Civil Procedure
Professor Swedloff
Fall 2011
Court Access – Beginning the Suit
1) Jurisdiction to adjudicate
a. Personal Jurisdiction
b. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
2) Notice
3) Venue
I. Personal Jurisdiction (first element to satisfy to get court access)
a. Power over the party
b. Must have both statutory authority and comply with due process (14th Amendment)
i. Statutory Authority
1. State courts
a. Statutory authority comes from “long arm” statutes
b. The “long arm” statutes are generally very broad, but the party’s relationship with the state and their conduct must fall within the confines of the statute
2. Federal courts
a. Governed by Rule 4(k)(1)
i. 4(k)(1)(A) Jurisdiction is authorized if defendant is subject to jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction (state court) in the state where the district court is located (so needs a state “long arm statute”); or
ii. 4(k)(1)(B) The party is joined under Rule 14 or 19 and is served within a judicial district of the U.S. and not more than 100 miles from where the summons was issued; or
iii. 4(k)(1)(C) When authorized by a federal statute (can grant authority when other two criteria aren’t satisfied)
ii. Due Process (applies state or federal)
1. Must have either general (power over the party) or specific jurisdiction (power over the claim)
2. If the cause of action arises out of the defendant’s contacts/conduct with the forum state, then specific jurisdiction. If it does not, then only other option is general jurisdiction
a. General Jurisdiction
i. Traditional basis
1. In personam
a. People
i. Domicile – Place where person has taken up residence and intends to remain indefinitely (requires residence, but residence is not in and of itself domicile)
ii. Presence – being physically located in the state when being personally served
iii. Consent – consent to being subject to the jurisdiction, usually by engaging in an activity which is regulated by a statute which says you consent to jurisdiction by engaging in such activity
b. Corporations
i. Domicile – place of incorporation
ii. “Substantially at home” – systematic and continuous activity which essentially renders them “at home” in the forum state (Goodyear and Helicopteros)
2. In Rem
a. State has authority over disputes regarding property within its borders
b. In Rem actions declare rights of all persons to property, and decisions bind the entire world in regards to that property
3. Quasi In Rem I
a. When the property is the subject of the dispute but the outcome only binds the parties in the suit
b. Ownership or disputes over breach of duties of ownership is enough for jurisdiction
4. Quasi In Rem II
a. When the property is not the subject of the dispute, but attached as collateral or to ensure satisfaction of judgment
b. Same “minimum contacts” as specific jurisdiction is required to have jurisdiction in this case (Schaffer)
b. Specific Jurisdiction
i. In order to have specific jurisdiction over claims arising from the defendant’s contacts with the state, the defendant must satisfy the “minimum contacts” requirement and be fair (comport with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”)
ii. It is unclear if “fairness” serves to tip the scale when minimum contacts is weak (jurisdiction enabling), or if it is its own criteria which must be satisfied in in conjunction with minimum contacts (jurisdiction stripping)
iii. Purposeful Availment and Minimum Contacts (International Shoe)
1. A defendant who “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State; thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” (Hanson) is subject to suits in that forum arising out of those contacts
2. Foreseeability
a. Idea that the actions or conduct involving or direct to the forum state would allow you to reasonably foresee being hailed into court there
b. Things such as having offices in the forum state, number of sales made to the forum state, targeted activity, commercial contracts (McGee), torts committed in the state, torts committed outside the state which cause injury within the state (Calder), etc. are things which are considered as contacts
c. A single contract which forms a “substantial connection” with the forum state, such as a contract which creates an ongoing relationship within the state, has been deemed to be enough (McGee), but this is the outermost limits of minimum contacts
3. Stream of Commerce
a. Idea that a company can satisfy minimum contacts by placing products into the open market, even though the company does not directly sell to or ship to the forum state, as long as it is foreseeable that the products would end up in the forum (Asahi)
b. However, more is needed than just putting them in the stream. Some sort of directed activity (purposely designing the product to appeal to that market, selling to a distributor it knows deals in that forum, possibly even prior experience that products end up there) (World Wide Volkswagen) (Nicastro)
iv. Fairness
1. Sometimes deemed to strip jurisdiction even with minimum contacts
2. Other times deemed to tip the scale in favor of jurisdiction when minimum contacts is weak
3. Test
a. Balancing the burden on the defendant against;
b. the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief, state’s interest in adjudicating
c. Interstate judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution
d. Public policy, furthering social policies/interests
II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Federal system)
a. Federal Question
i. Requires Constitutional power and statutory authority
1. Article III creates Constitutional power for Supreme Court to hear cases arising under federal law, but it does not grant authority to lower federal courts
2. U.S.C. §1331 is the statute which provides authority to lower federal courts to hear cases which arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the U.S. if:
a. As interpreted by Mottley, the cause of action is based on a federal law or question which is included in the complaint by the plaintiff at the onset of the suit (well pleaded complaint)
b. As interpreted by Grable, it can also include federal questions which are not a cause of action, but for state law claims that implicate significant federal issues
i. This is on a case by case basis, based on federal interest in adjudicating
ii. Interest is judged by the effects the decision may have on how the federal issue is interpreted for future cases or effects how the government operates. In Grable the federal question was the definition of “adequate notice” required prior to seizure of assets by the IRS to satisfy delinquent taxes. The answer to that question was part of a state law claim, but it would impact the IRS’s ability to collect delinquent taxes
b. Diversity Jurisdiction
i. Article III grants authority to hear cases in diversity. U.S.C. §1332 narrows authority
ii. Must satisfy diversity of citizenship requirements and amount in controversy
iii. Diversity
1. Normally, all parties on one side, must be different from all parties on the other side (Strawbridge)
2. Exception for aggregate cases
a. The majority of each party must be different from the majority of the other side in these cases
3. Exception for class actions
a. As long as the named parties are diverse and can adequately represent the interests of the rest of those in the class action, diversity is met
4. De
67
a. §1367(a) – except as provided by (b) and (c) or by other federal statute, a Federal district court which has original jurisdiction in a civil action, shall also have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III. This supplemental jurisdiction includes claims which involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties
b. §1367(b) – if original jurisdiction was based solely on §1332 (diversity jurisdiction) than supplemental jurisdiction will only apply for joined parties if the new parties will not disrupt diversity. S
i. Supplemental jurisdiction will not apply to claims against parties joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of §1332
c. §1367(c) – the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if:
i. Claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law
ii. The claim substantially predominates over or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction (as in the claim which would be supplemental is the biggest part of the overall case, and the claim which the federal court had jurisdiction over was actually just a smaller part of it)
iii. If the federal court ends up dismissing all claims which gave it original jurisdiction
iv. For other compelling reasons in exceptional circumstances
d. This rule does not exclude compulsory counterclaims
i. May exclude permissive counterclaims which are not considered “part of the same case or controversy”
e. Sometimes produces odd results
i. Prevents supplemental jurisdiction over parties joined as defendants out of necessity (rule 19)
ii. Allows for defendants to be added permissively (rule 20)
iii. Removal (to Federal Court)
1. Under §1441, a defendant can request to have a case removed from state court to federal court as long as the federal court originally had jurisdiction
a. In other words, the plaintiff could have brought the case there to begin with if they wanted
b. Does not matter if the original state court didn’t have proper jurisdiction, as long as the federal court its being removed to does have proper jurisdiction
2. A defendant who resides in the same state as the state court the case is being heard in, he cannot request removal to federal court solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction
3. If there are multiple defendants, the defendants must all be in agreement, one can’t try to remove while the other doesn’t want to
4. State court loses jurisdiction once §1441 is invoked
5. The federal court it would be removed to would be the district in which the state court resides, no exceptions
a. Which also means that even if the federal court the case is removed to would normally be an improper venue under §1391, it would still be heard there
