Stefano–CivilProcedure–Spring-2017
Traditional Bases of PJX:
physical presence at time of services of process
Cal. Cod. CP 410.50
Court in which an action is pending has jx over a party from the time summons is served
Domicile in the state
If you’re not present, but you’re domiciled, state is sovereign
Consent or voluntary appearance
Forum selection clause
Making a general appearance
<SPECIFIC PJX>: does state court have the power to compel out-of-state D to come defend the suit?
International Shoe: “minimum contacts”
Holding: new test- certain minimum contacts and does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
Minimum contacts:
regular and systematic solicitation of orders, P’s salesmen resulted in continuous flow of P’s product into WA
give rise to liabilities sued on
general jx: if lawsuit concerns dealings entirely distinct from contacts with forum state, in state continuous activities must be so substantial and of such a nature to justify suit there
casual presence or contact that is isolated/sporadic does not arise from those contacts (for either specific or general)
specific jx: even single or occasional acts that give rise to the current claims can be enough, depending on NATURE and QUALITY and the CIRCUMSTANCES of commission (lower amount of contacts needed than general)
n/q/c:
1) has D purposefully availed himself of forum benefits?
Purposefully directed activities at forum residents?
Deliberately engaging to purposefully derive benefit?
Substantial connection with the forum?
Continuing relationships and obligations with forum residents
Expectation of purchase by forum residents?
2) would assertion of jx comport with fair play and substantial justice?
Fair play and substantial justice:
# and regularity of contacts, volume of business generated
deliberately exercised the privilege of conducting activities within the state and enjoyed benefits and protection of the laws of that state
inconvenience to D? convenience/burden to P? state’s interest?
Burger King v. Rudzewicz
K with burger king(out of state party) is not enough for purposeful availment:
need to evaluate entire course of dealing, prior negotiations, future consequences which are the object of K
K creates continuing obligations between D and forum residents
Fair play and substantial justice:
Reasonableness of forcing D : substantial inconvenience balanced against
Forum state’s regulatory interest
How disadvantaged (evidence, witnesses)
Efficient justice (does any other state have a strong/overriding interest?
He has to present a compelling case that inconvenience is SO SUBSTANTIAL that it reaches constitutional magnitude
Where contract terms reached through “fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power” such that litigation would be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that a party will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court
<GENERAL PJX>
Higher standard of contact: principle hq, principle business of home
Goodyear v. Brown (U.S. 2011): “A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” “Mere sales” also insufficient: “Small percentage” of the tires Ds make in Europe reach NC through “stream of commerce;” but they are “in no sense at home in NC”
Daimler AG v. Bowman (U.S. 2014): Examples of “paradigm all-purpose forums” are the corporation’s principal place of business and/or where it is incorporated; any place beyond that would be an “exceptional case.” Daimler’s activities in CA plainly do not approach that level. It is one thing to hold a corporation answerable for operations in the forum State [i.e., specific PJx], quite another to expose it to suit on claims having no connection
Perkins v. Benguet (U.S. 1952):
From OH, co’s president kept an office, maintained its files, oversaw its activities — basically carried on “continuous & systematic supervision” of Benguet’s activities during the time it was temporarily located in OH and so OH was Benguet’s “principal, if temporary, place of business”
Helicopteros v. Hall (U.S. 1984):
“Mere purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals, are not enough” to warrant assertion of GPJx
<SUBJECT MATTER JX>- prevent prejudice for out of state residents
state courts typically have general SMJx: claims arising from state law, some other s’s law, even for fed law(only specific claims are exclusive to fed court)
Article III §2:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the U.S., to controversies between Citizens of different States, …etc.
28 U.S.C. §1332:
District court have og jx : >$75k, and between citizens of diff states or state citizens and foreigners
(c)(1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business
Hertz Corp v. Friend (U.S. 2010): principal place of business à a corp’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corp’s activities, should be the place where the corp maintains its hq : “nerve center”
Diversity of Citizenship
Strawbridge v. Curtiss (U.S. 1806): there must be complete diversity
No Plaintiff may be a citizen of same state as any Defendant, no overlap (across the v.) allowed
Mas v. Perry (5th Cir. 1974): citizenship =domicile, mere residence not sufficient.
domicile -true, fixed and permanent home and principal establishment and to which she has the intention of returning whenever [she] is absent therefrom
change of domicile: taking up residence in a different domicile with intention to remain there
Friedrich v. Davis: stateless because American citizen found to be domiciled in Germany, intent to return to U.S. à stateless citizens cannot be sued in Fed Court
28 USC 1332(c)
A corporation shall be deemed a citizen of every state which it has been incorporated and where it has its principal place of business
Hertz Corp v. Friend (US 2010): principal place of business is where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate corporation’s activities. It should normally be the place where the co
oblem with a contradictory state rule
<SUPPLEMENTAL JX>not on test
28 U.S.C. §1367 (a):
Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.
Court has jurisdiction over entire “cases,” not just over particular claims or issues in the case
So need two things:
The case must include at least one claim that is jurisdictionally proper (i.e., based on Fed Q or diversity) – the “anchor” claim
All claims must “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” and are such that the plaintiff “would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding”
28 U.S.C. §1367 (c):discretion to decline supp jx
may decline if:
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction
<REMOVAL JX>
28 U.S.C. §1441(a)
Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. …
Allows cases to move from state to federal court
_____________________________________________________________________
Pleadings
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Functions:
Notice to defendant:
Provide notice to the D of what P is upset about, the grounds for her claims
Notice to the court:
Fact presentation: sets out each party’s view of the facts/evidence to be explored in discover/used at trial
Issue Narrowing: figure out what’s really in dispute; frame and narrow the issues to be resolved at trial
Merit screening: helps court ID baseless claims; deters Ps from making frivolous claims to extort a settlement
