Chapter 2: Personal Jurisdiction and Other Court-Access Rules
A. Traditional Bases of Jurisdiction: Power, Presence, Domicile, and Consent
Power over the Person or Property of the Defendant
i. Pennoyer v. Neff
2. Raising Jurisdictional Objections
3. Domicile and Consent
i. Domicile
ii. Consent
4. Jurisdiction over Out-of-State Corporations
B. Expansions of Personal Jurisdiction: Specific and General
1. The Minimum Contacts Standard
i. International Shoe Co. v. Washington
2. General Jurisdiction
i. Noncorporate Defendants
ii. Parents and Subsidiaries
3. Specific Jurisdiction and the Proliferation of Specific-Act Statutes
C. The Supreme Court Imposes Limits
1. The Requirement of a Purposeful Act- Hanson v. Denckla
2. Personal Injury and Products Liability Cases
i. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
ii. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of California
3. Defamation and Targeted Wrongdoing
i. Calder v. Jones
4. The Commercial Contract Cases
i. Burger King v. Rudzewicz
5. The specialized Problem of Nationwide Jurisdiction
6. Property-Based Jurisdiction
i. Note on Security Attachments
7. Transient Service
i. If a defendant is present in the state in which he is served, then jurisdiction is proper
1. Burnham v. Superior Court of California
D. Why Litigants Care About Choice of Forum
1. Did not cover
E. Notice and the Mechanics of Service of Process
1. The Constitutional Requirement of Notice
2. The Mechanics of Service of Process
i. FRCP #4
1. The Summons and Provisions for Service
2. Waiver of Service
3. Service in a Foreign Country
4. Territorial Limits of Service
ii. State Service of Process Statutes
1. Don’t worry about these, the federal model generally applies
iii. Immunity From Process
iv. Service of Process and Statutes of Limitations
F. Local Actions, Venue, Forum Non Conveniens and Transfer
1. The Local Action Rule
2. Formal State and Federal Venue Statutes
i. Venue Rules in State Courts
ii. Venue Rules in Federal Court
3. Forum Non Conveniens
4. Transfer Within the Federal System
i. § 1404 Transfer
1. This is the main type of transfer in the federal system
2. Ferens et ux. v. John Deere Co.
ii. § 1406 Transfer of Dismissal
iii. § 1407 Transfer
Chapter 3: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A. Introduction
B. Justiciability
Standing to Sue
i. Personal Stake in the Controversy
ii. “Causation” and “Redressability”
iii. Prudential Barriers
iv. Rile of Congressional Legislation
Disputes Appropriate for Judicial Resolution
i. Advisory Opinions
ii. Political Questions
Questions of Timing
C. Diversity Jurisdiction
Rationale; Complete Diversity Requirement
1. Strawbridge v. Curtiss
ii. Exceptions to Diversity Jurisdiction
1. Domestic Relations
2. Probate
Determining Citizenship; Joinder Issues
i. Time Frame for Determination
ii. Natural Individuals
iii. Corporations
iv. Direct Actions Against Insurance Companies
v. Unincorporated Associations
1. Limited Partnerships
a. Carden v. Arkoma Associates
2. Rose v. Giamatti
Alienage Jurisdiction
i. Citizens of States Not Recognized by the US
ii. Dual Nationals
iii. American Citizens Living Abroad
iv. Alien Corporations
Amount in Controversy
i. Calculating the Amount in Controversy
ii. The Pertinence of Counterclaims
iii. Attorney’s Fees
iv. Aggregation of Claims
v. Class Actions
Diversity Jurisdiction and Complex Litigation
i. The Multiparty, Multi-forum Trial Jurisdiction Act
ii. The Class Action Fairness Act
Federal Question Jurisdiction
“Arising Under” Federal Law
i. The Role of a Federal Defense
ii. The Scope of “Arising Under”
iii. Implied Rights of Action
iv. The Distinction Between “Jurisdiction” and “Merits”
v. The Effect of Declaratory Judgments on “Arising Under” Jurisdiction
vi. Outer Limits of Article III
E. Supplemental Jurisdiction
1. The Origins of Supplemental Jurisdiction: Pendent/Ancillary Claims
2. Additional Parties
3. Congress Responds to Finley: “Supplemental” Jurisdiction
i. 28 U.S.C. §1367
F. Removal Jurisdiction
1. The Structure of Removal
i. The Basic Scheme: The Tie to Original Jurisdiction
ii. Broader Removal for Protected Parties
iii. Reconsidering the Role of Federal Defenses
iv. When is a Counterclaim Relevant?
v. Removal and “Complete” Preemption
vi. Removal and Supplemental Jurisdiction
vii. An Empirical Look at Removal
viii. Foreign States and §1441(d)
2. The Conundrum of Section §1441(c)
3. Removal Procedures
4. Specialized Removal Provisions Under the Class Action Fairness Act and the Multiparty, Multi-Forum Trial Jurisdiction Act
i. Multiparty, Multi-Forum Trial Jurisdiction Act
ii. Class Action Fairness Act
G. Challenging Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1. Direct Review versus Collateral Challenge
2. Must Subject Matter Jurisdiction Be Established Before Any Other Issue?
Chapter 4: The Law Applied in Federal Court
The Origins of the Debate: Swift and Erie
Swift v. Tyson
Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
Determining the Procedural Law Applicable in Federal Courts
Outcome Determination
Analyzing State and Federal Interests
The Impact of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
i. The Rulemaking Process
1. Rules Enabling Act of 1934
2. Layers of Review
3. Status of the Federal Rules
4. Criticisms
5. Local Rules
6. Validity of the Federal Rules
a. Hanna v. Plumer
Track Assignment– Determining the Exercise of a Pertinent Federal Law
i. “Direct Collision” Between State and Federal Rules
Determining the Content of State Law
Substantive Federal Common Law
Chapter 5:
Anatomy of a Litigation: Pleading, Discovery, and Adjudication
A. Pleadings
Introduction
History of Pleading
Pleading Problem
Candor in Pleading
i. Garr v. US Healthcare, Inc
Drafting the Complaint
Dissecting the Rockwell Complaint
i. How Detailed Should the Complaint Be?
1. Statement of a Claim Under FRCP 8(a)(2)
2. Pleading “Special Matters”
ii. Asserting “Jurisdiction”
iii. Specifying a Legal Theory
iv. Pleading in the Alternative
v. The Ad Damnum Clause
1. “Wherefore” clauses at the end of each count of the complaint
a. They represent a demand from the plaintiff
vi. Twombly Case
Filing the Complaint; Assignment of the Judge
Motions to Dismiss
The Answer
i. Defendant’s Investigation
ii. Legal Requirements
1. Duty to Investigate
2. Legal Conclusions and Document Characterizations
3. Partial Denials
4. Affirmative Defenses
5. Counterclaims and Cross-Claims
The Rockwell Answer
Amendments to the Pleadings
i. Relation-Back
ii. Supplemental Pleading
B. Discovery and Summary Judgment
l
To be determined by a jury
i. Parties may strike jurors, meaning replacing them with another juror if they feel that juror has a bias
Opening statements
Plaintiff then presents their case
i. Defense must make timely objections to violations of the rules
Defendant may ask for directed verdict
i. Now called Judgment as a matter of law
ii. This occurs when the plaintiff has still not presented a valid case and the judge then makes a decision if the case can only come out with one reasonable verdict if it went to the jury
Defendant then presents
Appeal
Occurs when an error occurred during the original trial
Enforcement of Judgments
Making sure a plaintiff collects
Finality
Chapter 2: Personal Jurisdiction and Other Court-Access Rules
A. Traditional Bases of Jurisdiction: Power, Presence, Domicile, and Consent
1. Power over the Person or Property of the Defendant (Substantive Due Process)
a. Pennoyer v. Neff
1. The state has the ability to have jurisdiction over persons an property within their limits
b. Judgments in personam
1. Court can impose a personal liability or obligation on a defendant or require a defendant to act or refrain from doing an act
2. Forum state has jurisdiction over the defendant’s person
a. Judgment in forum state is entitled to “full faith and credit” in other states
c. In rem
1. Deals with property (real property)
2. Declares the rights of all persons to a thing
3. Are bound to the entire world, even parties not formally to the suit
a. Ex: action to quiet title to property; dissolution of marriage
d. Quasi in rem
1. Judgments that affect the interests of particular persons in a thing
a. Bind only the particular parties of a certain action/suit
2. Power of the court to attach property to gain jurisdiction over the defendant
a. Such as in Shaffer v. Heitner where the court required this to be tested under the “minimum contacts” standard of International Shoe
i. Meaning that the “mere presence of property in a state” does not allow for personal jurisdiction unless the defendant has minimum contacts
3. Quasi in rem I
a. A dispute over property between 2 or more people
4. Quasi in rem II
a. Property does not relate to the cause of action but is used to gain jurisdiction
e. When can a court exercise power over a person or thing?
1. According to Fields, a state can exercise authority over persons or property within its jurisdiction/territory
2. When the person from out of state consents
3. Getting the service of notice does not create any sense of consent
4. Does not matter where the action occurs, the state can exercise power and jurisdiction over property and residents
f. Service is not jurisdiction, it is simply notice
