CIVIL PROCEDURE II OUTLINE
GENERAL OVERVIEW… 1
THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR U.S. LITIGATION.. 2
PERSONAL JURISDICTION.. 2
Origins. 2
Modern Constitutional Formulation of Power5
Redefining Constitutional Power6
Absorbing In Rem Jurisdiction. 7
Specific Jurisdiction: The Modern Cases. 7
General Jurisdiction. 10
Outer Limits of Jurisdictional Power: Jurisdiction to Determine Jurisdiction. 11
Consent as a Substitute for Power12
Constitutional Requirement of Notice. 13
Self-Imposed Restraints on Jurisdictional Power14
Long-Arm Statutes as a Restraint on Jurisdiction. 14
Venue. 15
Declining Jurisdiction: Transfer & Forum.. 16
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS. 18
Federal Question Jurisdiction. 18
Diversity Jurisdiction. 20
Supplemental Jurisdiction. 22
Removal24
THE ERIE PROBLEM… 24
Constitutionalizing the Issue. 24
Limits of State Power in Federal Courts. 26
Interpreting the Constitutional Command of Erie. 26
De-Constitutionalizing Erie. 27
Determining Scope of Federal Law: Avoiding & Accommodating Erie. 28
Determining Scope of State Law: An Entailment of Erie. 30
INCENTIVES TO LITIGATE.. 30
SUBSTITUTIONARY REMEDIES. 30
Compensatory Damages. 31
Liquidated, Statutory & Punitive Damages. 32
SPECIFIC REMEDIES. 34
DECLARATORY RELIEF. 36
FINANCING LITIGATION.. 36
American Rule. 36
Insurance & Contingent Fee. 36
From Fee Spreading to Fee Shifting. 38
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES. 39
Preliminary Injunctions. 39
Temporary Restraining Orders. 40
Provisional Remedies & Due Process. 41
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.. 42
ABROGATIONS/WAIVERS. 43
INDIVIDUALS. 43
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.. 44
APPEALS. 44
WHO CAN APPEAL?. 45
WHEN DECISION MAY BE REVIEWED: FINALITY.. 47
Final Judgment Rule. 47
Exceptions Final Judgment Rule. 48
SCOPE OF REVIEW… 49
MODERN U.S. SUPREME COURT PRACTICE. 50
RESOLUTION W/OUT TRIAL.. 52
NEGOTIATION & SETTLEMENT. 52
Contracting to Dismiss. 53
Contracting for Confidentiality. 54
MEDIATION & COERCION.. 55
ARBITRATION.. 56
GENERAL OVERVIEW
A) Jurisdiction – WHERE – which ct system should case be brought in?
1) Fed’l cts – limit jdx
a) Presumption AGAINST fed’l ct jdx
i) To overcome, must be able to pt to
Volume of benefit (Asahi)
(c) Presence of people or prop in state is still a factor in contact inquiry (Pennoyer)
(d) Agreement that forum law applies (Burger King) – huge availment if you choose forum state
b) Balancing – focus on practical/logistical fairness
3) Rationale for 2 prongs
a) B/c minimum contacts part is really designed NOT just for fairness BUT also to prevent states from offending ea other [BUT: this is waivable]
i) So federalism isn’t really issue…doctrine evolved
(a) Attack fairness question differently
Origins
A) Overview
1) Art IV, § 1 – Full faith & credit shall be given in ea state to the publ act…of every other state
a) Federalism principle which req states to give full respect to other state’s judgment – i.e., must enforce
i) Can NOT re-litigate merits
UNLESS 1st ct lacked jdx
