Federal courts can be given subject matter jurisdiction if: I. The nature of the claim arises under the constitution, laws or treaties of the u.s. 2. Personal jurisdiction a. Where an individual is domiciled (physical presence and intent to remain) 3. Venue: place of trial 4. Service of process: begin the action by notifying the [?]
Federal courts can be given subject matter jurisdiction if: I. The nature of the claim arises under the constitution, laws or treaties of the u.s. 2. Personal jurisdiction a. Where an individual is domiciled (physical presence and intent to remain) 3. Venue: place of trial 4. Service of process: begin the action by notifying the [?]
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Federal courts can be given subject matter jurisdiction if: I. The nature of the claim arises under the constitution, laws or treaties of the u.s. 2. Personal jurisdiction a. Where an individual is domiciled (physical presence and intent to remain) 3. Venue: place of trial 4. Service of process: begin the action by notifying the [?]
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
a. The Idea and Practice of Procedure i. Procedure: a set of rules about the etiquette of lawsuits 1. What principle of law determined who prevailed in this situation? 2. Which lawyer, for which side, picked this particular fight & why? What tactical advantage was he/she hoping to achieve? b. Where Can the suit be brought? i. Rules governing where a suit can be brought: 1. subject matter jurisdiction a. federal courts can be given subject matter jurisdiction if: i. The nature of the claim arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the U.S. [28 U.S.C. § 1331-33] (31) federal questions (32) division of citizens (33) admiralty & maritime cases {see notes for chart} 2. personal jurisdiction a. where an individual is domiciled (physical presence & intent to remain) 3. venue: place of trial 4. Service of process: begin the action by notifying the ∆ c. State the case, the complaint, the response(motions & answers), amendment of pleadings d. Parties to the lawsuit e. Factual development – Discovery f. Pre-trial Disposition - Summary Judgment i. Allows a decision to be made on a case where a trial is not necessary and would serve no purpose. 1. Dismissal may be granted when: a. Persistent failure to comply w/ discovery orders b. Failure to prosecute the case c. Failure to appear for calendar calls, motions, etc. d. ¶ can also receive voluntary dismissals, possibly better off starting over. g. Trial i. Directed verdict: the power of taking a case away from the jury is exercised. 1. Circumstances for granting a direct verdict: a. If a party who has the burden of proof offers no evidence at all on the issue b. Or; they supply weak evidence ii. JNOV (judgment notwithstanding the verdict): post verdict reversal of the jury’s decision. The ct considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and should grant a JNOV only where evidence strongly/favorably supports them that no contrary verdict could be arrived at. h. Former Adjudication = Civil double jeopardy i. Res judicata (something already adjudicated) 1. Claim preclusion – if either party is unhappy w/ the outcome, they can’t have the courts set aside the 1st judgment and go back for another try. 2. Issue preclusion – if in a prior suit you sue for an issue and once decided, you go back and sue for the same issue that was litigated in the 1st issue. ii. Stare decisis (the doctrine of precedent) – under which a ct must follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation. i. Appeals: addresses the outcome of a trial and its correctness i. Final judgment rule – there has to be a final judgment rendered before and appeal can be filed.
*Writ of certiorari – federal litigation who loses in the ct of appeals that
want their case heard before the SCOTUS (Supreme Ct of the U.S.)
II. Personal Jurisdiction
a. The Origins - Pennoyer v. Neff (AAAAAGGHHHH!!!) – The presence of property in a forum state could be the basis for jurisdiction over claims of any sort. b. The Modern Constitutional Formulation of Power – International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington i. Elements of Modern (personal) jurisdiction 1. Power 2. consent 3. notice 4. due process = notice: actual and constructive; being afforded the opportunity to litigate ii. To render a binding decision in case personal & subject matter jurisdiction are necessary. W/o either the court is unable to give a valid judgment. iii. Collateral Attack: the ¶ sues the Δ in a state where they have no personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Then file a writ of execution in the Δ home state. ONLY JURISDICTION IS OPEN TO COLLATERAL ATTACK. Δ can assert lack of Pj once the ¶ brings the judgment to their domiciliary state unless jurisdiction was established by the court that decided the claim. 1. Full faith & credit clause allows the ¶ to take the judgment awarded the state where Δ is domiciled. The presence of property in a forum state could be the basis for jurisdiction over claims of any sort. iv. Types of Jurisdiction {power &authority} 1. The test on whether the ct has valid jurisdiction: a. Assess minimal contacts (Int. Shoe Co.) i. If there is continuous & systematic contact then the claim doesn’t have to arise out of a particular contact (event) ii. If there is only a single contact then the claim has to arise out of the context of the contact (event) in question. b. (Exercise of jurisdiction) Comports w/ due process = fair play & substantial justice {see chart in notes} v. In rem – A lawsuit directed toward property, rather than a particular person. The action must be brought in the ct which has jurisdiction. The judgment is binding on all persons who claim title to the property. 1. Absorbing In rem jurisdiction (Shafer v. Heitner – established the minimum contact analysis) 2. Sue b/c claim is in connection with the property. (ex. ¶ slip & fall on property). Since it deals w/ the actual property and complies with tradition of fair-play & substantial justice. a. A shareholders derivative suit (for corporations): A shareholder steps forward and sues the directors or officers In the name of the corporation, alleging some breach of fiduciary duty. The recourse that a shareholder has when they feel that the directors have been mismanaging. If the shareholder wins then the proceeds go to the corporation. vi. In personam – Is obtained when the Δ is properly served (i.e. personal service) A judgment can be enforceable where they domiciled. A cts power to bring a person under their jurisdiction; jurisdiction over a person personal rights, rather than merely property interest. 1. Domicile isn’t dependent on presence in the state. Domicile in the state is sufficient due process (even if you are not present to receive the notice). a. Defense to Pj is waived if the 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of Pj isn’t presented 1st to the ct. You have to file a motion disputing Pj during the pre- trial/discovery. vii. Quasi in rem – Attaching property purely to get jurisdiction, but have no intention of going after the property. The property is not the basis (target) of the lawsuit. Claim does not have anything to do with an event that involved the property. viii. Distinctions of Personal Jurisdiction [power and authority over an individual , i.e. Δ] 1. General Jurisdiction: Every Individual and business entity In the U.S. had at least one state they can be sued in, on any claim (for individuals, mostly likely to be where they are domiciled; for a corporation, most likely where they’re headquartered or state of incorporation). a. Looks @ that persons contact w/ the state but the claim doesn’t have to arise out of that contact (event) when there continuous and systematic contact. i. Federal courts: Limited jurisdiction ii. State courts: General jurisdiction b. Remedies: in civil cases either an injunction or money damages/ criminal cases = jail time 2. Specific jurisdiction (WWV v. Woodson): Jurisdiction exists for the specific claim in question but not necessarily for other claims (Ex. A car accident in another state, the victim could sue in the state where it happened) CLAIMS DO NOT ARISE OUT OF CONTINUOUS & SYSTEMATIC CONTACTS. a. Arises out of contacts i. Minimum contact: purposeful availment; not a mere unilateral act by another party. ii. The concept of minimum contacts perform 2, distinguishable, functions: (1) protects the ¶ from the burden of litigating in a distant/ inconvenient forum state (2) Ensures that the forum state don’t overextend their sovereign. Minimum contact has to be considered to determine jurisdiction. b. The ‘substantial connection’ between the Δ and the forum state necessary to satisfy the minimum contact is by an action of the Δ; Δ purposefully directed their actions toward the forum state. i. Unilateral activity cannot satisfy the requirement of contact w/ a forum state, not sufficient to establish Pj over a Δ. 3. Due process/ fair play & substantial justice a. To evaluate minimum contacts such that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of Fp & sJ. i. The burden on the Δ ii. Forum states interest in adjudicating the dispute. iii. ¶’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief. iv. Interstate judicial system interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies. v. Shared interest of several states n furthering fundamental substantive social policies b. Unilateral activity (one-sided) vs. Purposeful availment 4. Forum shopping: The state where it would be beneficial for the ¶’s case to be decided. 5. Courts of a state have jurisdiction over non- residents who are physically present in the state. A state can assert personal jurisdiction on physical presence (being served in a state the Δ is passing thru) [Burnham v. Superior Ct – divorce proceedings served while Δ was on a business trip and stopped in to visit children]. The test of Fp & sJ are used to approximate physical presence. c. Consent as a Substitute for Power i. “Real” consent: a specific agreement to submit to a jurisdiction d. The Constitutional Requirement of Notice i. NO notice = NO jurisdiction 1. If you know of a physical address it is unconstitutional to only give constructive (publish) notice. If address is unknown then it is constitutional if you’re reasonably certain that it will provide actual notice/ and is the best feasible option. Investigate to locate the person though b/c you have to show that you reasonably calculated to provide actual notice. e. Self Imposed Restraints on Jurisdictional Power i. Long-Arm statutes as a restraint on Jurisdiction 1. A court may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant only when the state or federal gov’t authorizes it to do so. 2. These are statutes by the states that establish how far the courts can reach. Most states exercise what’s allowed by the due process clause of the Constitution; some states limit the amount they extend. 3. Obtaining in personam jurisdiction over a non- resident Δ requires: a. ¶ must allege sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the Δ within coverage of the long-arm statute b. Determine whether sufficient “minimum contact” was shown to comply w/ the requirements of due process. i. The court must have both personal jurisdiction & proper venue to hear a case. The venue provision allows the litigants to see where their claim can be brought. Won’t matter if there is a proper venue if court can’t exercise PJ over the Δ. c. The state can establish a limiting long- arm statute, even though the Constitution allows them certain sovereign over case, some states choose to limit the extension of their jurisdiction. ii. Venue as a Further Localizing Principle 1. Venue determines where litigation will take place. a. General federal venue statute 28 U.S.C. §1391 place lawsuits in areas either connected to the parties or in areas where the events took place that gave rise to the lawsuit in the first place. i. Under 28 USC 1391 venue is proper in [1] a judicial district where Δ resides; if all Δ’s reside in the same state [2] a judicial district where a substantial part of the events, giving rise to the claim, occurred [3] a judicial district where the Δ might be found, if there is no other district where the suit can be brought. Only get to 3, if 1 &2 are not satisfied. b. When an action is brought in state ct, federal venue statutes are irrelevant; only applied to claims brought in federal ct. States have their own venue rules: [a] where cause of action arose [b] where some fact is present/ happened [c] where Δ resides [d] where Δ is doing business [e] where Δ has an agent/rep [f] where ¶ resides [g] where ¶ is doing business [h] where Δ is found [i] where Δ is summoned/served [j] in the county designated in ¶’s complaint [k] in any county [l] where the seat of govnm’t is located. Δ’s residence is most common. iii. Declining Jurisdiction: Transfer & forum Non- Conveniens 1. Both state & federal courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction even though they posses it. Reasons a court declines to exercise jurisdiction: a. Transfer {applies only to federal cts.}: transfer among federal judicial districts under §1404; this is the proper way to keep the claim in litigation in the U.S. but have it transferred to another forum b. Forum Non Conveniens {applies to both state/federal cts.}: allows them to move cases around the country “for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” c. There are circumstances where for reason of justice and efficiency that the ct should not hear the case. III. Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts a. The Idea & the structure of SMJ i. Personal jurisdiction limits both state and federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over a Δ. ii. To render a binding decision in a case personal & subject matter jurisdiction are necessary. W/o either the court is unable to give a valid judgment. iii. 2nd jurisdictional boundary: Powers of state and federal courts. Constitution allows the federal court to be supreme only in certain areas. The other areas states are sovereign. Some they share power. iv. The sorting of cases between state/ federal court systems = SMJ 1. Federal courts are limited in jurisdiction. a. Federal courts look to 3 bodies of law to determine if they can exercise jurisdiction over the case: i. The Constitution ii. The statutes conferring jurisdiction iii. The case law interpreting both b. Federal courts share most of their jurisdiction with state courts. Shared jurisdiction = Concurrent c. Federal courts are exclusive for certain issues: [1] Admiralty [2] Bankruptcy [3] Anti-trust i. Litigants care about where the claim will be heard b/c of tactical advantages, shorter waiting time, strategic. d. Federal courts are shielded from hearing certain issues: [1] Family law disputes e. An individual can’t raise SMJD (only personal JD) only the courts can assert. The court can raise the issue anytime before a ruling. b. Federal Question Jurisdiction i. 28 U.S.C. § 1331- the district ct will have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution/laws/treaties of the U.S. [Congress enacted 1331, limited the range allowed by the Constitution] ii. U.S. Const. Art 3 §2 - The judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the Const./laws of the U.S./ treaties made. [Constitution] 1. Federal courts: Limited jurisdiction; limited JD is meant to protect the federal ct system so the system doesn’t have omnipresence and the state also have boundaries. 2. State courts: General jurisdiction iii. The ¶’s complaint should allege a violation under the Constitution/ federal laws, etc. to arise under the smjd of federal courts. 1. If ¶ can show that there is a violation under federal law then it is possible for the case to be heard in front of federal ct. 2. Does a state law claim raise a federal issue? Which a federal forum may entertain w/o disturbing any congressionally approved balance between state/federal judicial responsibilities? a. A substantiality test: i. Well pleaded complaint rule – does their action arise out of the Constitution/federal law ii. Precedential value iii. How key the federal law is to the ¶’s claim iv. Application vs. interpretation v. Grable and Empire case contradict by applying smjd in a different way than Smith and Mottley b. Subject matter jurisdiction is to allow federal cts to protect themselves on whether they have the jurisdiction to even render a valid decision. c. Diversity Jurisdiction i. For partnerships the courts will look at the citizenship of the individuals. ii. SCOTUS has held that case presented in federal ct, because of diversity jurisdiction (where the parties are from 2 different states), then state (substantive) law will apply, instead of federal law. 1. 12(b)(1) – motion to dismiss for lack of smjd; when it is determined that the federal ct doesn’t have smjd, they have no power to hear the case 2. 12(b)(6) – formally dismisses on the merits iii. 28 U.S.C. §1332 - Congress grants district courts JD in civil actions between citizens of different states, between U.S. citizens and foreign citizens, or by foreign states against U.S. citizens. 1. 28 U.S.C. §1332 a. The district cts. Shall have original JD of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of value of 75k i. Citizens of different states ii. Citizens of a State & citizens or subjects of a foreign state b. Citizenship depends on present domicile and intent to remain. iv. How to determine the principal place of business: 1. Nerve center test – where the CEO conducts business of the company. 2. Muscle center test – where the corporation is getting the work done. 3. Hybrid approach – consider both to decide. Look at the totality of circumstances. 4. §1359 – naming a party to invoke federal jurisdiction; prohibits collusion to prevent parties from getting together to gain diversity; look to the real party of interest v. Amount in controversy 1. The law on aggregation – Can’t aggregate a claim to reach the amount controversy, but you can piggyback on a claim that already meets the 75k a. Quantum study: gives a definitive figure to an amount on recovery; what it’s been valued at before in court, to determine the amount in controversy. 2. Counterclaims Note 3 pg 204 a. Compulsory counterclaim: can be heard before the court regardless of the amount. b. Permissive counterclaim: requires an independent jurisdictional basis. of Congress or Diversity d. Supplemental Jurisdiction 1. 28 USC §1367(a)[FQ] throwing the net wide for supplemental JD except those restricted by 1367(b)[Div. of citizenship] & 1367(c) 2. Meant to include JD over a 2nd related claim. 3. Also it keeps those related claims together since they operate on a common nucleus of facts. ii. Supp JD does not extend to those parties attempting to join and get over on diversity JD. Where there is now no diversity b/c the joining party is from the same state as the plaintiff. 1. Can’t allow a 3rd party to intervene in a lawsuit when it will quash the diversity of citizenship. 2. 28 USC §1367(c) – Discretionary: allows the ct to determine if they’ll exercise JD e. Removal i. 28 USC §1441 “ Removable Actions” 1. Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court, may be removed by the Δ to the district ct of the United States… a. Vertical forum shopping – moving from state ↔ federal courts. 28 U.S.C. 1441 IV. The Erie Problem a. State Courts as lawmakers in a Federal System i. The issue in historical context ii. Constitutionalizing the Issue 1. Erie RR v. Tompkins “Determines what law is applied in a diversity of citizenship cases” a. Federal courts in diversity cases must respect state created rights/obligations. Federal courts are to apply state “substantive” law and federal “procedural” law. i. 28 U.S.C. 1652 – Rules of Decision Act “Law of the several states applies” b. Erie Problem – changed the way that the cts looked @ choice of law; when a federal ct sits in diversity JD what law will it apply in the case? i. Pre – Erie: cts would look to “state laws” + statutes/”local laws” [Swift v. Tyson] ii. Post – Erie: they now will look at judge-made laws (PA); precedent (stare-decisis) iii. Federal cts will look to the state to make a decision that’ll be uniform if that states cts were to adjudicate. Fed’l law = apply to procedural issues; State law = apply to substantive issue c. Twin aim of Erie rule [1] to discourage forum shopping [2] to avoid inequitable administration of law. i. Another benefit it allows uniformity. ii. Erie dealt w/preventing vertical forum shopping. b. The Limits of State Power in Federal Courts i. Interpreting the Constitutional Command of Erie 1. Guaranty v. York “The federal practice - to apply the common law equitable Statute of Limitations” a. Outcome determinative test: if affects the outcome then it is substantive but not practical b/c an issue that may affect the outcome isn’t always important / substantial with the issue of the claim 2. Byrd v. Blue Ridge a. Balancing test: what is the federal interest –vs- the states interest? b. Federal courts will use both to make a decision. ii. De-Constitutionalizing Erie 1. Hanna V. Plumer “Statutory -vs- Constitutional Interpretation” a. If it is a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) then: i. Is it within the Rules Enabling Act? Interpret narrowly. ii. Is it Constitutional? Then the federal rule will prevail. b. If a FRCP or federal statute applies: i. Is the rule consistent with the REA; is it rationally capable of classification as procedural? Is rule sufficiently broad to control the issue before the court? ii. Is the rule or statute Constitutional? (Art. III gave Congress power to make rules governing practice & procedure in federal courts) c. If there is no federal rule but there is a federal practice: i. How bound up with the right is state law? (the underlying state law that is providing ¶ a remedy; is the procedural hurdle a formality?; looking at how a remedy might differ from proceeding in state vs. fed. ct.) ii. Is the difference outcome determinative? iii. How important is the federal interest v. state interest (Why do we have the particular federal statute/state provision)AND 1. Would adhering to federal practice encourage forum shopping? 2. Would adhering to federal practice result in inequitable administration of justice? (Erie & Hanna court used this assessment) iii. Determining the Scope of Federal Law: Avoiding and Accommodating Erie 1. Semtek v. Lockheed a. Federal Rules cannot infringe on state substantive rights. b. Simply in federal ct b/c of the diversity of citizenship. c. Erie guess: What the Supreme CT of that state would have done to adjudicate the claim (the federal ct wants uniformity)? V. Incentives to Litigate {Remedies & Access to justice} a. Litigation in the United States at the start of the 21st Century b. Substitutionary Remedies i. Money damages b/c they since they can’t replace what was lost or contracted for, it will at least compensate the ¶ (compensatory damages). 1. Compensatory damages also valuate those things that are a non-economic harm (i.e. emotional distress) 2. Liquidated, Statutory, and Punitive Damages a. U.C.C. §2-718: it permits and limits the amount of liquidated damages that can be received. b. Gore Test i. The degree of reprehensibility of the Δ’s misconduct ii. The disparity between the actual/potential harm suffered iii. The difference between the punitive damages awarded and the civil penalties authorized/imposed in comparable cases. 1. Jury isn’t instructed to keep punitive damages award w/i a ratio. c. Specific Remedies (ordered to follow thru on contract) i. Look at the substantive law to see what remedies are available → then look at substantive law to see what will have to be proven to support her claim 1. Ejectment – having the party removed 2. Replevin – repossession of personal property 3. Injunctions a. Sigma Chemical Co. v. Harris “Irreparable Injury Rule” i. Balance test: (1) what’s the hardship on ¶ if relief is denied? (2) On Δ if relief is granted? ii. Is the legal remedy adequate? Are money damages not adequate to remedy the issue d. Declaratory Relief i. When a party has a legal problem that damages or specific performance can’t solve. ii. 28 U.S.C. 2201 &02 Federal Declaratory Judgment Act iii. Asking for a declaration of their rights before being sued. Potential Δ preemptively sues the potential ¶. 1. Have to have real parties; based on real activities; can’t be based on hypothetical; needs to be a real threat of a lawsuit. There needs to be a dispute/some contention from the other side. e. Financing Litigation f. Provisional Remedies VI. Pleadings a. The Story of Pleading i. FRCP 7(a) – pleadings allowed 1. Pleadings. Only these pleadings are allowed: a. A complaint; b. An answer to a complaint; c. An answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; d. An answer to a cross-claim; e. A 3rd party complaint f. If the court orders one, a reply to an answer ii. FRCP 8(a) Claim for Relief 1. A pleading that state a claim for relief must contain a. A short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has JD and the claim needs no new JD support b. A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and i. Form 11 – Complaint for Negligence 1. Short & plain statement = on date & at place Δ negligently drove motor vehicle against the ¶ 2. As a result (causation), ¶ was… [list types of damages sustained] c. A demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief. iii. FRCP 8(d) 1. Each allegation must be simple, concise and direct. No technical form required. 2. A party may set out two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. If a party makes alternative statements iv. FRCP 10(a) 1. Every pleading must have v. FRCP 10(b) – paragraphs; separate statements 1. A party must state a claim/defense in numbered paragraphs, each limited to a single set of circumstances. vi. FRCP 12 (b) – (dilatory)(DELAY) 1. Lack of subject matter JD 2. Lack of personal JD 3. Improper venue (transfer or potential dismissal) 4. Insufficient process 5. Insufficient service of process 6. Xxxxxx 7. Failure to join a party under Rule 19 vii. Preemptory (ON MERITS) 1. 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (decided by the judge) a. Δ alleges ¶ 2. 8(b) general or specific denial 3. 8(c) affirmative defenses viii. Judge or Jury 1. ? of Law 2. ? of Fact 3. Get out early & cheap of rule a. Haddle v. Garrison 4. FRCP 9(b) [requires specificity]; prevent unwarranted claims from advancing to discovery a. Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of the Mind. i. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. b. Ethical Limitations in Pleading - & in Litigation c. Responding to the complaint VII. Discovery