Civil Procedure
Martins
Fall 2012
Civil procedure- process for how we go about resolving disputes.
Due process clause is essentially based on fundamental fairness. Where an individual facing deprivation of life liberty, or property, procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge. There are rules governing where a suit can be filed.
I. Personal jurisdiction- A court’s authority over a defendant
a. Three types of personal jurisdiction
i. In personam
ii. In rem
iii. Quasi in rem
b. Bases for PJ
i. Served in state/presence; Domicile; Consent; Long-arm; In rem
a. Raise the question Rule 12b Defenses and Objections- Present the defense by raising motion based on:
1. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
2. Lack of personal jurisdiction;
3. Improper venue;
4. Insufficient process;
5. Insufficient service of process; [2-6 must be filed together]
6. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;
7. Failure to join a party under rule 19
II. Domicile – where do I live?
A. For individuals: physical present and intent to remain;
B. Corporations at the state of incorporation AND the principle place of business
C. Hawkins v. Masters Farms, Inc.- citizenship is determined by Domicile for indiv.
III. In rem- based on the interests of a particular piece of property located in the forum state; must the subject to the lawsuit
A. Pennoyer v. Neff- if property not related to the lawsuit, then no PJ
i. In rem: influence over partially- attach prior to litigation
ii. In personam- power over the person
IV. Long-Arm Statute: Ability to go and bring to jurisdiction as long as within due process & purposefully avail; benefits and burdens
A. 2 part test- meet the long arm statute & purposefully avail
B. Mnemonic: My Parents Freaking Forgot to Read Children’s Stories
C. International Shoe Company- minimum contacts related to the suit with the forum state so that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play & substantial justice
i. Specific jurisdiction- some contact; General jurisdiction- a lot of contact
ii. Sliding scale: more contacts ->> less related; more related ->> less related
D. McGee v. Intl Life Ins- continuous & systematic contact specific to issue with customer meets minimum contacts
i. If a defendant purposefully availed itself of the benefits in the forum state, sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction will exist
E. Hanson v. Denckla- unilateral activity of someone with a relationship of a nonresident defendant does not satisfy min requirement of contact, must apply min contacts rule
i. Is there contact, & does the contact GIVE RISE to the suit
F. Shaffer v. Heitner- property alone does not meet requirement of contact
G. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson: foreseeability does not create min contacts; have to purposefully avail, can’t anticipate
H. Burger King v. Rudzewicz: agreements/contracts signed and enforced in a state can apply to min contacts. Purposefully availed to business created from contract, foreseeability and fair warning/ was foreseeable they would be brought into the court
i. Choice of law provision- jurisdiction, which state has the power
ii. EXAM INFO: After minimum contact identified, and related activity, review relevant factors in alignment with “fair play” and “substantial justice” would it be fair to reach out and pull the defendant back into the state
iii. Due Process Fairness Factors (apply to the case)
a. Burden of defendant weighed against other factors: D’s burden in trying the case in the forum state opposed to the D’s residence
b. Plaintiff’s interest: in trying the case in the forum state and the availability of other forum
c. Forum state’s interest: Where involves people or property within the forum state public interest; but must be weighed against other forum states
iv. 14th Amendment Due process clause requires personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant always exercised where the defendant has min contacts such that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play.
I. Music Makers v. Sarro- To purposefully avail requires “express aim”
i. WEBSITE TEST: Sliding Scale for Website based specific jurisdiction- active (Amazon) to middle (Craig’s List) to passive (Blog)
a. Did they target the forum state
b. Want the business
c. Activity the cause of action
ii. Effects Test (use as an alternative) (possibly a tort) ex. Inquirer article written in CA knowing will harm someone in FL
a. Was it intentionally directed at the state/ expressly aimed?
b. The focal point. If something is done in one state, knowledge of harm in another state
c. “brunt of the injury would be felt” in that state
J. J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. V. Nicastro- purposeful avail can vary depending on market; actions require specific intent; seek to serve is intenti
ii. Where the events occurred
iii. Any judicial district where defendant subject to PJ in which the person is domiciled Note: Last ditch effort; have to look at 1 and 2 first
B. Residency for venue purposes
i. Natural person, incl. perm res. Alien reside in the district where they are domicile
ii. A defendant not resident of the US can be brought within any judicial district
iii. Aliens can be sued in any judicial district
iv. Entity: district where they are subj. to PJ within the action
C. Transferring venue: although venue is proper. A federal court may transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses (1404)
i. Forum non conveniens: common law transfer; used when transferring between states or internationally
a. Piper v. Aircraft: Unfavorable law should not be given substantial weight in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens
b. Plaintiff’s choice is rarely disturbed; can be overcome when private and public factors clearly point to an alternative forum
1. Private factors: access to physical evidence; power to compel witnesses; cost of attendance
2. Public factors: choice of law; burden on local court and community; local interest; court congestion
3. If outweigh, normally request defense to waive statute of limitation claims, PJ, or another forum non conveniens
ii. 1406 Transfer for improper venue: The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought
iii. Transfer within 1631 for lack jurisdiction: For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.
