Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Illinois School of Law
Kesan, Jay P.

 
Kesan Civil Procedure Fall 2015
 
Choosing proper court (Personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, venue)
Choosing proper law (choice of law)
Procedures (pleading, discovery, dismiss, judgments, joinder)
 
Choosing Proper Court (Personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, venue)
 
    I.            Personal Jurisdiction
A.      Personal jurisdiction can be obtained through inherent power of court (specific & general), consent and notice
B.      Sliding Scale
·         high level of activities support jurisdiction on claims unrelated (general jurisdiction); low level of activities support jurisdiction only to claims related to the activities  (specific jurisdiction)
No contacts
No
Single act related
Specific
Casual or isolated unrelated
No
Continuous and limited related
Specific
Systematic and continuous unrelated
General
Domicile/state of incorporation/principal place of biz
General
                   III.            Specific Jurisdiction
A.      claim has to arise out of the contact (i.e. related to the activity)
B.      Minimum Contact Test: requires minimum contact that doesn't offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice International Shoe v. Washington
·         Purposeful Availment Requirement: “the defendant has purposefully availed himself of opportunity to conduct activities within forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws” Hanson v. Denckla
·         Time of contact, NOT time of suit
Ex. Lawyer no contact any more
                                                                             I.            Effect in the state: if defendant committed act outside of state that cause harm, it constitutes contacts to that state, even he didn't act within the state
·         Fact pattern: phone sale, internet sale
·         Intentionally targeting is the key
McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.
Calder v. Jones
Ex. Minnesota lawyer for MO client
   Corporations
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz:
                                                                                                ·            Foreseeability not sufficient; purposeful targeting
                                                                                                ·            Fact pattern: substantial sales, advertisement, customer cultivating practice, market-targeting, deliberately reaching
                                                                                                ·            Car accidents: the use of roads gives min contact where suits arise
                                                                              ·            Stream of Commerce
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal. 1987 (foreign manufacturer)
·         Court split on if Asahi's contact satisfied min contact test. Instead it decided on reasonable test
·         Justice O'Connor: entering products into stream is NOT sufficient for purposeful availment. A “plus” factor is needed. Justice Brennan: entering products into stream is sufficient
·         Unique: plaintiff already settled with distributor; international suit
J.McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro (foreign manufacturer)
                                                                              ·            Internet Contacts
·         Info posting on passive website: no jurisdiction
Pavlovich v. Superior Court;
·         Active business end to end: most likely
·         Interactive websites exchange of info: depend on level of interactivity and commercial nature
·         The Reasonable Test (min contact test dominates)
·         burden of defendant; inconvenience to be forced to defend away from home; expectation to be sued (the key)
·         forum state's interest in providing redress to its citizens;
·         plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief in a convenient forum; (at home state)
·         interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining efficient resolutions- witness, testimony located in the state;
·         Interest of states in enforcing substantive law or policy (ex. Choice of law clause)
                        ·            General Jurisdiction
·         State of incorporation, principal place of business or domicile for individuals
·         Systematic & continuous activities render one “at home” Goodyear Rule
1.      Expected to be subject to suit on any claim
2.      Would suffer no inconvenience from defending
·         Personally served in forum state may establishes state's jurisdiction Burnham v. Superior Court
·         Court split on why jurisdiction: min contact test v. trandition
         Long Arm Statue Gibbons v. Brown
               Not all long arm statues are within constitution limit. Need to ask the question first.
         Challenging Jurisdiction
             

ion to Personal Jurisdiction
·          Federal Court: needs both personal and subject matter jurisdiction
·         Both from constitution: PJ Due process clause; SM Article 3
 subject matter jurisdiction not depend on defendant
                                                            ·            Personal jurisdiction is relationship of state to the defendant
                                                            ·            Subject Matter limits power of federal courts
                                       b.   Federal v. State Court
1.   State Court: family
2.   Concurrent: diversity; US as party; federal question
3.   Federal Court: patent, admiralty, bankruptcy, tort on federal employees
*state court has more general jurisdiction than federal and hear more case
                     b.            Federal Question Jurisdiction
1.      Well Pleaded Complaint Rule: complaint has to arise under the Constitution or federal law  (i.e. violate the law) Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley
·         Cause of action must be federal law; rely on fed law as source of substantive right
·         Ex. Patent infringement is federal but breach of contract for patented device is not
·         Use of federal law as defense is not “arise under”
·         Test for federalized claim
Grable & Son Metal Prod. Inc. v. Darue Eng. & Mfg.
                                                                           a.            Necessarily raise a federal issue, and
                                                                           b.            Actually disputed and substantial, and
                                                                            c.            Which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities
·         Rationale: allow diverse discussions among states; supreme court cautious on providing binding opinions that can withstand test of time;