Civil Procedure I Outline

Civil Procedure Outline
INTRO:
Civil Litigation is one form of dispute resolution- distinctive in 4 ways:
1.       Initiated by private parties rather than the state
2.       Involves a public decision maker
3.       Involuntary- defendant may be dragged before decision maker if jurisdiction allows it.
4.       Results of dispute resolution will be backed by the coercive powers of the state (very powerful)
 
I. U.S. COURT SYSTEM:
Federal System:
1.       Federal Courts (94 USDC)
2.       Circuit Court of Appeals (13circuits)
3.       State Courts
 
II. SELECTING THE PROPER FORUM
The court system is a powerful system and it has constraints.
Jurisdiction is a type of constraint.
Jurisdiction: power of a court to render an enforceable decision or binding judgment resolving a dispute.
1.       Personal jurisdiction: power of Court to render a binding judgment on an individual or entity, such as the defendant.
2.       Subject matter jurisdiction: power of a court to resolve the subject of a dispute.
 
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
1) in rem – against a thing, action against a property itself; determine who owns a                                               property (A v. 175 Hill St.)
 
2) quasi-in-rem- as if against a thing- action against an individual up to the value of the property located in the place where the suit is brought. Sue resident of another state, but damages are limited to value of money/assets they have in the state where the suit is occurring/under the Court’s jurisdiction.
 
3) in personam – against a person (A v. B) power to render a judgment of unlimited value against the person
 
Personal jurisdiction – Two-Step Analysis:
Statutory authorization (long arm)
·         Note: Long Arm Statutes—range of circumstances that states wish to exercise personal jurisdiction. State specific—enumerated act statute OR the state exercises jurisdiction to the constitutional limit under the due process clause (collapse two-step analysis into one-step analysis).
Constitutional authorization (DP clause)
(a) General (5 theories – citizenship, consent, general and systematic, tag, agent)
(b) Specific (Minimum contacts + relatedness + reasonableness)
 
CASES: WHETHER A STATE’S ASSERTION OF PJ violates DP?
 
1. Pennoyer v. Neff
Held that under the DP clause in personam jurisdiction over non-resident defendant requires personal service or voluntary appearance
 
Federal Court’s Concerns:
Want to limit state power.
Fraud: need Notice (personal service) to avoid Fraud
Weigh the territorial sovereignty of the state; respect some territorial rules.
 
Criticism of Rule:
1.       Forces non-resident property owners to monitor status of their property (Maybe that is a good duty to impose on the owner? Maybe it is a burden.)
2.       Rule allows abuse by non-resident who evades service.
3.       Federal Court using constitution to upset state determination about property ownership. State Intrusion.
 
2. Hess v. Pawloski
Held that when a person/corporation benefits from the state’s roads, etc. he has provided implied consent to exercise PJ. 
States may assert PJ over non-resident drivers responsible for motor vehicle accidents (does not violate DP).  
Expanded the Pennoyer rule – outdated because of improvements in transportation, technology and commerce.     
 
3. Int’l Shoe
Cuts the legs of Pennoyer theory
Replaces issue of state sovereignty with notice and fairness
“Notions of fair play and substantial justice”
Replaces Pennoyer’s presence test with a CONTACTS TEST
PJ may be asserted based upon a defendant’s minimum contacts
More adaptable to changing societal circumstances (is this constitutional?)
 
SHOE TEST— 2-prongs
Did Defendant “purposefully avail” himself to the forum by enjoying the benefits of it’s laws/protection through conducting activity there?
Is the state’s assertion of PJ reasonable and does it comport with notions of fair play and substantial justice?
 
Two important things from SHOE:
1.       Announces a constitutional test for personal jurisdiction, which is whether the defendant has certain minimum contacts in the forum state that does not interfere with fair play and substantial justice
 
2.       The amount of contacts depends on their relationship to the claim. Where the contacts are related to the (specific jurisdiction) claim fewer contacts are required. In (general jurisdiction) claims where contacts were not related more contacts are needed.
 
EFFECTS ON COURT’S DECISIONS AFTER SHOE:
SC justices disagree on whether to relax the limitations of PJ or to create more strict restraints on PJ.
 
1.    McGee v. International Life Insurance
Held that a single transaction/contract is sufficient to bind non-resident defendant by establishing minimum contacts
Trend is to expand the scope of state PJ over nonresidents
Factors for the expansion of PJ:
National economy, nationalization of commerce, travel, internet
Easier for defendant to defend himself in a state where he has connections
 
New Factor: Forum State’s interest
Minimum contacts test did not include the forum state’s interest in Shoe
“Fair play and substantial justice” now includes forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
 
2. Hanson v. Denckla
Held that non-resident defendant must have minimum contacts & purposefully avail himself in the forum state in order to be held under the state’s jurisdiction.
Without purposeful availment you could sue anyone for a single business transaction (McGee problem)
Restricted state exercise of PJ
 
Two problems with McGee:
Get into situation with conflicting judgments between two states
No limit on PJ might discourage commercial activity.
 
3. World Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson
Stream of commerce—cars are mobile might end up in forum state
Foerseeability of a product entering a state’s commerce is not a sufficient contact for PJ
Concern: companies will be deterred from doing business nationally if they are subject to PJ anywhere their product is taken
Tries to stitch together state sovereignty and burdens to defendant
Court separates purposeful availment into two prongs- fair play & limited jurisdiction
 
Minimum Contacts – 2 functions
Protects defendant against burdens of litigating in another state (fairness)
Ensures that states do no reach out beyond their federal limits
 
Burden on defendant is considered with factors (5 factors):
Burden on Defendant
State’s interest
Plaintiff’s interest
Interstate judicial system’s interest
Shared interest of several States in furthering social policy
 
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
Plaintiffs brought the suit in state court to get more damages; wanted to avoid diversity jurisdiction—parties from different states file in federal court—neither party is biased by residency.
Defendants wanted to create diversity and have case removed to federal court
Goal: Avoid FORUM SHOPPING by plaintiffs
 
Dissent:
– Shoe rule (minimum contacts) is outdated
– Shoe’s stress on defendant’s burden is an unfair tip on the balance
-Dissent encourages dragging more defendants to foreign states
-Court reads Shoe too narrowly; need a sliding scale for Contacts and Fairness
-Majority opinion is more reasonable approach than dissent—would deter business
 
4. Kulko v. Superior Ct
·         Unilateral acts of plaintiff alone cannot create minimum contacts. Not enough to assume PJ.
 
5. Keeton v. Hustler:
Regular circulation of magazine in a forum state is sufficient to support personal jurisdiction over libel claims and claims arising over magazine’s content.
Negative effects of article on Keeton’s reputation affected the forum state—non-resident plaintiff does not have to show contacts to file suit in forum state
 
6. Calder v. Jones
Large sales of a magazine in forum state provide minimum contacts to permit personal jurisdiction over the magazine’s editor
Calder effects test: personal jurisdiction may be p