Introduction to Civil Procedure
I. Where can a suit be brought?
a. Personal Jurisdiction: Generally where a court must have power over the person to exercise a judgment
b. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Generally whether a claim may be pursued in Federal court.
i. Hawkins v. Masters: Wrongful death in an auto collision where P’s estate failed to establish Diversity. Case reaffirmed that citizenship is determined by the P’s state of domicile, where he/she has demonstrated intent to live.
c. Venue: Generally used to determine in which particular federal court a suit should be pursued within a state.
d. Service of Process: Must serve Defendant with the complaint and give a copy to the court (Rule 3)
i. There are 2 means of serving process (Rule 4)
1. Sending a Waiver of Process
2. Summons signed by clerk of the court
II. Stating the Case
a. Lawyer’s responsibility: a lawyer is held accountable for knowing the law beforehand…
i. Bridges v. Diesel: P’s lawyer failed to check that the complaint couldn’t be pursued under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendant’s Rule 11 sanctions were denied, since the counsel corrected his error within time and the case was dismissed without prejudice.
b. The complaint
i. Bell v. Novick Transfer Co.: P’s complaint met the requirements of Rule 8 when they alleged negligence in the collision of D’s tractor with their auto, which harmed their infant. Court ruled that Defendant’s Rule 12(e) motion should be overruled since they could obtain their info through interrogatories under Rule 33 or other discovery method.
c. The response: Motions and Answer
d. Amendment of Pleadings
III. Parties to the lawsuit
a. Larson v. American Family In. Co.: Plaintiff’s joinder of former lawyer under Rule 20(a) was granted because the alleged breaches arose from the same occurrence. Simultaneously, this caused Diversity to be destroyed which caused the court to grant removal under 28 U.S.C. §1447(e) to State Court.
IV. Factual Development – Discovery
a. Butler v. Rigsby: Affirmed/reversed parts of lower court’s order for production of documents because some were privileged Medical information, others were allowed but costly so costs were split, and others had no problem.
V. Pretrial Disposition – Summary Judgment
a. Houchens v. American Home Assurance Co.: Defendant’s summary judgment motion was granted and affirmed. Court held that it was unreasonable to hold that a person declared legally dead could be presumed to have died of an accident, for an insurance payout. Court held that it was just as likely that other reasons were possible.
VI. Trial
a. Norton v. Snapper Power Equipment: judgment-notwithstanding the verdict for defendant was reversed. The court judged that a reasonable jury could have found for plaintiff, and that a dead man device could have averted the accident. It did this with the view most favorable to the non-moving party.
VII. Former Adjudication
a. Rush v. City of Maple Heights: Court held that plaintiff was barred from bringing a claim for personal injuries against the city, when they had already won a claim for damage to the motorcycle from the pot hole. The court held that only single cause of action arises where a person sustains both personal and property damages.
VIII. Appeals
a. Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader: Defendant’s appeal was dismissed since it was interlocutory. It’s not possible to appeal from a Rule 34 order for production of documents.
The Constitutional Framework for US Litigation
Personal Jurisdiction
I. Origins: Territorial Jurisdiction
a. Pennoyer v. Neff: P’s collateral attack to title was affirmed, because the sale arising from prior judgment had been held against him without proper jurisdiction. Court held that a state may only assert jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant when they are served with process within the state.
II. Modern Framework: Minimum Contacts & Beyond
a. International Shoe Co. v. Washington: Washington courts could render judgment over a DE corporation who sold merchandise there. It modified the test of Pennoyer so that now substantial minimum contacts are necessary to support personal jurisdiction, such that comports with fair play and substantial justice.
b. McGee v. International Life Insurance. Co.: D was held to have sufficient minimum contacts for maintaining a single life insurance policy within the state. Hence, the court affirmed a default judgment that was held against D in the state.
c. Hanson v. Denckla: D was said to lack sufficient minimum contacts, since the trust it ran was never reaffirmed in Florida. The court held that to establish minimum contacts one had to purposefully avail itself of the benefits and laws of the forum.
d. Absorbing In Rem:
i. Shaffer v. Heitner: Shareholder’s derivative suit was reversed since SCOTUS found that the Maryland court improperly applied in rem jurisdiction. Court held that in rem jurisdiction must go through the same minimum contacts framework in International Shoe.
e. Specific Jurisdiction
i. World-Wide V.W. Corp. v. Woodson: OK court lacked personal jurisdiction in a breach of warranty suit for an auto that caused an accident against a NY dealer and a NY wholesaler. SCOTUS held that they not purposefully availed themselves of the laws of the state.
ii. Asahi Metal Co. v. Superior Court: Indemnity action between two foreign bike-part manufacturers dismissed. Plurality opinion affirmed that the D had not purposely availed itself, through some intent to market or sell, and so lacked minimum contacts. Concurring opinion held that there were minimum contacts through the stream of commerce but jurisdiction did not comport with fair play.
iii. McIntyre v. Nicastro (2011): Reversed NJ court holding against a British manufacturer of scrap metal recycling machines for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plurality opinion held that the primary relevant test is purposeful availment to figure minimum contacts. Concurrence holds that Volks-Wagen could dispose of the case. Ginsburg’s dissent, argues that fair play is all that matters.
iv. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz: Affirmed a Florida court ruling on a breach of contract that enforced a choice of law clause. Court held that the defendants had consented to the jurisdiction of Florida courts.
v. Pavlovich v. Superior Court: Reversed lower court’s holding for P, since D’s passive website did not transcend into minimum contacts. SCOTUS held that the CA court lacked personal jurisdiction over a defendant who knowingly harmed the CA movie industry and not any company in particular.
f. General Jurisdiction
i. Perkins v. Benguet Con. Mining Co.: Affirmed Ohio court’s judgment against a Philippine corporation. Court held that the court could exercise general personal jurisdiction over the displaced Philippines Corporation who essentially ran its business in the forum state.
ii. Helicópteros Nacionales De Columbia v. Hall: Reversed lower court’s judgment in favor of P in a negligence suit for a helicopter crash in Columbia. SCOTUS held that the Texas Courts lacked general jurisdiction over a Columbian Corporation who maintained a checking account and purchased equipment there
iii. Burnham v. Superior Court: Held that where a D who was served with process in CA, a CA court had personal jurisdiction. Scalia’s plurality opinion holds that transient jurisdiction is still good from the Pennoyer framework. Justice Brennan affirms that D has availed themselves of the benefits of the forum’s laws.
iv. Goodyear v. Brown (2011): Reversed SC’s judgment for the p against two foreign subsidiaries of Good year for lack of general P.J. Court held that such a suit could only be maintained against a corporation who was essentially at home.
III. Consent and Notice
a. Consent:
i. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute: Reversed appellate court ruling for P’s, for failing to enforce forum selection clause. Choice of forum clause was deemed legitimate because it was D’s primary place of business and there was no evidence of fraud or overreach.
b. Notice:
i. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank: Prior judgment reversed because of lack of adequate notice for those beneficiaries of a trust who could have been reached. Notice must be reasonably calculated to reach those who could be easily informed by the means at hand.
IV. Voluntary Restraints on Jurisdiction
a. Long Arm Statutes as a Restraint
i. Gibbons v. Brown: P’s claim against D dismissed for lack of Personal Jx. D had formerly filed a suit against P’s husband for an auto accident in Canada. Hence, there is no personal jurisdiction over a defendant who was no longer a plaintiff engaged in litigation in the state.
b. Venue – In which District Court may a case be heard. See 28 USC §1391.
.Y. defendants dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. P was not a citizen of a foreign state under §1332(a)(2). Court also found it did not qualify as an action between citizens of different states under §1332(a)(1) since state citizenship is determined through domicile. Having a CA law license was not relevant, since the p had live in France for several years.
f. Saadeh v. Farouki: Suit filed by P (a Greek permanent resident) against D (a Jordanian permanent resident) dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Court held that the amendment to §1332(a) was intended to limit jurisdiction by preventing suits between citizens and foreign residents to get to the fed courts. Any other reading would destroy the rule that diversity is destroyed when solely between aliens. Also, since diversity is determined at the time the suit is filed, P’s later becoming a U.S. citizen is irrelevant.
IV. Supplemental Jurisdiction (§1367): Where one qualifying fed claim allows state claims to be brought into federal court that are related to the same action.
a. In re Ameriquest Mortgage Co.: D’s 12(b)(1) motion calling on §1367 discretion for supplemental jurisdiction is denied. Court held that the State law fraud claims could affect her Truth in Lending Act claims and hence the court would decide upon the state law claims as well.
b. Szendery-Ramos v. First Bancorp: Court declined to use supplemental jurisdiction under §1367(c) over P’s Puerto Rico claims regarding violations of the P.R. constitution, defamation, wrongful discharge, and tortious interference with contracts. Court found that the claims substantially outweighed her federal claim under title VII and they raised novel and complex issues.
i. Take note of Exxon-Mobil v. Allapatah which granted that where one P has a claim that satisfies the amount in controversy and all parties are diverse then the claim
V. Removal: Where a case is eligible for fed court jurisdiction, but starts in state courts.
a. It is granted that a diversity case, a fed question, or a supplemental jurisdiction case (along with all the state law claims) is removable. See 28 U.S.C. §1441.
i. Removal will go to the district in which the state court was. Also, Ds can’t remove in a diversity case that is in their home state. All Ds must agree to the removal.
b. Ds must remove within 30 days that diversity or fed question is shown. However, D’s have a maximum of 1 year since the start of trial to remove. Rule 11 sanctions may be filed for an improper removal See 28 USC §1446
i. After removal, procedure is governed by 28 USC §1447
c. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis: removal was proper under §1441 since the jurisdictional requirement was met at the time judgment was rendered. Court held that the court’s error in granting removal before it was proper was not fatal to the adjudication.
(Erie Problem) Application of Federal and State Law in Federal Courts
I. Applying State Court Decisions in Federal Courts
a. Rules of Decision Act 18 U.S.C. §1652: grants that fed courts will apply state law where applicable.
b. Swift v. Tyson: P’s claim came down to which state law would be applied to determine whether their debt instrument was a check or a promissory note. Court held §1652 only required that a fed court should only apply the laws of the state’s legislature. This enabled courts to create federal common law.
i. Contention: this became highly challenged because it allowed for vertical forum shopping within a state, which essentially ensures an uneven application of law depending on whether a suit was filed in federal or state court. Many would make sham deals to take advantage of this. See Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Brown &Yellow Taxicab Co.
