Civil Procedure I Outline

CIVIL PROCEDURE
MOORE
FALL 2012
 
 
When analyzing a question regarding Subject Matter Jurisdiction follow these requirements:
·         SMJ can be raised at any time.
·         (1) Diversity Jurisdiction or
o   §1332(a), (b), (c)
§  Need to have complete diversity b/t parties. Plaintiff & defendant need to be citizens of different states.
§  All Factors Test à Used by some courts, in which they consider “a variety of factors, such as the location of the corporation’s nerve center, administrative offices, production facilities, employees, etc. and it balances these factors in light of the facts of each case.” [Amoco Co. v. Anschutz Corp.] §  Domicile Test à A person gains domicile of a state when they show the intent to reside indefinitely in such state. However, it is not necessary to intent to remain permanently to meet the test. Citizenship for individuals is based on their domicile [Gordon v. Steele] §  Amount in controversy needs to exceed $75,000. Each plaintiff needs to claim over $75,000.
·         (2) Federal Question
o   §1331
§  Justice Holmes’ Creation Test – A suit “arises under the law that creates the cause of action.”
§  EXCEPTION == (to the Holmes’ test) In Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, a federal statute authorized parties to bring such suits, but provided they should be decided under local mining customs and statutes. The Holmes test supports the jurisdiction in Shoshone. However, the Supreme Court held that this case did not arise under federal law because state or local law provided the governing property law rules.
§  “Well-pleaded complaint” rule – The case arises under federal law, as stated in §1331, if the federal issue appears on the face of the well-pleaded complaint, that is, if a proper complaint, limited to the allegations necessary to state a proper claim for relief, relies on federal law.
§  Federal & State Claims – What happens when a plaintiff asserts two claims, one arises under federal law and the other under state law.
·         Generally, if the plaintiff asserts a substantial claim that provides a basis for federal court jurisdiction, the federal court will have supplemental jurisdiction over other claims arising from the same facts.
o   Only extend to such state law claims if they arise out of the same underlying events as the federal claim.
 
 
 
 
 
When analyzing a question regarding Personal Jurisdiction follow these requirements:
·         (1) Statute(s) authorizing the court’s exercise (Statutory Analysis)
o   Federal district court looks first to FRCP 4(k). If the claim does not arise under federal law cannot use 4(k)(2). The court will then use 4(k)(1)(A).
o   When using 4(k)(1)(A), look at the long arm statute of the State in question
·         (2) If #1 is met, the exercise of PJ comports with the Due Process Clause. (Constitutional Analysis)
o   ASK: Specific or General?
§  Specific – if cause of action arises out of forum contacts, ct. is said to be exercising specific juris.
§  General – “Continuous and systematic” contacts because the cause of action does not arise out of the defendant’s forum contacts. (Goodyear) [“essentially at home”] o   If Specific à
§  Use International Shoe’s “minimum contacts” standard. 2-Step process:
·         1. Existence of defendant’s contacts with forum state, and
·         2. Whether the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable
·         (Ex: Burger King)
§  ASK: Whether defendant “purposefully availed” themselves causing forum contacts, such that defendant could reasonable foresee being “haled into court” in the forum state claimed (World-Wide Volkswagen)
§  #1 — If case arises from a foreign entity’s placement of products into the stream of commerce, mostly parallel:
·         Minimum contacts question (#1 of process) goes into Asahi and McIntyre. Discuss all different opinions since there is no majority opinion.
·         ASAHI == O’Connor for plurality: reasoned that the mere placement of a product into the stream of commerce is not an act purposefully directed toward a forum state, even when the defendant is aware that the product will ultimately enter the forum state. Brennan’s furthering: argues that jurisdictional premised on the placement of a product into the stream of commerce is consistent with the Due Process Clause and that no showing of additional conduct is required. Steven’s decision: not necessary to determine whether there were minimum contacts, purposeful availment could simply be found the volume of units manufactured by the Japanese company in the forum’s market. O’Connor’s PLUS FACTORS: designing the product for the market in the forum State, advertising in the forum State, establishing channels for providing regular advice to costumers in the forum State, or marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum States. 
§  # 2 – “fair play and substantial justice” factors: 1) Burden on defendant of litigating in forum state, 2) The forum state’s interest in adjudication of the suit (McGee), 3) π’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, 4) The interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, 5) The shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.
·         Burger King held that if minimum contacts exist then the defendant must present a “compelling case” that the reasonableness factors outweigh jurisdiction.
o   If General à
§  “Instances in which the continuous corporate operation within a state are so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct those activities”. (Goodyear)
 
When analyzing a question regarding Venue follow these requirements:
·         Who – only a defendant(s) may remove.
·         When – A defendant sued in state court must remove to federal court within 30 days of receiving the initial pleading/being served with process. However, sometimes removal is allowed 30 days after. 
·         Where – The defendant must remove case to “the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending” §1441(a). Removal allows the defendant to choose the federal the federal system, but doesn’t give a choice to move to a di