Civil Procedure I Outline

Civil Procedure
                                                                                                                                Andrews
Spring 2015
 
 
Personal Jurisdiction
 
If Defendant (corporate or natural person) waived objection to PJ, PJ is good.
 
If natural person was served while in the forum, PJ is good. Also, if def. consented, PJ is good. [Burnham]  
Does the “long arm” statute authorize PJ over defendant? If so, look at whether due process is met.
 
State court – long-arm statute
 
Federal court – apply state long arm statute
 
Is due process met?
 
Minimum contacts under International Shoe.
 
What are the defendant’s contacts with the forum state?
 
Are those contacts related to the claim?
 
: 1) substantive relevance test asks whether defendant’s contacts are relevant in addressing the merits of the plaintiff’s claim [didn’t pass because brochures and phone calls not relevant to the merits] 2) meaningful but-for test asks whether the injury would’ve happened but for the defendant’s contacts with the state [this was met b/c but for the hotel’s solicitation the couple would not have gone]. If substantive relevance is met, then meaningful but-for is automatically met.
 
If the contacts are related, apply WWVW two-prong test.
 
2
 
 
Is there a nexus between the defendant, the contacts, and the forum state such that the defendant could reasonably expect to be haled into court there?
 
Purposeful availment – was the related contact sufficiently purposeful? “Foreseeability” is not enough – activities must be purposeful enough that the defendant can reasonably expect to be brought into court. Can ask whether the defendant availed himself of the benefits of doing business in the forum state. Unilateral acts of the consumer (like the Audi taken from NY to OK in WWVW) are not purposeful enough.
 
Reasonableness – balancing test between the foreign defendant’s burden in defending the suit vs. 1) the plaintiff’s interest in suing in the forum 2) the forum state’s interest in litigating the suit 3) interstate judicial system’s interest in efficiently litigating the suit and 4) substantive policy interests. [Asahi – suit was an indemnity action between a Taiwanese and Japanese company; burden was high because of the distance to CA and the language/foreign legal system barrier; plaintiff’s interest and forum’s interest lwere low b/c it was between two foreign companies; interstate judicial system’s interest was
 
3
 
 
low for same reasons; substantive policy interest was in
 
NOT litigating suit b/c foreign relations]  
If the contacts are not related, decide whether the defendant is “at home” in the forum and is thus subject to general jurisdiction there.
 
– place of incorporation, domicile, and principal place of business could all make the defendant at home in the forum
 
– when contacts cease to be continuous and systematic, general pj ceases to exist
 
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
 
A.  Federal Question Jurisdiction
 
28 U.S.C. 1331: District courts have original jurisdiction in all claims arising under the laws, treaties or Constitution of the U.S.
 
Claim itself must contain federal ingredient
 
– plaintiff sued RR for breach of contract in federal court, anticipating that the RR would use federal statute in defense and they in turn would counter that application of the statute would violate Due Process under Fifth Amendment; Supreme Court said this did not create federal smj.
 
Congress can create federal cause of action (RICO), but very few areas are exclusively federal; states have concurrent jurisdiction on many issues including constitutional and statutory interpretation, RICO; patents are exclusively federal
B. Diversity
 
28 U.S.C. 1332
 
4
 
 
Diversity must be