Civil Procedure I Outline – Fall 2011 – Professor Jenny Martinez
I. GOALS OF PROCEDURE
a. Avoiding wrong outcomes
b. Adding to legitimacy of the system
c. Equitable treatment
d. Efficiency
e. Predictability
f. Also, never forget: SUBSTANCE AND PROCEDURE GET MIXED!!!!!!!!
II. DUE PROCESS
a. Due Process requires (at least) notice and chance to respond to charges BEFORE deprivation of life, liberty, or property (Cleaveland Board of Education v. Loudermill- Justice White Opinion).
i. Due process stems from both 5th (federal) and 14th (states) amendments
ii. States may enhance but not detract from federally mandated minimum due process standards.
iii. States have discretion to create property rights (ex. for cause only termination for state employees), but once they’ve created the right, it is subject to the due process standards of the Constitution.
1. Employer may suspend with pay to remove from job.
iv. Other property rights defined by SCOTUS: right to continuous stream of money from the government (social benefits, job, etc) without dispute
v. Marshall’s Concurrence: Should be a thorough hearing before termination because it’s hard to restore someone to full status after trauma of losing job.
vi. Rhenquist Dissent: Principles from balancing tests are too subjective, and intangible benefits shouldn’t be property rights
b. Three factors determine whether pre-deprivation right of hearing is required (Matthews v. Eldridge):
i. Interest of the P (in not being deprived of something)
ii. Interest of defense (timeliness)
iii. What would the value of additional proceedings be
c. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (ONLY PLURALITY)
i. Some evidence standard: Requires government just to present evidence to a judge to justify detention, but does not require notice of the charges to the defendant, a chance to present evidence, or access to counsel.
O’Conner, Rhenquist, Kennedy, and Breyer
Souter and Ginsburg
Scalia and Stevens
Thomas
Can the President hold US Citizen without criminal trial as enemy comabatant?
Yes, authorized by AUMF because if you go to war, you capture prisoners
No. AUMF is not specific enough to authorize that level of violation of the Geneva Codes
No. Congress hasn’t suspended the writ of habeas corpus
Yes.
What process is required for an enemy combatant?
Notice and an opportunity to be heard before a neutral decision maker (not interrogatory, military tribunal okay). Heresay allowed, rebuttable presumption for gov
Full Criminal trial
Full Criminal trial until and unless Congress suspends writ of Habeas corpus.
No additional process necessary. Allow military to do its job and protect us
d. Writ of habeas corpus needs to be filed in the district where the prisoner is being held, naming his immediate custodian as respondent. NO EXCEPTIONS (Rumsfeld v. Padilla)
i. Majority: Written by Renquist, joined by O’Conner, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas
ii. Concurrence (O’Conner and Kennedy): Would limit the holding of this case only to Padilla wthout setting precedent for the proper venue for writs of habeas corpus
iii. Dissent (Stevens, Breyer, Kennedy, Ginsburg): Venue and respondents were proper given the circumstances, especially since the Government was deliberately trying to dodge the suit.
e. Concerns with Substance/Procedure Interactions
i. Work to favor the disadvantaged party
ii. Should not counter policy goals
iii. Adherence to procedure should be flexible in areas of law that are in transition
iv. Consider the goal of both substantive and procedural rules to fiture out the best way to balance the elements of the system to come to the best outcome
v. Protect against substantive bias
III. PERSONAL JURISDICTION (Horizontal question: Where can you sue the D?)
a. Power: Court must have power over a dispute involve the particular parties
i. Does NOT look to state of citizenship (DON’T MIX WITH DIVERSITY JURISDICTION)
ii. Statutory Component: State long-arm statute defining personal jurisdiction (every state MUST have one, or not jurisdiction over any out of state D)
1. Policy arguments for unlimited jurisdiction
a. Want to give your citizens the fullest protection possible
b. Less complicated, as you just have to apply constitutional test
c. Give discretion to your state’s judges
2. Policy arguments for specific statutes
a. Don’t want to put your citizens at risk in other states for unlimited jurisdciton
b. Limit cases that may take up space on your cout’s docket
c. State constitutional limits
d. Less judicial discretion= more accuracy
e. Too broad a statute might deter out of state business
f. Predictability
iii. Constitutional Component: Constitutional Due Process Met (Int’l Shoe-Asahi)
1. General Personal Jurisdiction: Continuous, systematic, pervasive contacts in the district in which lawsuit is filed
a. If established, need not establish specific
2. Specific Personal Jurisdiction:
a. International Shoe Test- D must have “minimum contacts related to the lawsuit such that the maintenance of the suit does offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
i. McGee v. International Life Insurance broadened limits of specific personal jurisdiction beyond Show such that even if there’s only one contract or deal in that state (for insurance purposes) there is personal jurisdiction
ii. Burger King v. Rudzewicz (Brennan Opinion) SPLITS the Int’l Shoe test:
1. Did the D purposefully establish minimum contacts? (Asahi- divided court- gives us ideas about what that might mean)
a. Purposeful availment of benefits of forum state, more than just entering stream of commerce (O’Conner)
b. Foreseeability, (as arises by entering stream of commerce; Brennan)
c. Common sense test based on volume/quantity of contact with forum; mere awareness= purposeful availment; not necessary to evaluate if fairness factors don’t play out (Stevens and White)
2. Are those contacts sufficient to establish that maintenance of the suit would not contradict traditional notions of fairplay and substantial justice (Look to WWVW 5 Fairness Factors)?
3. More fairness= lesser standard of minimum contact, and more contact= lesser standards of fairness
4. Asahi: MUST have some minimum contacts AND some fairness factors (analyzed separate) to establish specific personal jdx. (except tag jdx)
a. O’Conner plurality: purposeful actions to market/sell/tailor product to forum state rather than mere foreseeability required to establish personal jurisdiction
b. Brennan concurrence: If it is foreseeable that your product may end up in the forum state, that establishes minimum contacts
c. Stevens concurrence: pragmatic analysis of the situation based on the overall circumstances
i. No difference between mere awareness and purposeful availment
ii. Volume, value, and hazardous care of component more important
iii. Examination of minimum contact not necessary if you get thrown out on the fairness factors from WWVW.
b. World Wide Volkswagen v. Woodsen: A person/corporation may not be haled into court in a state that it has no reasonable means of foreseeing that it may be called into court in due to complete lack of contact.
i. Established 5 FAIRNESS FACTORS for determining minimum contacts (balancing test)
1. Burden on the defendant
2. Forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
3. P’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
4. Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining most efficient resolution of disputes
5. Shared interest of several state sin furthering fundamental social policies
c. Gray v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp: (STATE COURT CASE): Tort takes place where the final event occurs rendering the offenders conduct tortious. If a corporation elects to sell its products for ultimate use in another state, it is not unjust to hold it answerable there for any damage caused by defects in those products.
i. In case with no business, benefits, advertising, sales, or anything else, no personal jurisdiction because they (the local dealership) did not anticipate the product being in that place.
ii. Mere possible forseeability is not enough to establish jurisdiction unless the D's conduct and connections with the forum are such that he should reasonably expect that he might be called to court there
r of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant
1. who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.
2. Who is a party joined under rule 14 or 19 and is served within a judicial district of the united states and not more than 100 miles from where the summons was issued
3. When authorized by federal statute
ii. Federal Claim outside State-Court jurisdiction: For a claim that arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if
1. The defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction AND
2. Exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws
ii. Constitutional Component: Means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it (Mullane vCentral Hanover Bank & Trust Co. )
1. Context specific, and requires more effort in cases with fewer Ps.
c. Governed by Rule 12
d. Objection must be raised in the FIRST piece of paper that you hand the court.
e. Developed from rigid territoriality> modern somewhat flimsy standard
f. (random, not sure it’s necessary, but): Types of action:
i. In personam: against an individual
ii. In rem: against a thing
iii. Quasi in rem:
1. About the thing itself only as it relates to cerain parties
2. Dispute over something else in personam but tyrin to satisfy in rem.
IV. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (Vertical Question: Do you have to be in State court, or can you be in Federal Court)
a. Constitutionally/Congressionally created limits on federal court subject matter jurisdiction can’t be waived. Ever. Under any circumstances whatsoever.
i. Subject Matter jdx may be challenged directly at any point and appealed on that question
ii. Exclusive jurisdiction is REALLY rare. Mostly overlaps, and if parties choose to stay in state court, they may do so.
1. However, if P wants to and can file in federal court, that’s the end.
iii. If P files in state court in any D’s home state, may not remove from state court to federal court.
1. AKA none of
iv. If P files in state court outside of the D’s home state, D may remove to federal court without review or challenge
v. Dred Scott v. Sanford: P is not a US citizen, so he can’t sue in federal court.
b. Limits on Justicability
i. Limits on the “judicial power of the US” to specific subject matter categories
ii. Must have a justiciable case or controversy before invoking federal judicial power
1. Courts can only hear questions presented in an adversary context with real parties at interest (Can’t issue advisory opinions)
2. Case must be live in the course of litigation (absent some specific exceptions:
3. Standing to sue- Need a personal stake in the controversy due to a direct injury that can be redressed by the relief sought.
a. Injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.
iii. Courts may limit their own power even more for policy reasons
c. Diversity Jurisdiction: Federal Courts have diversity jurisdiction over suits in which the properly named defendants are all citizens of different states than all the Ps (Work through like FOIL, make sure each party on one side of the v. is from somewhere different than each party on the other side of the v.) AND amount in controversy is > $75,000. Goal: prevent bias against out of state parties.
