CIVIL PROCEDURE I
State system: State Trial Court—Intermediate Appellate Court—State Supreme Court
Federal system: Federal District Court—U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal—Supreme Court
Lawsuit Overview: Compliant, Answer, conference, Discovery, SJ motion filed, Pre-Trial materials submitted, Trial. Post-Trial motions/appeal, Mediation
Personal Jurisdiction is a court’s power to require an out of state D to defend a claim in their state.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction-the Federal court’s authority to hear the type of case (very limited) in diversity, constitutional, statute, federal question, and supplemental).
SHORT PLAIN STATEMENT- prima facia
FRCP 8 (a): (1) statement of federal jurisdiction (2) short statement of fact (3) request for relief
Twombly standard- the complaint must set forth plausible grounds that a violation has occurred
Conley v. Gibson (1957) A case can’t be dismissed for failure to state claim unless it appears beyond doubt the plaintiff can prove no facts; lowered standard for P. Ps, black union members, sued a segregated union who replacing them with white members. D tried to dismiss, SC held that a complaint cannot be dismissed for failure to state claim unless it appears beyond doubt the plaintiff cannot win.
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema (2002) p 190 prima facia is a standard for trial; short statement of the facts; Not pleading. P refuses to resign, gets fired, and sues for race and age discrimination. The lower court dismissed for not establishing a prima facia case, P won reverse and remand, only a short statement of the facts is necessary. Rule 8a wasn’t applied.
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (P) (2007); p. 197 the short and plain statement must set forth plausible grounds of a violation to give D fair notice FRCP 8 (a)(2). P sues D for anti-trust & unfair competition, and speculated about conspiracy. D files 12b motion to dismiss, SC holds for failure to state a claim.
*Exam Hypo—P said my civil rights were violated and police gave me tickets because I’m catholic” Defense: Rule 8 and Twombly standard: no short statement of facts requiring plausible grounds a violation occurred.
PERSONAL JURISDICTION-power to require an out of state D to defend a claim in their state.
You cannot offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
A state court has the power to regulate people within its territorial limits.
Rationale: Interest of Ps in a convenient forum, interest of forum state (enforcing laws, protecting citizens, adjudicating claims), inconvenience to D, efficiency of judicial system
If you dispute jurisdiction and file and answer, you waive the dispute for jurisdiction
Notice: If no consent, there must be appropriate process to give the D notice
Basis: If no consent, must be a constitutionally appropriate reason for court to exercise power over D.
Quasi in rem -no longer used; judgment against person limited to rights to property in a state.
In rem-adjudication of a person’s interest in a property;
In personam -binds personally w/o attachment to property
State has jurisdiction if: you live in the state, personal service process (transient),when one party is recently divorced (no longer the case), voluntary appearance, if you are in the state. Rule: jurisdiction only applies when party lives there at the time of filing
Pennoyer v. Neff(P) (1877); p 744 D serviced via newspaper; have to be personally served or voluntarily appear; When a court has no jurisdiction over person or property, judgments are invalid for want of due process of law (14th amendment). D was sued; his residence unknown, he was served via newspaper and P won a default judgement when D did not show. D won.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington (P) (1945) p. 764 *State can exercise jurisdiction if there was
um contact. Purposeful availement is needed. Decedent (P) established a trust in DEL, then moved to FL where she died. Daughter in Del (D), and daughters in FL (also P) fought over which state had jurisdiction over trust. D won, FL had no jurisdiction over trust originating in another state.
World Wide Volkswagon corp. v. Woodson (1980) p. 785 single uninitiated or unintended contact is not sufficient contact for personal jurisdiction. NY drivers were hit in OK on the way to AZ, and sued in NY dealer in OK. D said OK doesn’t have jurisdiction. OK cited long arm statue over NY. D won, no sufficient contact, D did not avail itself, had no contacts, ties, privileges, or benefits from OK.
Calder v. Jones (Calder Effects Test)-FL reporter D wrote a defamatory article and was subject to CA jurisdiction. D frequently traveled to CA, the article was to be circulated in Ca, P lived there and her career was there. CA had personal jurisdiction because reporter targeted her and the knowledge of the effect of his actions purposefully availed himself. P won.
Burger King Corp v Rudzewicz (1985) p. 808 BK Franchise; contractual and ongoing negotiations establish minimum contacts and personal jurisdiction, whether present or not. D in MI contracted with P in FL and fell behind in his payments. P sued in FL and won.
Two Part Balancing Test: A plaintiff need not show that an out of state defendant has (1) minimum contacts with the forum state and (2) it is fair and equitable to require the defendant to defend a suit in the state.