CIV PRO Spring 2010 Stancil
Table of Contents
I. Constitutional Framework.. 3
A. Personal Jurisdiction.. 3
1. Origins. 4
2. Modern Underpinnings & Dealing with the in rem problem… 4
International Shoe Co. v. Washington.. 4
Blueprint for a PJ problem… 5
3. The Modern Trilogy.. 6
4. New Problems. 9
5(a). General v. Specific. 10
5(b). Consent v. Power. 13
6. Notice, Self-Imposed Restraints. 13
B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction.. 17
1. Introduction.. 18
2. Diversity Jurisdiction.. 19
3. Supplemental Jurisdiction and Removal21
4. The Erie problem… 23
II. Initiation and Development of Litigation.. 26
A. Remedies. 26
1. Substitutionary Remedies; Punitive Damages. 26
2. Specific Remedies; Provisional Remedies. 27
B. Pleading. 30
1. Intro. to Pleading. 31
2. Specificity, Special Cases, Allocating. 32
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. 33
3. Ethical Considerations. 35
4. Responding to the Complaint. 37
5. Amendment. 40
C. Discovery.. 43
1. Introduction to Discovery.. 43
2. Limitations on Discovery.. 46
3. Ensuring Compliance and Controlling Abuse. 52
III. Resolution of Litigation & Other Topics. 53
A. Arbitration.. 53
B. Summary Judgment. 57
C. Issues re: Judges & Juries. 60
1. Judge or Jury?. 60
Historical Reconstruction & the 7th Amendment. 60
2. Selecting Jurors, Challenging Judges. 62
3. Controlling Juries, Trumping Judges. 65
D. Preclusion.. 67
1. Claim Preclusion.. 67
2. Issue Preclusion.. 71
I. Constitutional Framework
1. VALUES to consider w/r/t each aspect of the Civil Procedure System:
a) Accuracy: correct application of the law to the facts.
b) Balance between equity and efficiency: Cheap & quick and fair are at odds. Need to strike a fair balance between the costs & benefits of adjudication (most popular school of thought on this).
c) Guaranteeing fair & equal participation for all actual and potential litigants. SCOTUS is pretty unresponsive to the argument of “well, they were going to lose anyway.” Value in having your voice heard.
2. 4 Different Sources:
d) Common Law
A. Personal Jurisdiction
1. Definition: a court’s power over the Δ and/or his property. If the court does not have PJ over a party, any order or judgment that the court may render will not be binding on that party.
a. Δ can’t be haled into court unless the court in question has PJ over them.
b. Jurisdiction is dependent on the state boundary EVEN if it’s a federal court.
c. PJ is asking, “Can this court bind this person?”
2. Early cases assume that jurisdiction is about power and that one can divide power into two apparently distinct categories:
a. in personam:
i. Power over a person or entity himself/itself obtained by service of the person.
b. in rem:
i. Power over the thing (property) obtained by seizing the object.
ii. Two types:
ü True in rem(The main purpose of the suit is to adjudicate competing legal interest in the property in question)
ü Quasi in rem (Dispute about the person but you attach the property bc you want to sue where the land is, but about him, not the property)
3. Methods of Challenging PJ:
a. Collateral Attack: If you believe the court lacks PJ, just do nothing. Risky.
i. In order for the party to enforce whatever judgment is entered against you he must file it with a court where you are and ask that court to enforce it. You can then contest the original court’s jurisdiction over you before the local court enters a writ of execution against your assets.
ii. If the court rejects your jurisdictional challenge you can raise no other defenses on the merits.
b. Special Appearance: Allowed to avoid a Δ “appearing” to contest jurisdiction being held to have consented to the state’s exercise of power. Object w/o that objecting itself being the basis for jurisdiction.
c. What Not to Do: Waiver. If you make any pre-answer motion that omits a defense of PJ or if you make an appearance or litigation but fail to challenge PJ, it is treated as a waiver of that challenge.
4. Full Faith & Credit Clause (Article 4 § 1): addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of other states.
a. States must respect and enforce another state’s ruling.
b. Judgments are only entitled to full faith & credit if the court rendering them had jurisdiction to begin with.
· Requirements for jurisdiction over the parties (two)
o The court must have power to act, either upon given property, or on a given person so as to subject him to personal liability. This is a requirement of substantive due process.
o The court must have given the Δ adequate notice of the action against him, and an opportunity to be heard. This is a requirement of procedural due process
Pennoyer v. Neff (is dead)
SCOTUS, 1877 (pp. 61-67)
Neff’s Oregon property was seized and sold by the sheriff to Pennoyer in order to satisfy the judgment.
Due process prevents suit against nonresident Δs who could only be found and served elsewhere.
(Presence is KEY)
· NOTICE MATTERS: If a state court attempts to exercise PJ over a Δ, the Δ “must be brought within its jurisdiction by service of process within the State, or his voluntary appearance.”
· Connection between the problem & the forum is irrelevant under Pennoyer.
· 3 ways to obtain proper PJ over non-residents (in Pennoyer era)
2. Served w/in the state
3. Pre-suit attachment of the land
· EXCEPTIONS: States can determine the Status (civil) of citizens (re: divorces), the status of Businesses registered in their state, Contract out obligation of service.
2. Modern Underpinnings & Dealing with the in rem problem
1. Through these cases we see a change from formalism to fairness.
Formalism of Pennoyer is really simple: Certainty, clarity.
i. Did they find him & serve him in the state? PJ.
ii. Did they attach his property on time? Jurisdiction up to the amount of the claim.
iii. Did they serve him outside of the jurisdiction? No PJ.
b. Fairness you start to see with International Shoe is more complex, you lose the predictability you enjoyed under Pennoyer.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
SCOTUS, 1945 (pp. 75-79): Bedrock
e factors set out in World-Wide Volkswagen:
1) Burden on the Δ (Court’s primary concern)
2) Interest of the Forum in adjudicating the case
3) π’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
4) Interest of the interstate judicial system in efficient resolution of controversies
5) Shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies
4. Then think: Do you need to do a VENUE inquiry? (if yes, see pg. 17)
Shaffer v. Heitner
SCOTUS, 1977 (pp. 86-93). Justice Marshall.
Suit naming 28 officers of Greyhound. Not sufficient contacts to find personal jurisdiction in DE.
Court decides we are going to do PJ the International Shoe way, always: minimum contacts. No classifications for in personam, in rem, quasi in rem.
Death of Pennoyer. Attaching land/other property pre-trial ALONE can no longer establish PJ.
However, if property is in the forum state & is the heart of the dispute, minimum contacts will be met.
DISSENT: Justice BRENNAN says we need to look at forum state’s interest in the case and whether Δ would actually be inconvenienced. Stancil thinks Brennan is right: minimum contacts analysis and Δs/Corporation had sufficient contacts for jurisdiction.
· Limits on Shaffer Holding: Does not destroy in rem jurisdiction. Merely prevents the use of quasi in rem jurisdiction when the property is the only contact and the action has nothing to do with the property.
o Rationale: Property should not be a key difference if it is unrelated to the claim at hand.
3. The Modern Trilogy
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
SCOTUS, 1980 (pp. 96-102). Mr. Justice WHITE.
Purchased car in NY, drove cross-country to move and got in accident in OK while passing through.
Finding that petitioners/Δs (the NY car retailer) had no contacts, ties, or relations with OK, Δ cannot be sued in OK.
· The foreseeability of a product causing injury in another state is not a sufficient benchmark in establishing PJ if the Δ does not have any “contacts, ties, or relations” (minimum contacts) than a court does not have PJ over them.
o Contacts have to be purposeful (have to purposely avail yourself of the jurisdiction).
· Rationale: Minimizing burden on the Δ; helps ensure states do not reach beyond the limits imposed on them as coequal sovereigns in the federal system.
· Develops International Shoe’s “fair play & substantial justice” by asking: Is it reasonable to require the corporation to defend itself there? Fairness Test Factors: