Civil Procedure—Spring 2010—Prof. Charles Campbell
SPNS V. ReW, PADS J. PoD, CX AIR, JIJI, CARA.
Subject matter jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction
Notice
Service
Venue
Removal
Waiver
Pleadings
Applicable law (Erie)
Discovery
Summary judgment
Jury issues
Post-trial motions
Dismissals
Counterclaims
[X] Crossclaims
[Ancillary] Supplemental jurisdiction
Impleader
Real Party
Joinder—parties
Intervenor
Joinder—claims
Interpleader
Class
Actions
Res judicata
Appeals
Civil Procedure—Spring 2010—Prof. Charles Campbell
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Question: Do you go to state or federal court with your case? = Constitutional law
1. Diversity of citizenship § 1332(a)(1) = Citizens of different states and amt > $75K
a. One side consists soley of foreign countries/citizens? alienage juris.
b. Corporation a party? § 1332(c)(1) A corp. is a citizen of the state 1) where it’s incorporated and 2) the 1 place of its PPB, its nerve center Hertz v. Friend
c. No P is citizen of the same state as any D? Yes—diversity No—no diversity
d. Amount in controversy exceeds $75K for all P and claims? Yes—diversity
e. If multiple P, do Pl’s claims against a single D total more than $75K?
Yes—diversity exists as to that D No—no diversity, and P can’t aggregate claims against multiple Ds together to get to $75K.
f. Class action? Each named P must have claim > $75K, but unnamed Ps don’t have to meet the $75K amount. Aggregation among Ps is not allowed.
2. Federal question § 1331 = P’s right to recover stems from the Constitution, a federal treaty, or an act of Congress. No minimum amount req to be at stake. Citizenship is irrelevant. Louisville & Nashville RR v. Motley (lifetime free passes on RR and then Congress passes law eliminating free passes) Well-pleaded complaint question—is the P enforcing a right under this federal law? No—then it is NOT a federal question case.
3. Alienage–Suit between citizen of state and foreign countries/citizens? Aliens—§1391(d)
No—no diversity; Yes—keep going with analysis
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Only question: Can P sue D in this state?
How are boundaries set for jurisdiction? The Constitution’s Due Process clauses. Every state sets boundaries for due process. For analysis, check for the state statute, then check the state statute. § 1631 cures a defect of personal jurisdiction.
1. In personam—jurisdiction over the D’s person; no juris unless D has minimum contacts (D has taken actions that were purposefully directed towards the forum state.) General-sued in state for claim that arose anywhere in the world. Specific—sued in state for claim that arose in that state forum. General in personam–D has continuous, systematic contact with the forum (Helicoptero v. Hall).
2. In rem—jurisdiction over a thing, such as a piece of property or about a status. No personal liability, only status of thing is adjudicated. Suit itself is about who owns the property.
3. Quasi in rem—action begun by seizing property owned by (attachment statute) or a debt owed to (garnishment) the D, within the forum state; no juris unless D has minimum contacts. (D has taken actions that were purposefully directed towards the forum state.) No res judicata value. Dispute is not about who owns the property but about something else. Pennoyer v. Neff—land should have been attached at the start of the case. That changed with Shaffer v. Heitner, it’s not enough just that property is attached at the start of the case. D also must meet requirements of Int’l Shoe.
State
1. Present in forum state
2. Long-arm statute–State statute must provide for reaching the out-of-state Def.
a. CA long arm—full extent of the Constitution
b. Laundry list long arm
3. Domiciled/incorporated in
ong-arm statute—we can sue the non-resident for doing certain things in the forum state. (Watch for the long-arm that says, “We have juris over non-res. who commits a tort in our state.” I created a widget in state X and shipped it to state Y, where it blew up. Did I commit a tort in state Y? States are split–some states say yes (IL), some no, because if I committed a tort, it was in state X, where widget was made. Gray v. American Radiator)
II. Constitutional analysis:
1. Does one of the traditional bases apply (from Pennoyer: domicile, in person, etc.) But because of Burnham—we’re not sure the traditional bases are good enough alone, by themselves, and we may need to use Shoe anyway.
2. Int’l Shoe test if there’s not a traditional basis that applies.
a. Is there a relevant contact (purposeful availment, D must reach out to the forum–McGee) between D and the forum?
b. Is there relatedness? Does P’s claim arise from the D’s contact with the state? If so, it helps with making ‘contact.’ If not, it will only work with general in personam (continuous, systematic contact with the forum.)
3. Is there forseeability, such that we could forsee that the D could get sued in that forum?
4. Is there fairness? The burden is on the D to prove lack of fairness.
a. Inconvenience for D and witnesses. (Burger King)
b. State’s interest in providing a forum. (McGee)
c. P’s interest
d. Interest in judicial efficiency.
e. Interstate interest in shared substantive policies. (Kulko)
