Jurisdiction Problems:
1. Personal jurisdiction: First, make sure that the court has “personal jurisdiction” or “jurisdiction over the parties.” Check: (1) D had minimum contacts with the forum state (whether the court is a state or federal court); and (2) D received such notice and opportunity to be heard as to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process.
2. Venue: Then, check whether venue was correct. In federal court suits, the case must be heard either: (1) in any district where the defendant resides (with special rules for multi-defendant cases; or (2) in any district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S.C. §1391.
3. Subject matter jurisdiction: If the case is a federal case, you must then ask whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Essentially, this means that one of the following two things must be true:
a. Diversity: Either the case is between citizens of different states (with “complete diversity” required, so that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant) and at least $75,000 is at stake; or
b. Federal question: The case raises a “federal question.” Essentially, this means that plaintiff’s right to recover stems from the U.S. Constitution, a federal treaty, or an act of Congress
4. Ascertaining applicable law: Now, figure out what jurisdiction’s law should be used in the case. The most important problem of this type is:
In a diversity case, may the federal court apply its own concepts of “federal common law”, or must the court apply the law of the state where the federal court sits? If the state has a substantive law (whether a statute or a judge-made principle) that is on point, the federal court sitting in diversity must apply that law. Erie v. Tompkins.
5. Multi-party and multi-claim litigation: If there is more than one claim in the case, or more than the basic two parties (a single plaintiff and a single defendant), you will face a whole host of issues related to the multi-party or multi-claim nature of the litigation. You must be prepared to deal with the various methods of bringing multiple parties and multiple claims into a case. In federal courts:
a. Counterclaim: D may make a claim against P, by use of the counterclaim. See FRCP 13. Check whether the counterclaim is “permissive” or “compulsory.” (Also, remember that third parties, who are neither the original plaintiff nor the original defendant, may make a counterclaim.)
b. Joinder of claims: Once a party has made a claim against some other party, she may then make any other claim she wishes against that party. This is “joinder of claims.” See Rule 18(a).
c. Joinder of parties: Multiple parties may join their actions together. Check to see whether either “permissive joinder” or “compulsory joinder” is applicable. Also, remember that each of these two types of joinder can apply to either multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants. See FRCP 19 and 20.
d. Class actions: Check whether a class action is available as a device to handle the claims of many similarly-situated plaintiffs, or claims against many similarly-situated defendants. See FRCP 23. Look for the possibility of a class action wherever there are 25 or more similarly-situated plaintiffs or similarly-situated defendants.
e. Intervention: A person who is not initially part of a lawsuit may be able to enter the suit on his own initiative, under the doct
the requirements of federal subject matter jurisdiction. (Example: P, from Massachusetts, sues D, from Connecticut, in diversity. X, from Massachusetts, wants to intervene in the case on the side of D. Because supplemental jurisdiction does not apply to intervention, X must independently satisfy the requirement of diversity, which he cannot do because he is a citizen of the same state as P. Therefore, X cannot intervene.)
9. Former adjudication: Lastly, check whether the results in some prior litigation are binding in the current suit. Distinguish between situations in which the judgment in the prior suit is binding on an entire cause of action in the present suit (under the doctrines of merger and bar), and the situation where a finding of fact is binding on the current suit, even though the judgment itself is not binding (the “collateral estoppel” situation).
a. Non-mutual collateral estoppel: Where a “stranger” to the first action (one not a party to that first action) now seeks to take advantage of a finding of fact in that first suit, consider whether this “non-mutual” collateral estoppel should be allowed. [392]
b. Full Faith and Credit: Lastly, if the two suits have taken place in different jurisdictions, consider to what extent the principles of Full Faith and Credit limit the second court’s freedom to ignore what happened in the first suit. [410]
