voluntary - D shows up to answer claim and volunteers personal juris MINIMUM CONTACTS International Shoe v. Washington
  • “Minimum contacts” - if someone benefits from laws/protection in state, may have pers juris
  • “Traditional Notions of Substantial Justice and Fair Play” - must be fair amount of contacts
  • “General Jurisdiction” - juris over D irrespective of nature of claim - any case
  • “Specific Jurisdiction” - D’s activity in the forum state enough in relation to actual claim McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.
  • Single, isolated activity (contract/payments) maybe enough for min contacts if substantial enough
  • State has a high interest in protecting the rights of citizens, especially against corporations Hanson v. Denckla
  • “Purposeful availment” - D must avail itself of privilege and benefits/protections of forum state
  • Not sufficient to have unilateral contacts on behalf of P toward D
  • Cannot contract with someone, move to other state and send payments, then sue in new state Schaffer v. Heitner
  • Applies minimum contacts of Shoe to “in rem” as well as “in personam” cases - just a contact
  • Only “in rem” remaining to get juris on its own is if the property itself is in dispute SPECIFIC JURISDICTION World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
  • Insufficient contacts - no selling, advertising, other activity in state
  • Contacts must be enough for D to reasonably anticipate being haled to court there
  • Mere “stream of commerce” or “foreseeability” is not sufficient on their own for personal juris Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court
  • Minimum contacts not enough, must consider “fair play” factors
  • Stream of commerce vs. stream of commerce plus - SOC not enough without extra (ads, support)

Fair play factors

  • Burden on D - more important for individuals than for corporations
  • Interest of forum - protecting citizens and corporations in state
  • Interest of P - everyone prefers their own forum - usually not too strong
  • Interstate judicial system - is forum better, more efficient, cheaper, state law undecided so far
  • Substantive social policy - hardly ever used Burger King v. Rudziewicz
  • Example of minimum contacts then applying fair play - forum interest, interstate interest
  • MUST have minimum contacts before considering fair play factors Pavlovich v. Superior Ct.
  • “Effects test” - if you can 4C effects in forum state even if action is in different state
  • Non-interactive passive websites are not enough to satisfy minimum contacts GENERAL JURISDICTION Coastal Video Comm Corp. v. Staywell
  • Must have “general jurisdiction” because P bringing declaratory action w/out action by D
  • To have general juris, actions/contacts must be enough to approx physical presence by D
  • Interactive website, ads, soliciting, email exchange all may be enough Burnham v. Superior Court
  • Physical presence in the state is enough for juris regardless of minimum contacts - service in state CONSENT TO JURISDICTION Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute
  • P can expressly consent to pers juris to all claims from contractual relationship via forum clause
  • Fairness: notice of clause, no bad faith, no advantage to stronger party, negotiable (adhesion) NOTICE Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank
  • Notice must be by best means possible, personal contact if addresses known (mail may be ok)
  • If not personal notice party must be adequately represented by someone else in front of court Rule 4
  • D can waive personal service and accept service by mail - benefits:
    • 60 days instead of 20 to respond
    • Helps D avoid cost of service
  • Personal service may be to indiv, someone >18 at indiv house, or via agent LONG ARM STATUTE
  • State may have a LAS to limit but NOT extend the bounds of 14th^ amendment (due process)

Federal Question - Section 1331

  • Jurisdiction for any issue “arising under” the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the USA
  • Well pleaded complaint must arise out of fed ?, not ok if state? and fed? might be brought up Diversity Jurisdiction - Section 1332
  • Must have complete diversity - no P shares citizenship with any D
  • Amount in controversy must exceed $75,
  • Citizenship of state is decided by domicile: (1) residence, AND (2) intent to remain
  • Diversity exists between:
    1. Citizens of different states
    2. Citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state
    3. Citizens of different states and foreign subjects as additional parties
    4. A foreign state as P and citizens of a state or of different states
  • Alien admitted for permanent residence considered a citizen of state where domiciled
    • Not ok to have a dispute involving only foreign litigants
  • Can aggregate money claims if only one P and one D, and cases may be unrelated
    • Counterclaims don’t count toward the amount in controversy
  • Domicile determined at time action is filed (not when action occurs)
  • Unincorporated association is a citizen of every state where a member is resident
    • Doesn’t matter if sued as an entity or individually (if every state, no fed ct diversity) Supplemental Jurisdiction - Section 1367
  • If case has original jurisdiction (not diversity) supp if other claims of “same case or controversy”
  • Must be of same “common nucleus of facts”
  • May be denied if:
    1. Claim raises novel or complex issue of state law
    2. Claim substantially predominates claim for original juris
    3. All original jurisdiction claims have been dismissed
    4. Judicial discretion - judicial economy, convenience, and fairness *** ASK ABOUT 1367(b) SUPP JURIS IN DIVERSITY Removal - Section 1441
  • Allows D to remove case from state court to nearest federal court if original jurisdiction exists
  • Removal is not allowed if diversity is used and any D is a citizen of the state
  • If supp claims not federal are brought with federal in state court, all claims may be removed
    • assuming they arise out of same case or controversy ERIE PROBLEM
  • Rules used to determine application of state law while in federal court on diversity
  • Rules and Decision Act says to apply the “laws of the several states...where they apply”
  • Swift v. Tyson interprets this as state statutes but not state common law Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
  • No such thing as a “general” federal common law to trump state common law
  • Fed court must apply state statutes and common law unless federal? or const issue
  • Order: state statute -> state highest common law -> Erie guess of what to apply
  • Erie guess: what fed ct. thinks state Sup Ct would do - lower state cases, pose? to state SC
  • Apply substantive law of states but procedural rules of federal Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
  • State SOL had run but not federal SOL - should they apply state procedure in this case? Yes
  • “Outcome-determinative” - applying federal procedure rule signif affects outcome of case
    • Case could not be heard in state court so should not be heard in federal
  • Hypo: If OD is based on federal rule, OK to apply federal rule - parties can use state court
  • Federal rules may restrict the state rules but cannot extend the state rules
    • If SOL runs in fed, fed can apply it, but if SOL runs in state fed cannot allow case
    • Federal court cannot grant more power than what state would have granted Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative
  • If case is not outcome-determinative ok to apply a federal “procedural” rule Hanna v. Plumer
  • If a FRCP is on point, it should be used unless unconstitutional
  • Only unconstitutional if violating Rules Enabling Act - fed ct wrote rules and decides const
  • If not FRCP, is outcome determinative something to promote forum shopping?
    • If not affecting forum shopping, apply federal rule
  • Modified outcome determinative test PLEADING Stating a Claim - Rule 8(a), 8(e), and 10
  • Claim shall contain:
    1. Short and plain allegation of jurisdiction - not needed if already established
    2. Short and plain statement of claim showing entitlement of relief
    3. Demand for judgment for the relief
  • Pleadings must be simple, concise, and direct - no technical - for D to know claim - “notice”
  • Party may state as many claims/defenses as they want regardless of consistency
  • One bad claim cannot negate effect of other good claims
  • If pleading is improper - usually dismiss with leave to amend
  • Forms of pleadings in Rule 10 - party names, paragraphs, spacing, exhibits Ethical Limitations - Rule 11
  • How to serve Rule 11
    1. Serve party with motion for sanctions under Rule 11
    2. Wait 21 days for other party to remedy the Rule 11 violation
    3. If not remedied, file motion with the courts
  • Rule 11 only applies to written documents not oral statements
  • Rule 11 only applies to pleadings, not to discovery
  • Sanctions awarded must fairly reflect the sanctionable conduct - ex. throwing barbies not sanc Special Pleading - Rule 9(b), (g)
  • Impleading possible by D if 3rd^ party D is liable to D for actions brought against D by P
  • 3rd^ party D may then implead to another person if liability exists - may use indemnity
  • 3rd^ party D may file counterclaims against D under Rule 13
  • 3rd^ party D may file cross-claims against other 3rd^ party D under Rule 13
  • 3rd^ party D may file claims against P if arising out of same transaction or occurrence Compulsory Joinder - Rule 19
  • Joinder of parties compelled if judgment would be compromised by not having party
  • Necessary party must be joined if feasible, parties are necessary if:
    • Complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties
    • Absent party’s ability to protect interest is impaired or impeded
    • May subject those already parties to risk of multiple inconsistent obligations
  • Joinder feasible only if new party has both personal and SMJ and doesn’t make venue improper
  • If not feasible, must determine if party is indispensable, considerations are:
    • Extent where absence is prejudicial to party or existing parties
    • Extent prejudice can be lessened or avoided by protective provisions or shaping relief
    • Whether judgment will be adequate without absent party
    • Whether P will have an adequate remedy if action is dismissed Intervention - Rule 24
  • 24(a) - intervention of right - court must let you in, but can’t compel you
    1. Intervention must be timely
    2. Must have interest in property or transaction of suit
    3. Interest must be in some way at strong risk
    4. No one already adequately representing their interests in the case
  • 24(b) - permissive intervention - under court’s discretion to allow you in
    • party has a question of law or fact in common
  • Failure to intervene does not preclude you from bringing the same action later - not a party Interpleader - Rule 22 and Section 1335, 1397, 2361
  • Interpleader involves two or more claimants to specific property or monetary fund
  • Helps D avoid multiple lawsuits relating to same claim by sticking to one lawsuit
  • Rule 22 is like narrower version of Rule 19 - need complete diversity, $75,
  • Statutory offers some advantages:
    • Nationwide service for personal jurisdiction - 2361
    • Minimum diversity - only two claimants must be from different states - 1335
    • Amount in controversy - only need over $500 in question - 1335
    • Can be brought in any state where one or more D’s reside - 1397
  • Minimum diversity means only two Ds from different states
  • If all claimants are from the same state - use Rule 22 instead of statutory Class Action - Rule 23
  • 23(a) Prerequisites to a class action suit:
    1. Numerosity - class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical
    2. Commonality - questions of law or fact common to the class
  1. Typicality - claims/defenses of rep parties similar to those of class
  2. Adequacy - rep will adequately and fairly protect interests of the class
  • 23(b) Three categories of class actions
  1. If separate actions would create risk of inconsistency of adjudication or incompatible standards of conduct for D, or if decisions toward indiv members would subst impair or impede ability of others to protect interest
  2. Injunctive or declaratory relief - not monetary
  3. Questions of law or fact predominate indiv issues and class action is superior method
  • Interest to individually control separate actions
  • Whether any litigation has already been undertaken
  • Advantages/disadvantages of the particular forum
  • Difficulties in managing the class action
  • Class members cannot opt out of either (1) or (2) but can opt out of (3) upon timely notice
  • If (1) or (2) bound by settlement regardless of partip, (3) is not bound
  • Notice is only reqd for (3) people - best practical notice available - class rep bears cost
  • Class member can use Rule 24 to intervene
  • Settlements have to be approved by the courts and members notified
  • Not just lawyer but class rep must be adequately representing class
  • Can interlocutory appeal denial of class certification to avoid litigating if will be reversed DISCOVERY Overview - Rules 16 and 26(b)(1)
  1. First step is for parties to meet under Rule 26(f)
  • Come up with schedule and maybe trial date
  • Refine the issues and scope of trial
  • Figure out parties and establish relationship
  • Discuss settlement
  • Discovery plan - types of depositions and when
  • Arrange disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1)
  1. Initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) within 14 days of 26(f) meeting
  • identify witnesses that may be called at trial
  • identify documents disclosing party may use to support claims
  • calculation of damages
  • insurance agreements - lets parties know how much money is involved - (settlement)
  • must disclose this information without request by opponent
  1. File 26(f) plan with court within 14 days of meeting
  • 16(b) order comes from court and schedule must be followed unless judge approval
  • Must occur within 90 days of appearance by D and 120 days of complaint service
  • “Appearance” by D can be an answer or first thing filed with court
  • 26(e)(1) is a duty to supplement disclosures or responses if found to be incomplete or incorrect Discovery Devices
  • Depositions - limit of 10 per party, day = 7 hours - expensive but valuable - follow-up ?s

Rule 37

  • Cannot fail to respond just because irrelevant or you don’t want to - Rule 37(d)
    • Respond saying you will not disclose and explaining for what reasons
  • If you move to compel and win, you may be awarded attorney’s fees for motion 37(a)(4)
    • Unless objection to bar disclosure was a valid one
  • If then they don’t respond to discovery requests after court order:
    • Contempt of court and 37(b) gives more serious sanctions
  • If they never respond to request at all - 37(d) says may be subjected to 37(b)(A)-(c) not (D)
    • No order here so no contempt of court - thus no (D)
  • Should always try to attempt to contact other side and resolve without court order first
  • If asked to depose and don’t think you should have to, file 26(c) protective order
    • Do not fail to show up or you face sanctions
  • Can subpoena a non-party for deposition or documents under Rule 45
  • Subpoena is court order, so the non-party would be in contempt of court for non-compliance SUMMARY JUDGMENT Summary Judgment - Resolution Without Trial - Rule 56
  • When there is no genuine dispute of material fact leads to summary judgment
    • When there can be but one reasonable conclusion
  • Denial of summary judgment does not mean other side has won - either can still win
  • P must meet the burden of production to show genuine issue exists or else summ judg ok TRIAL AND APPEAL Right to Jury Trial
  • Jury trials are by request and must ask w/in 10 days of service of last pleading - or else gone
  • Typically by statute or by showing historically heard in law not equity court
    • Equity court has no right to jury trial Limits of Rational Inferences
  • Cases pointing with equal force to two things: one making D liable and the other not, P loses Directed Verdict - Pre-Verdict - Rule 50(a)
  • Like a summary judgment that occurs during the trial portion
  • For DV must assume every fact is true for the light most favorable to non-moving party
  • DV is such that in the face of all the evidence there can be no case to go to jury
  • When might there be a DV - witness changing story, evidence doesn’t pan out, bad discovery
  • To use JNOV later, MUST have moved for DV at end of evidence
  • DV should never be based on credibility of witness because matter of fact is for jury to decide
  • If judge grants DV and it gets reversed at appeal then the case has to be retried
    • In this case never a judgment by jury to revert back to
  • Sometimes wait and hope jury makes right decision - if not, still have JNOV and judgment JNOV - Rule 50(b)
  • Pretty much the same as a DV but after the jury has decided
  • If JNOV is reversed, simply reinstate the jury verdict
  • Must move for JNOV within 10 days of judgment or lose opportunity
  • JNOV is granted when the burden of production is not met by P
  • JNOV is a matter of law and so appeals are based de novo review - no discretion of TC New Trial - Rule 59
  • Motion must be filed within 10 days of judgment or lose opportunity
  • Burden of production was met, but some error at trial
    • Inadmissible evidence, failure of procedure, some problem at trial
  • May ask for both JNOV and conditional new trial - new trial to be used if JNOV fails
    • Conflict of interest claiming no BOP met or error and BOP met but error at same time
  • If arguing evidence admitted incorrectly - must show inadmissible and prejudicial
    • Must show that so prejudicial it may have changed outcome of case
  • Appeal based on discretion of the lower court