Civil Procedure Outline
Overview of Procedure:
A. The Idea and the Practice of Procedure
1. Rule 1 states: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to all Civil actions in Federal Courts; They should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”
B. Stating the case:
1. Lawyer’s Responsibility:
1. Rule 11:
a. Ethical and actual obligations to be truthful
b. “All pleadings presented to the court (or all written documents) must be supported by “a reasonable factual investigation” and a normally competent level of legal research.
i. Gives standards for legal research and gives sanctions
c. Bridges v Diesel service: facts: ADA lawsuit filing with EEOC, plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies; Defendant moves for sanctions under Rule 11:
d. Rule 11 relevance: “All written documents presented to the court must be supported by a reasonable factual investigation and a normally competent level of legal research.” Sanctions are just supposed to be a deterrent from them occurring in the future, not supposed to have a “chilling effect” on the case – thus plaintiff is dismissed without prejudice so they can file it again.
2. The complaint:
1. Rule 8: Rules of Pleading
a. (a): Complaints:
b. Bell v Novick: facts: an infant plaintiffis hit by car; defendants use several motions:
i. motion under rule 12 e motion for a more definitive statement,
ii. motion under rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim – complaint just says they are suing for negligence
iii. court rules if a party needs that information it will be revealed at discovery, and that Rule 8 only requires a short and plain statement showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief in the complaint; they want to allow the plaintiff to be able to find more information on her legal theory
3. The Response: Motions and answer
a. Pre answer motions: takes no position on the allegations of the other party; Anything not denied is considered as admitted; Affirmative defenses under rule 8 must be in the pre answer motion.
i. Motions are requests that the court do something
ii. Rule 12(b)6 – failure to state a claim – meaning the court cannot grant relief even if everything the Ptf. says is true
b. if the defendant doesn’t make a pre answer motion then he must answer
i. 7(a)
Chapter 2 – Personal Jurisdiction
1. Personal Jurisdiction:
i. Cannot deprive anyone of “due process of law” (amendment 14) – “life, liberty, or property.”
ii. You are always subject to Personal Jurisdiction and it is the only of the three that can be waived.
iii. Only applies to Defendants:
1. A court cannot exercise power over defendant unless the court has a connection with him or the event arising out of plaintiff’s claim
Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)—
a. “In Personam”: Person’s rights: Power over Defendant
i. General Jurisdiction: Defendant can be sued in the forum on any matter because he has continuous and systematic business.
ii. Specific Jurisdiction: Defendant can be sued in the forum on claims that arise only from their contacts with the state (contacts are not continuous and systematic)
1. MINIMUM CONTACTS
a. Defendant’s contacts: purposefully avails him/her/itself of privilege and benefits of forum
b. Connection: litigation arises out of/or relates to contacts
2. FAIRNESS: traditional notions of fair-play and substantial justice
a. Burden on defendant
b. Interest of plaintiff
c. Interest of forum
d. Interest of all states (including foreign judicial systems)
Pennoyer v. Neff (1877): the state has power over people and property inside its boundaries; property must be in state at time of lawsuit
1. Traditional bases of in personam PJ:
A. Presence: If the Δ is served with process in the forum it gives the forum general in personam jurisdiction
a. Property in territory (if attached)
i. Attached land must have been owned PRIOR to the lawsuit.
B. Agent: Service of process on the Δ’s agent in the forum creates general jurisdiction
C. Domicile: Δ is domiciled in the forum gives general jursidiction
D. Consent: Δ consents to specific jurisdiction
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute (1991): adhesion contract term requiring passengers to consent to suit in FL; court held that you can waive your constitutional protections and that minimum contacts are not necessary when there is consent; efficiency argument to prevent cruise line from defending in whatever state passengers are from (cost passed on to consumer)
POLICY ISSUES:
i. In terms of fairness the cruise line is better able to afford distant defense
ii. Purposeful availment—did the cruise line advertise in the Δ’s home state?
iii. Unconscionability—unequal bargaining power in adhesion contracts
International Shoe Co. v. Washington is the modern determination of the power of the courts over defendants.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington(1945): company based in St. Louis had salesmen in Washington and Washington wanted a contribution from corporation to state unemployment fund; company claimed no personal jurisdiction; SC found personal jurisdiction over non-resident corporate Δ where the Δ has “such minimum contacts with the forum so that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”. Factors in assessing minimum contacts:
presence in the state
systematic and continuous activities within the state
enjoys the benefits and protections of state laws
whether it is reasonable to expect the Δ to defend itself in that state
E. “Minimum Contacts” and “Traditional Notions of Fair Play”
i. More flexible than Pennoyer
ii. It is clear that you can
but only foreseeability that the Δ could get sued in that forum, not that the product could get to the forum state.
iii. The unilateral act of the consumer taking the car into the forum state is not enough to have PJ over the dealer who has no contacts with the state.
iv. It is equally forseeable that the product will go to many other states, a ruling that would establish forseeability in all of these states would allow a seller of a portable product to be sued in any state wherever the buyer takes it.
Stream of Commerce Cases:
4-4 Split. Two plurality decisions so no law on stream of commerce cases. MUST EXPLAIN BOTH SIDES
Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court(1987): victim of motorcycle accident brought suit in CA court against Taiwanese tire-tube maker who cross-claimed against a Japanese manufacturer of the tube valve assembly. When a company puts a product into the stream of commerce with the expectation that it will reach the forum state are minimum contacts satisfied? no majority opinion so two theories emerge
a.
a. The “fair play and substantial justice” ruling of Int. Shoe is determined further:
**Note: a Minimum contact has to be found in the state before traditional notions of justice can be encountered::
Fair play and sub. Justice. balance can trump the minimum contacts and connections when there is a weak link between purposeful availment in the forum state and the Defendantà leads to the NO PJ conclusion in this case bc it wasn’t fair to hold asahi to the American court for the following reasons:
1. The burden on the Defendant – here it’s an international company being sued in an American court – would be an unreasonable burden because its an unfamiliar court system; HUGE burden on Asahi bc he is from Japan
2. The burden on Plaintiff: here is a low burden bc there are other nation’s court systems that can be used;
3. Interest of the Forum State = California has little interest bc the Ptf is not even a California resident or company
4. Public Interest of the states as a whole – we don’t have tolitigate other countries’ disputes for them.
b. The Stream of Commerce: Two varying points of view from this case; the law is not settled on this:
A. O’Connor plurality approach (decision): We need more than just a reasonable anticipation that a product will reach the forum state; we need that plus the plus factor of the intent to serve the forum state (advertise, customer phone line, distributors)
B. Brennan approach: It is a contact if you put the product in the stream and could reasonably anticipate that it would get to a state ; because of the regular and extensive sales in California.
