Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Dayton School of Law
Dickinson, Kelvin

Civ pro.
28 USC § 1332-diversity jurisdiction statute—exceed 75k, citizens of different states
-Congress stated that the federal court system may get involved when the suit is brought between citizens of differing states.
                POLICY REASON: prejudice from local courts on out of state Π
Strawbridge v. Curtis-multiple Π from mass, one Δ from Vermont, subpoena in Vermont—fed court does not have jurisdiction, must be complete diversity jurisdiction, there were multiple Π from same state. 
US Constitution Article III § 2-constitutional diversity provision-judicial power shall extend to all cases between citizens of different states
                Wyman v. Newhouse—Π lives in fl, Δ in NY, Π lures Δ to FL through fraud. Π issues subpoena to Δ, Δ does not respond, returns to NY, ignored summons, default judgment
-Δ claims full faith and credit-US Const art IV § 1– Judgment procured fraudulently (Florida), lacks jurisdiction. Fraud affecting the jurisdiction is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
-Courts would normally give full faith and credit if proceedings in prior court was valid (he was fraudulently induced)
-Court needs to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendant, that’s why it wasn’t a federal court in Florida
-must have personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction
-if served within state, state usually contains jurisdiction (exception: fraudulently obtained)
FRCP Rule 8a—claim for relief—
1) Short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends
2) Short and plain statement of the claim showing pleader is entitled to relief
3) Demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks
FRCP Rule 8e—pleading to be concise and direct
1)    Each averment is simple, concise and direct. No technical forms of pleadings or motions required
2)    Two or more statements of a claim or defense. Party may state as many separate claims or defense as party has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal, equitable or maritime grounds
Conley v. Gibson—Negros, discharged, rehired for less, claim union did nothing, Δ claim Π did not adequately set forth claim.
-Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.
-Failure to state a claim-We didn’t do what the Π says we did, and we shouldn’t be liable.
-FRCP does not require claimant to set out in detail facts as basis for claim. All that is required is a short plain statement of the claim allowing Δ fair notice of Π claim and grounds for it. 
-Claim-facts short plain
TEST: Look at complaint and ask-is there a set of facts would entitle pleader to relief
-enough to make allegations
-still awaiting discovery stage to get more fact
                             POLICY REASON: allow Π for his day in court
FRCP 26b1-2-Discovery Scope and Limits 1) In General 2) Limitations
          26(b)(1)-parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter NOT PRIVLIGED, that is relevant to claim or defense of any party…relevant info need not be admissible at trial if discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
          26)b)(2)-court may later the limits in these rules…court may limit rules if i) discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative…ii) party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery to obtain info iii) burden or expense of proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefits. 
Kerr v. US DISTRICT COURT—Π, inmates, class action law suit, adult authority, Π attempting to discover 6 docs, about backgrounds of guards.
HOLDING: 1) documents of a personal nature might provide successful to show link of biasness, inexperience, etc, and could be used for other purposes such as cross examination. (relevancy in discovery is a broad standard)
-ALLOW DISCOVERY if the testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
-Standard for discovery of information-not privileged and relevant
FRCP 56(c)-Summary Judgment—Motion and proceedings thereon
56(c)-summary judgment may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages.
          Warren v. Medley-friends, bar, drinks, went to neighbors, went on table, broke, cut leg, claims neighbors placed Π wife on table. ISSUE: should the court reverse summary judgment? NO
-Π was a licensee in home of Δ, as licensor, Δ is required to not injure by way of willful, wanton or gross negligence.
1. summary judgment, Δ has burden establishing as a matter of law he is not liable under any theory presented by Π
a. Π occupied role as licensee, Δ did not wantonly or with gross negligence allow her to be harmed; therefore, not at fault.
2. if reasonable minds could differ on a conclusion drawn from summary judgment, Δ would not have discharged burden placed upon him.
a. Π testified Δ was shocked and couldn’t do anything to prevent accident, reasonable minds couldn’t disagree, Δ’s acts didn’t bring accident about.
US Const Amend XIV § 1 cl.3-fourteenth amendment due process clause
14 amend § 1 cl. 3-nor shall any state depreive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Pennoyer v. Neff-Δ was attorney for Π, Δ didn’t pay bills, Π had land sold at auction to pay bills, notified Δ in Oregon newspaper, Δ lived in California. objective was person not property. Did Oregon court have jurisdiction over Δ? NO—
-Every state has exclusive jurisdiction over its citizens and no state can exercise jurisdiction over other states persons or property.
-Power of states can only go to the borders-can’t extend beyond borders—TERRITORIALITY    
-If person was there at property and properly served then they have territoriality, then property could be attached.
-Territoriality-state has power to affect those who are in its borders, and only within its borders (idea comes from federalism)
– if person consents to jurisdiction (responds to hearing-he gives consent to the courts) and returns to defend himself, jurisdiction would apply
-If they declare an agent-then they would have allowed agent to accept service for them, then that would be an exception also.
Grace v. MacArthur-Δ flying over state, served with process—court upheld process took place in state—it was within territorial limits. 
Hess v. Pawloski-Δ not served with process, was served under mass statute that provides if person operates vehicle in state, they appoint agent in state—consent was given, due process wasn’t violated—as long as there is service within state upon him or upon authorized agent
PERSONAL JURISDICTION-Federal courts need both subject matter and personal jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction is divided into two categories. A court may exercise jurisdiction if it finds either general or specific jurisdiction over a party. General jurisdiction exists when a party has extensive (“continuous and systematic”) dealings with the forum administered by the court. Specific jurisdiction is present when a party performed some activity in the territory without which the present action before the court could not have been brought.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington—didn’t pay unemployment taxes, no contracts or sale or purchase in state, no stock, merchandise, no direct supervision or managers in state. Had 11-13 employees in state that would solicit orders from potential buyers, and transmit orders to Missouri offices for acceptance or rejection. Main offices would decide and send shipments to state, but all actions for shipment were done out of state. 
-due to capias ad respondendum (that you take to answer, sheriff taking Δ in possession to ensure appearing in court) giving way to personal service of summons, if the person is not present in the state, must have MINIMUM CONTACTS with state.
-Presence in state not doubted when activities make corporation liable to be sued. Casual presence of agents, or conduct which is SINGLE OR ISOLATED not enough to be considered having a presence in state.
-Activities of Shoe were neither IRREGULAR NOR CASUAL. They were systematic and continuous, by which they benefited from state law, protection, right to courts, etc.
Contacts related to claim, claim arises from contacts and activities
-how continuous and systematic-quantity
-what was the contact, benefits and protections
-suit arose from activities
Due process requires that maintenance of suit meets traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
POLICY REASON: Burden on out of state Δ, our concern protects the Δ -can Δ protect
     themselves in state, too much money to p

-they did not avail themselves to Ok market, did not reasonably foresee being hauled into court. Did not know if any other cars were ever in Ok.
                             Dual purpose of minimum contacts
-protect defendant from burdens of litigating in distant or inconvenience forum
-insure state, through their courts, do not reach out beyond their limits (territorialism)
                             Specific jurisdiction-claims arise from contacts and activities
General jurisdiction-claim has no relationship to contacts (should be continuous and systematic) so contacts should be continuous and systematic for general jurisdiction
General jurisdiction-if fundamentally fair, no relationship between claim and contacts, how could it be fair to expect them to protect themselves in a forum. If continuous and systematic in a jurisdiction then activity is so common, quality is so much they could anticipate law suit in arena, even if its unrelated to claim. 
Go into Cal, down highway, hit car driven by person who lent me money, instead of sued in Cal for accident sued for debt, can be sued in cal for debt? Where did the debt take place in Cal? Could he be reasonably foreseen being sued in cal for his debt?  General jurisdiction! No, wasn’t continuance and systematic.
Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz-Δ lived Michigan, created fl franchise, contract stated fl jurisdiction would be used–? Did Δ avail himself to fl jurisdiction?
– no physical ties to Florida, other than one trip. However, Δ reached out of Michigan to Florida based company, entered contract for 20 years with Florida company. 
-The quality and nature of his relationship to the company was not “random, fortuitous or attenuated.” 
-Although a contract alone constitute a “contact”, nature and quality of their relationship was not random. Florida has legitimate interested in holding Δ accountable to courts
-Almost presumption when it is a commercial Δ unless Δ could show jurisdiction is unfair, then Δ could state assertion of jurisdiction could offend notions of fair play and reasonable justice.
-Activity directed towards forum state, burden shifts upon Δ, to state fairness and convenience factors shouldn’t apply.
Asahi Metal v. Superior Court-person injured, blamed rubber company, rubber company then blamed Asahi, who created valves in wheels. ? did court have jurisdiction over Δ international company?—NO
-minimum contacts or substantial connection between Δand forum state necessary must come about by an action
-defendant didn’t purposefully direct activities toward the forum state.   
-placement in stream of commerce not enough. 
-4 things they could do to avail themselves to the market and availing themselves to the forum states legal system, and towards the state.
-designed products for the market,
-advertised towards forum state
-established channels providing regular advise to customers or
-marketed products through distributor who agreed to serve as sales agent in the forum state
-Δ did not avail itself to cal. Didn’t have offices, create or control employment, distribution, and no evidence they designed product for anticipation of sales in cal. 
-indemnification claim would have witnesses in Taiwan and/or Japan, definitely not cal. Δ would have to go to cal and come with witnesses with them from Japan and Taiwan
-interests of forum state extremely low,
-US shouldn’t be quick to assert jurisdiction over out of country players