Prof. Shipley, Civ Pro
Fall 2012 Outline
I. Overview
a. Complaint
b. Lawyer’s Obligations
c. Response
d. Amended Pleadings
e. Parties
f. Discovery
g. Summary Judgment and Trial
h. Former adjudication and Appeals
II. Jurisdiction
a. Personal Jurisdiction
b. In rem jurisdiction
c. Specific Jurisdiction
d. General Jurisdiction
e. Consent to Jurisdiction
f. Declining jurisdiction
g. Transfer
h. Forum non conveniens
III. Notice
IV. Long Arm Statutes
V. Venue
VI. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
a. In general
b. Challenging SMJ and Diversity
c. Amount in Controversy
d. Supplemental jurisdiction
VII. Additional Claims and Parties
a. Joinder
b. Counterclaims
c. Impleader
d. Compulsory joinder
e. Intervention
f. Interpleader
VIII. Erie Doctrine
a. Swift and Erie
b. York and Byrd
c. Hannah
d. Semtek
e. Interpreting State Law
————————-
I. Road Map for Analysis
a. Personal jurisdiction
i. D must have minimum contacts with forum state (whether state or federal court).
ii. D must have received notice and an opportunity to be heard.
b. Venue
i. Any district where D resides (special rules for multi-D cases); or
ii. Any district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.
c. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
i. Diversity – between citizens of different states (no P may be citizen of same state as any D), and at least $75k at stake; or
ii. Federal question – must be a question of Federal law. No minimum amount in controversy requirement.
d. Pleadings
e. Applicable law (Erie Choice)
i. In diversity case, may Fed court apply its own law, or must it apply state law?
ii. If state has a substantive law (statute or common law), federal court in diversity must apply that law.
f. Multi-party / Multi-claim litigation
i. Counterclaim – Rule 13
1. Is counterclaim permissive or compulsory?
2. Third parties may also make counterclaims.
ii. Joinder of claims – Rule 18(a)
1. Once claim against another party, may then make any other claim they wish against that party.
iii. Joinder of parties – Rules 19 and 20
1. Permissive or compulsory joinder?
iv. Intervention – Rule 24
1. Non-party seeks to enter suit on his own initiative.
2. Is intervention ‘of right’ or ‘permissive’?
v. Interpleader – Rule 22 (rule interpleader) or §1335 (statutory)
1. Jump ball – when party owes something to two or more people but not sure which, use interpleader to prevent double liability.
2. Differences between statutory and rule interpleader.
vi. Impleader – Rule 14(a)
1. D has potential claim against third party, by which 3d party would be liable to D for some of P’s recovery against D. (indemnity)
vii. Cross Claims – Rule 13(g)
1. Claim against a co-party
viii. Jurisdiction
1. Personal Jurisdiction and SMJ must be satisfied.
2. Does supplemental jurisdiction apply?
a. If no, new claim or party will need independent basis for jurisdiction.
g. Former Adjudication
II. Jurisdiction Over Parties
a. In personam – criteria that allow court to have jurisdiction over person
i. Presence in forum State
1. If service made on D while in forum state, jurisdiction.
2. See Burnham, where D was subject to jurisdiction in CA when he traveled to CA to visit children, even though he had no other contacts with CA.
ii. Domicile in forum state
1. Domicile: Person is domiciled in place where he has current dwelling place, with intent to remain in that place for an indefinite period.
iii. Consent to be sued in forum state
1. If consent, no contacts necessary.
2. Hypo: If P sues in GA without any other contacts in GA he has consented to jurisdiction in GA. D may then counterclaim. Even if P’s claim is dismissed, D’s counterclaim still has jurisdiction.
iv. Driving a car in forum state
1. State statutes allow courts to exercise jurisdiction over non-resident motorists involved in accidents in state.
v. Committing tortious act within the state
1. Depending on long arm statute, may also include out of state torts with consequences in-state.
vi. Ownership of property in forum state
1. In causes arising from the property in-state, owner will be subject to jurisdiction.
vii. Conducting business in forum state
1. Since states regulate individual’s business conduct in state, they may exercise jurisdiction relating to that doing of business.
Note: individual must have minimum contacts with forum.
b. Corporations – In personam
i. Domestic corporations – courts have jurisdiction over corporations that are incorporated in forum state.
ii. Foreign corporations
1. Must have minimum contacts with the forum state “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” (International Shoe)
2. Dealings with residents of forum state
a. Minimum contacts are satisfied if corp has voluntarily sought to do business in, or with residents of, the forum state. (Examples: International Shoe, Mcgee – minimum contacts; but see Hanson, where no minimum contacts found)
b. Must purposely avail itself of the chance to do business in the state.
3. Agents
a. Even if out of state corp doesn’t’ do business in forum state, but uses another company as its agent in the state, the foreign corp may be sued there if agent does a significant amount of business on behalf of foreign company in that state. (need example).
4. Websites that reach in-state users – key question: did website operator intend to “target” residents in forum state?
a. Passive sites that just post information: no minimum contacts, even if in-stater accesses site because no targeting.
b. In-state e-commerce: minimum contacts satisfied if site actively markets to in-staters and significant number buy things, where suit relates to in-stater’s transactions.
c. Systematic and continuous transactions with in-staters: support jurisdiction in state on claims not related to in-state activities.
d. Non-commerce sites: minimum contacts if significant number of forum state residents receive ongoing communications from company. (need examples.)
5. Claims related to in-state activities
a. Where CoA does not relate to corp’s in-state activities, D must have “systematic and continuous” activities in-state. (Ex: Helicopteros).
6. Products Liability
a. Effort to market in forum state
i. Mere fact that product makes its way into forum state and causes injury is not enough to subject D to PJ.
ii. D must have made direct or indirect effort to market in the forum state. (Ex: Worldwide Volkswagon)
b. Knowledge of in-state sales is enough
i. If manufacturer makes or sells a product that it knows will eventually be sold in forum state, probably enough to get minimum contacts.
ii. If this is the only contact that exists, may be unreasonable to make D defend there. (Ex. Asahi)
7. Suits based on Contract Relationships
a. If party makes payments to other in forum state, stream of payments likely to establish minimum contacts (Ex. Burger King)
b. Choice of law clauses – if contract contains choice of law clause, it will be a factor toward finding minimum contacts. (See BK, where Florida CoL provision was in contract).
c. Reasonable anticipation of D (key question) – could the D reasonably have anticipated being required to litigate in forum state?
c. In rem – seeks to affect interests of persons in a specific thing (probate court actions, title to ship, real estate foreclosure, divorce)
i. No judgment imposing personal liability. All that happens is the status of a thing is adjudicated.
ii. No effect from Shaffer: minimum contacts necessary for a quasi in rem action, but no minimum contacts necessary for adjudication of status of property or thing, even though it affects rights of an out of state D.
d. Quasi in rem – would have been in personam if jurisdiction over person would have been obtainable, but instead property or intangibles are seized not as the object of the litigation but as a means of satisfying a possible judgment against D. D has no liability beyond the value of property seized.
i. No res judicata value:
1. Exception: if D makes limited appearance and fully litigates certain issues, those issues may not be relitigated in a subsequent trial. Depends on jurisdiction – some courts hold that first suit does not prevent D from relitigating same issues later.
ii. Requi
rsy
1. $75k figure does not include interest or court costs
2. Standard of proof – all party needs to show to get diversity is that there is some possibility that that much could be in question.
a. Need a legal certainty that claim is for less than $75k.
3. Aggregation of claims
a. Single P – may add all claims against single D to total more than $75k.
b. P may not join claims against other Ds for less than $75k.
c. Multiple Ps:
i. At least one P meets amount – other Ps may join related claims against same D (supplemental jurisdiction)
ii. No single P meets amount – aggregation not allowed. BUT, if 2 or more Ps unite to enforce single title or right in which they have a common and undivided interest, they may. [Need example].
4. Counterclaims
a. Suit initially brought in Fed court, where P’s claim is for less than $75k, and D counterclaims to bring amount in controversy over $75k – not satisfied.
b. Removal from state court:
i. P may never remove even if D counterclaims against him for more than $75k.
ii. Permissive counterclaim by D for more than $75k – may not remove.
iii. Compulsory counterclaim by D for more than $75k – courts are split on whether D may remove.
b. Federal Question – Fed court jurisdiction over cases ‘arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the US.’ §1331.
i. Interpretation of federal law
ii. Anticipation of defense
1. Federal question must be integral to P’s cause of action.
2. Not sufficient that P anticipates a defense based on a federal statute, or even that D’s answer asserts a defense based on a federal question. (Louisville & Nashville RR)
c. Burden – party seeking to invoke jurisdiction must make affirmative showing that case is within court’s SMJ.
d. Dismissal at any time – suit must be dismissed for lack of SMJ no matter when a deficiency in SMJ is noticed. Rule 12(h)(3).
VII. Supplemental Jurisdiction – claims may be added on, where they form part of the same case or controversy as the claim in question. §1367.
a. [Need flow chart or something here?]
b. Federal question case
i. Court may hear closely related state-law claims between same parties in original claim.
ii. Additional parties may also be brought into case on closely related state law claims. §1367(a).
c. Diversity case
i. Claims covered:
1. Supplemental jurisdiction will apply to compulsory counterclaims. Rule 13(a).
2. Joinder of additional parties to compulsory counterclaim. Rule 13(h).
a. Supplemental Jurisdiction – Counterclaim party need not be diverse, and amount in controversy does not need to be greater than $75k.
3. Rule 13(g) cross claims by one D against another.
4. Rule 14 impleader of 3d party Ds, for claims by and against 3d party Ps and claims by 3d party Ds BUT not claims by original P against 3d party D.
5. Multiple Ps under Rule 20 permissive joinder
a. Only apples to amount in controversy, but does not remove requirement of complete diversity.
ii. Claims not covered:
1. Claims against 3d party Ds by original P
2. Compulsory joinder under Rule 19(a) – neither a claim against or a claim by that person comes within supplemental jurisdiction in diversity-only case.
3. Rule 20 permissive joinder of Ds.
4. Rule 24 Intervention – regardless of whether intervention is permissive or of right.
