Civ Pro 1 – Professor Joseph, Fall 2011
I. Personal Jurisdiction: in personam jurisdiction (IPJ)
· The defendant must have certain “minimum contacts” with the forum state such that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fairplay and substantial justice.
o Jurisdiction was only proper by in state personal service
i. In Rem – Jurisdiction over property within the state (even if owned by a non-resident). State has an interest in regulating property within state. (minimum contacts must apply)
ii. Quasi in Rem: Jurisdiction over property where the property was used to satisfy a possible judgment not related to the property (will face strict scrutiny).
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction: (SMJ)
· Diversity of citizenship: suits between citizens of different states or US citizens and foreign citizens + amount in controversy over $75,000
· Federal Question Jurisdiction: e.g. Civil Rights, Environmental
Grace v. MacArthur:
· Determined that you can be served (if you a resident of that state) while in the airspace of that state. (while over the state in an airplane)
Millikin v. Meyer:
· Can sue a person who’s domicile is in one state, if you are suing them in their domicile state court, AND serve them in another state.
· Meyer personally served in Colorado per Wyoming statute. Wyoming jurisdiction ok based on domicile.
Things changed after the industrial revolution: Now they had the automobile, and the laws had to evolve.
To Establish Minimum Contacts:
***Specific jurisdiction: where the event occurred in the forum state
· 1) Purposeful availment
o you have to intend to avail yourself to the benefits and protections of that state, such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there;
§ e.g. International Shoe v. Washington, Hess v. Pawolski
o A single act may be sufficient to create “substantial connection with the forum state”
§ McGee v. International Life
· 2) Reasonableness
o (1) the extent of a defendant’s purposeful interjection in the forum state;
o (2) the burden on the defendant in appearing locally;
o (3) the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendant’s state;
o (4) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute;
o (5) the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy;
o (6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief; and
o (7) the existence of an alternative forum.
However, once purposeful availment has been established, there must be a COMPELLING case to make the court realize that the jurisdiction is unreasonable
· Basically, if you purposefully avail, you have asked for it (a voluntary, volitional act to personally reach out to that state.)
***General jurisdiction–
a. A defendant may be subject to general jurisdiction for causes of action unrelated to activities in the state (Kervin)
b. Minimum Contacts must be more significant, they must be considered “Continuous and Systematic” USE THIS PHRASE ON EXAMS!!!
ú Domicile (individuals). State of Incorporation (corporations.)
ú Consent. May be express or implied
ú “substantial, Continuous and systematic” activities.
3) Long Arm Statute
o a court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States (this is California and most states)
o with the purpose to assert a state’s jurisdiction over non-domiciliaries.
o Some states have very narrow long arm statutes that only cover certain acts. i.e Illinois.
Challenging Jurisdiction:
1. Special appearance-means you can challenge jurisdiction
c. MUST do this to challenge jurisdiction
d. However if you do anything else in the case, you have waved ANY jurisdictional challenges (at the state level anyway.)
2. Default- A Defendant may make no appearance are all and allow judgment to be entered.
3 Motion in Federal Court- A defendant may combine a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction along with other motions i.e insufficiency of service of process. However lack of personal jurisdiction must be made in an initial motion (or answer) or it is waved.
Personal Service:
*After Burnham, as long as you are personally served in a forum state, (in state service); you are subject to in personam jurisdiction. The “gotcha” jurisdiction. Makes, Penn. V. Neff still good law.
e. Jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard of “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
*Forum Selection Clause: in a contract, allows parties to agree that any litigation that arises out of the contract to be initiated in a specific forum.
B. Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
I. Diversity of Citizenship – To protect out of state litigants from local prejudice. Another theory holds that diversity was established to provide a federal tribunal for investors developing the southern and western portions of the country.
1. Jurisdiction requires that all parties be “citizens of different states or citizens or subjects of foreign states” (aliens). Thus, a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad cannot sue or be sued on the basis of diversity.
2. Neither the U.S. Government nor a state is a citizen for diversity.
3. Domicile = residence plus “intent to remain indefinitely.” This is true even if plaintiff’s motive is to create diversity.
4. Jurisdiction is determined at the time the complaint is filed. The burden of pleading and proof is on the person asserting diversity. Look at voter registration, tax returns, bank records and assets.
6. Corporations ‑ Important ‑ They are domiciled at their place of incorporation (which may be more than one place) and principal place of business (to prevent businesses from incorporating out of state to create diversity.
“Principal place of business” is defined as the place where “high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” Hertz v. Friend
Complete diversity requirement. Diversity jurisdiction requires that all plaintiffs be of different citizenship from all defendants.
1. This means that while plaintiffs or defendants may have common citizenship, there can be no common citizenship between any plaintiff and any defendant. Ex. P‑l (CA) and P‑2 (CA) sue D (AZ). This is proper. P (CA) sues D‑l (AZ) and D‑2 (CA). This is improper.
2. Collusion to add a party to create diversity is impermissible. Example: Bogus assignment of a claim to a diverse part. Compare: A genuine change of a party’s citizenship before the suit is filed is permissible regardless of the fact that it is motivated to create diversity.
3. Exception to complete diversity requirement: Third party sued by defendant under implea
an involuntary defendant or third party to join all claims in one action, a plaintiff, who chose the federal forum, may not join a nondiverse defendant on the basis of “supplemental jurisdiction.” This is true even if the nondiverse party is brought into the action by a defendant under supplemental jurisdiction. (Owen Equipment 332; TRG 2:146; 2:525). If plaintiff wishes to join diverse and nondiverse defendants, she need only file the suit in state court.
This allows the court to hear a state cause of action related to the federal claim (formerly “pendent jurisdiction”).
1. The court may hear a federal claim and related state claim as long as there is a “common nucleus of operative fact.” Jurisdiction is discretionary.
2. Supplemental jurisdiction is derivative of federal question jurisdiction so the court may decline jurisdiction if the federal question is dismissed before trial or if the state claim predominates. But the court has discretion to hear a state claim even if the federal claim is dismissed or the state claim predominates.
3. Supplemental jurisdiction is decided at the time of the pleadings although it may be decided at anytime.
4. Supplemental jurisdiction also permits transactionally related state causes of action by a plaintiff or a defendant against existing parties or even new parties without separate federal question or diversity jurisdiction.
Examples:
a. Plaintiff Claims: Plaintiff sues D‑1 for violation of federal securities laws. Plaintiff could also sue D‑1 for fraud arising out of the same transaction (state c/a). This was formerly known as “pendent claim jurisdiction” and was permissible, supra. Plaintiff could also add D‑2 to the suit for fraud. This was formerly known as “pendent party jurisdiction” and was not permissible but is now proper (but not in diversity cases, supra).
b. Defendant Claims: P sues D‑1 for federal securities violation. D‑1 could add D‑2 for fraud arising out of the same transaction (state c/a.) This was formerly known as “ancillary jurisdiction.” If P had sued D‑1 and D‑2 for federal securities violation, D‑1 could also sue D‑2 for fraud (state c/a). This was also known as ancillary jurisdiction. Ancillary jurisdiction was and is permissible.
5. Distinguish supplemental jurisdiction in federal question cases vs. diversity cases . We have seen that in federal question cases, a plaintiff, having asserted valid federal question jurisdiction over D‑1, may join D‑2 on a transactionally related state cause of action (the so‑called “pendent party” jurisdiction). This does not apply in diversity cases. Thus, if P (CA) sues D‑1(AZ) P may not add D‑2 (CA) regardless of whether the cause of action is transactionally related to the case against D‑l. As stated, this is true even if D-2 is brought into the case by D-1 on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction.
