CONTENTS JURISDICTION

Subject Matter ...............................................................................................................................................................2 Federal Question - 1331.............................................................................................................................................2 Arising under .........................................................................................................................................................2 Well Pled Complaint ..............................................................................................................................................2 Diversity Jx - 1332 ....................................................................................................................................................3 Amount in Controversy .........................................................................................................................................3 Complete Diversity ................................................................................................................................................3 Businesses..............................................................................................................................................................4 Removal Jx - 1441-6 ................................................................................................................................................4 By Defendant .........................................................................................................................................................4 Non-removable Actions .........................................................................................................................................4 Supplemental Jx .........................................................................................................................................................5 28 U.S.C. 1367 (Based on UMW v. Gibbs, Owen v. Kroeger, Finley v. US)......................................................5 Textual Breakdown of 1367 ...............................................................................................................................5 Personal Jurisdiction ......................................................................................................................................................6 Types .........................................................................................................................................................................6 Analysis .....................................................................................................................................................................6 Is there Consent? ...................................................................................................................................................7 Is there a Long-Arm Statute? .................................................................................................................................7 Is the Long-arm Statute Constitutional? ................................................................................................................8 Venue.............................................................................................................................................................................9 Transfer - 1404 ..........................................................................................................................................................9 Forum Non Conveinens .............................................................................................................................................9 Erie ..............................................................................................................................................................................11

Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................11 Outcome Determinative .......................................................................................................................................11 Twin aims of Erie ................................................................................................................................................11 Federal Policy ......................................................................................................................................................11 Federal Preemption at odds with Erie.......................................................................................................................12 From Weston ...........................................................................................................................................................12 Certification .................................................................................................................................................................12

JURISDICTION
To find jurisdiction, three things must be present: 1. Subject Matter jurisdiction 2. Personal jurisdiction 3. Proper venue

SUBJECT MATTER

Subject Matter Jx
Federal Diversity 1343 1336 other small statutes Removal Supplemental

FEDERAL QUESTION - 1331

Federal court jurisdiction is enumerated in Art II of the Constitution. It comes in 9 categories, which are basically federal law and different types of diversity.

ARISING UNDER
28 USC 1331 gave district courts the power to hear cases arising under the constitution or federal law.

WELL PLED COMPLAINT

A suit arises under the United States Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or the Constitution. It is not enough for a plaintiff to allege an anticipated defense to his cause of action and assert that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the United States Constitution. [Louisville & Nashville RR v. Mottley] A complaint alleging a violation of a federal statute as an element of a state cause of action, when Congress has determined that there should be no private, federal cause of action for the violation, does not state a claim arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. [Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson] A claim that doesn't arise under federal law can be tried in federal court if the court decides that the state law claim : 1. necessarily raises a stated federal issue, 2. actually disputed and substantial, 3. which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. [Grable & Sons v. Darue] A counterclaim arising under federal law does not make the case arise under federal jurisdiction. Only the complaint can do that. [Holmes Group v. Voranado Air Circ. Sys.]

DIVERSITY JX - 1332 AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY There must be a claim >$75000 against every defendant, except for class action law suits and federal interpleader statute. Only one plaintiff must make the claim, other plaintiffs may "ride along" with supplemental jx COMPLETE DIVERSITY All plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants CITIZENSHIP Citizenship = domicile = physical presence in a place and an intent to remain there (for an unlimited or indefinite period). Determined at the time the complaint is filed. Presumption of established domicile over newly acquired one. It is enough to have "floating intent" to stay indefinitely and also desire to return to former home at some undetermined point of time It is not sufficient to have the desire to return upon the happening of a reasonably foreseeable event. If recent change of residence, courts weight evidence of intent (place of employment, driver's license, auto registration, bank accounts, tax payments, location of personal property and voting practices) more heavily than statements of intent.

BUSINESSES CORPORATIONS DUAL CITIZENS A corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any state by which it has been incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business" (1332) PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Where corp.'s high level officers direct, control and coordinate , typically at corp HQ Not a general business activities test. (Hertz case) OTHER BUSINESS ENTITIES Non-individual human, non-corporate parties like partnerships, LLCs, and associations must be analyzed based upon the citizenship of their individual members as discussed below (Arkoma, Belleville Catering)

REMOVAL JX - 1441-6 BY DEFENDANT Plaintiff cannot remove a case to federal court. Only the defendant can do so. Defendant has 30 days to file for removal. FEDERAL QUESTION Can remove if all defendants consent. DIVERSITY Can remove if no defendant is a citizen of the state where the suit is brought. JOINDER More to come later. NON-REMOVABLE ACTIONS Make sure to check 1445 CONGRESS Congress can legislate that certain types of cases cannot be removed. However, the language and intent must be clear. For example, the FLSA allows plaintiffs to maintain an action in state court can be removed.

OBJECT TO REMOVAL If a plaintiff objects to removal, he must file a motion in the district court. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW A case arising under state law seeking review of an administrative decision with an imbedded federal question is a civil action that can be removed on federal question jx. The state law claims are then proper under supplemental jx. (City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons) SUPPLEMENTAL JX 28 U.S.C. 1367 (BASED ON UMW V. GIBBS, OWEN V. KROEGER, FINLEY V. US) GENERALLY If you have a valid federal suit that you could bring in federal court (federal question, or diversity) and there is more than 1 claim, and some of those claims could not be brought in federal court on their own, they may still be allowed if they stem from the same nucleus of operative fact. This does not confer original jurisdiction on district courts for those claims. PENDANT JX (one claim dependent upon another) When the claims are based on the same nucleus of operative fact, federal court has discretionary power to take jx over the whole case. Factors include judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to litigants. (UMW v. Gibbs)

ANCILLARY JX (based on parties, not claims) This is overruled by 1367. Parties cannot use federal jurisdiction to circumvent other laws/rules. Jurisdiction is not permitted when it's clear that congress did not intend the joining party to be part of the case. (Aldinger v. Howard) In other words, parties that otherwise could not be sued in federal courts cannot be brought into federal court solely on the basis of having their claims share the same facts as the claim mandated to the federal courts. (Finley v. US) TEXTUAL BREAKDOWN OF 1367 a. (Gibbs) Except under (b), (c), or fed law, courts have supplemental jx for fed question case or controversy b. (Owen) in diversity, if claim is brought by plaintiff, there is not supplemental jx against parties brought under Rule 14 impleader, to bring in 3rd party Rule 19 joinder, mandatory Rule 20 joinder, optional Rule 24 joinder, into another case If doing so would destroy diversity c. (Gibbs) courts don't have to exercise jurisdiction under sub a

1. Novel/complex state law 2. State law claim dominates 3. Dismissed all claims over original jx 4. Exceptional circumstances d. Period of limitations for state claim is put on hold during the federal proceedings if the court does not exercise its supplemental jx e. State includes any US territory, DC, & PR PERSONAL JURISDICTION Personal jx is the power of the court over the defendants person or property. TYPES IN PERSONUM JX Lawsuits where the court imposes personal liability or obligations SPECIFIC IN PERSONAM Arises out of a minimum contact and is limited to claims related to that contact. (Pennoyer v. Neff) GENERAL IN PERSONAM Arises from continuous and systematic contacts where a defendant could reasonably foresee defending nay claim, even one completely unrelated to its in-state activities. (International Shoe, Helicoptores Internales) IN REM JX Lawsuits which declare the rights of all persons to a thing QUASI IN REM JX Lawsuits which affect the rights of a particular person to a thing (Pennoyer)

Extent of contacts

None

Casual or isolated No jx

Single

Continuous Substantial or pervasive Specific jx General jx

Jurisdictional consequences ANALYSIS

No jx

Specific jx

There is a three-part analysis to determine if there is personal jurisdiction 1. Is there consent to personal jurisdiction? 2. Is it covered by states long-arm statute?

3. Is the long-arm statute constitutional? IS THERE CONSENT? Consent cures all. Unlike subject matter jx, personal jx can be gained through consent. Note that objections to personal jurisdiction must come with 12(b)(6) motion (or the answer if there is no 12(b)(6) motion). SERVICE AGENT Defendant can designate an agent to accept service and it will be valid if the agent promptly notifies defendant of any service. This amounts to consent to be served in that state. (National Equipment Rental v. Szukhent) NON-COMPLIANCE If a party doesnt give information (through discovery) about minimum contacts, the court can assume that information is harmful to the party and assert personal jx. The discovery violation amounts to consent by waiver. (Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. CBG) CONTRACT Forum selection clauses forcing individual to submit to jurisdiction in a particular state are valid, as long as they are not lacking fundamental fairness. (Carnival Cruise Lanes v. Shute). But be careful citing this case because this was a non-commercial contract that was never seen until it was too late to get a refund. ARBITRATION Arbitration agreements (include Federal Arbitration Act) will be upheld even when another law says you cant waive your right to sue. (Compucredit v. Greenwood) IS THERE A LONG-ARM STATUTE? There are two types of long arm statutes. Enumerated statutes lay out who can be brought into state court with specificity (sometimes in multiple different statutes). Expansive long-arm statutes attempt to forgo this step by making it the same as a constitutional analysis. Attach wis stat. 801.5 to end of outline. Even when statutory language is clear, make sure you find case law interpreting that language TORTIOUS ACT An IL long-arm statute that confers jx for tortious act committed in the state is more expansive than one that confers jx for a tort. Tortious act refers to conduct that results in injury, so as long as the injury occurred in the state, it is covered. (Gray v. American Radiator) PROCESS A WI statute that confers personal jx against entites that process a tortious product includes distribution within the term process because it was the legislators intent to be as exapansive as constitutionally allowed. (Kopke v. Hartrodt)

FEDERAL Federal statutes that have long-arm statutes will be upheld (still have to undergo constitutional analysis. (Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings) IS THE LONG-ARM STATUTE CONSTITUTIONAL? The 14th amendment gives due process rights to the parties. This has evolved into a two part test. 1. Does the party have minimum contacts with the state . . . 2. . . . such that it does not offend notions of fair play and substantial justice to force him into court here? TYPES OF JX Minimum contacts is the test for personal, in rem, and quasi in rem. (CNN v. CNnews) TRANSIENT Being served while personally present in a jurisdiction creates general jurisdiction PROPERTY The mere presence of property in a state confers only specific jurisdiction over cases involving that property because the owner has not purposefully availed himself of the benefits of the state outside the context of the property. (Greyhound) STATUTES WAIVING PERSONAL JX States can remove the requirement for personal jurisdiction by requiring individuals to waive it for owning a certain class of property within that state. The propriety is examined by balancing the interests of the state, interests of the defendant, and the nature of the litigation. (Armstrong v. Pomerence) Note: this is messed up because personal jx is the right of a citizen. SUFFICIENCY Minimum contact must be sufficient enough so they dont offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Foreseeability alone is not sufficient for personal jx. The defendants conduct and connection with the state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. (Worldwide VW) Purposeful availment provides clear notice of jurisdiction. (Buger King) WEBSITES There is no special test for websites. (Hy Cite v. BBB) Passive websites do not purposefully avail themselves to other jurisdictions. The likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that entity conducts over the Internet. (Cybersell, Zippo) PLAINTIFFS CONTACTS The plaintiff gets to chose where to bring his suit. He does not need minimum contacts with the state. (Keeton v. Hustler)

EFFECTS TEST In intentional torts, there is personal jx where the impact would be felt most. (Calder v. Jones) FRAMING AN ARGUMENT It is important to frame the argument so that it benefits your side. You can concentrate on what contacts there are, or what ones are missing. (Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia) STREAM OF COMMERCE The mere awareness that a product may reach a remote jurisdiction when put in the stream of commerce is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement for minimum contacts. (Asahi) There must be some manifestation of intent to purposefully avail oneself of the jurisdiction. (McIntyre) CONTRACT There is some room to interpret contracts as allowing the stream of commerce test to apply. (Burger King)

VENUE Page 224. Venue determines which specific court hears the case. TRANSFER - 1404 Transfer can be authorized through statute or through forum non conviens. Transfer in WI, 801.52 COULD BE BROUGHT The defendant cannot transfer to a jx where the suit could not have originally been brought. (Hoffman v. Blaski) CHOICE OF LAW (bad lawyer) The transferee court has to follow the transferor court's choice of law rules. (Ferens v. John Deere) FORUM NON CONVEINENS Forum non conveinens is discretionary for the court to use. A plaintiff cannot bring a suit in an unconvenient forum. (Gilbert v. Gulf Oil)

FACTORS Interests of the forum state, plaintiff, and defendant must be considered. (Gilbert v. Gulf Oil) This includes: Private location of the events giving rise to the case ability to implead other parties ability to view the premises involved in the dispute location of relevant witnesses and documentary evidence Public Whether dispute involves local people or events whether it is likely to be decided under local law (Gilbert, Piper) REMEDY The remedy under 1404 is transfer to a more convenient forum, not dismissal. Arguments can be made that this doctrine should follow suit, or that it should remain separate. (Note that plaintiff may also invoke 1404 to transfer if the only place he could get venue and jx was inconvenient.) Court can offer conditional dismissals. TIMING Personal jx must be asserted with other 12(b)(6) motions, but there is no limit for timing on transfer.

WHAT LAW TO APPLY

ERIE Federal courts must use the states common law and statutory law in their jurisdiction when evaluating state-based claims. (Erie). To determine state law, the federal court should decide the same way that it thinks the state's highest court would decide it (although it does not have to mechanically apply precedent). (Mason v. American Emery Wheel Works). ANALYSIS Is the conflict between state and fed law outcome determinative? If yes, then does application of state law match with the twin aims of Erie? If yes, then are there countervailing federal policy factors? OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE When there is diversity jurisdiction, the federal court should use the outcome-determinative test to ensure that the outcome of the federal courts application of law would not be different than the outcome if the state had tried the case. (Guaranty Trust Co. v. York) SUBSTANTIVE V. PROCEDURAL If there is a conflict between state procedure and federal procedure, federal wins as long as it complies with the rules enabling act, and the constitution. (Hanna, Shady Grove) Note: no rule has ever failed these two requirements. If the state law is procedural and substantive, it can be separated. The substantive parts will be followed under Erie, but the procedural parts will be trumped by the federal procedures. (Gasperini v. Center for Humanities) TWIN AIMS OF ERIE 1. Discourage forum shopping. 2. Avoid inequitable administration of law. FEDERAL POLICY If there is a strong federal policy to do so, federal laws may be applied in lieu of state laws. This is a counterbalance to the previous point. (Byrd)

When a federal law to be applied in a diversity action is a congressional statute, there are two questions the court must answer

The chief question for the district court's determination is whether the statute is sufficiently broad to control the issue before the court. If so, the court then must inquire whether the statute represents a valid exercise of Congress' authority under the Constitution.

FEDERAL PREEMPTION AT ODDS WITH ERIE If there is a federal statute that is broad enough to control the issue, and if the statute is constitutional, then federal courts are bound to apply laws enacted by Congress with respect to matters over which it has legislative power. (Stewart v. Ricoh) In a federal district court sitting under diversity jurisdiction, the standard the judge uses to determine whether a jurys itemized verdict is excessive is that of state law, and is only subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion. (Gasperini v. Center for Humanities) FROM WESTON If the federal and state rules have a direct conflict, Hanna governs, and Federal wins as long as it complies with the Rules Enabling Act and the constitution If the federal and state rules have an indirect conflict, you must balance York and Byrd against the twin aims of Erie. CERTIFICATION If there is a state certification statute, federal courts can ask state supreme courts to certify how they would answer a question. If the federal court wrongly concludes what the state supreme court would have done, it doesn't really matter. Its more important to have finality than to re-open the issue. (Dweerth v. Baldinger)