Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Illinois School of Law
Kordik, Ellen R.

I.        Rewards of Litigation: Pre-judgment Remedies
a.      Rule 64 – Prejudgment Seizures
                                                  i.      No actual Federal provisions, so courts apply state seizure laws
b.      Common Issue: due process, “deprived of property without due process of law”
                                                  i.      Must have notice of seizure and chance to be heard
c.       Fuentes v. Shevin: pre-seizure hearing required except in extraordinary situations; 3 part test:
                                                  i.      Necessary to secure an important governmental or general public interest
                                               ii.      Special need for very prompt action
                                             iii.      State has kept strict control over its monopoly of legitimate force (decided and weighed by gov’t official)
d.     Mitchell v. Grant: though seizure occurred without notice, cannot be justified under Fuentes; however…
                                                  i.      Prompt post-seizure hearing is available, so no due process issue
e.      North Georgia v. Di-Chem: statute fails due process…
                                                  i.      No judicial involvement
                                               ii.      No provision for early post-seizure hearing
                                             iii.      No posting of bond
f.        Conn. v. Doehr: sets forth a new balancing test with identifiable factors
                                                  i.      Fill in from handout
g.      Rule 65 – Injunctions/Restraining Orders
h.      Carey v. Piphus: boys got suspended, TRO or preliminary injunction
                                                  i.      65a1 (prelim): must have been advance notice given by court
                                               ii.      65b2 (TRO): need not be notice, but not last over 10 days; to extend, hearing or agreement
                                             iii.      Test to be granted something from this rule
1.      Strong likelihood of success on the merits
2.      Immediate/irreparable harm if injunction is not granted
3.      Balance of hardships strongly favors the issuance of the injunction
4.      Injunction advances the public interest
                                             iv.      Issues: why make schools pay for due process violations?
1.      Deter: not with actual damages; Punitives: who are we really punishing? Threat of lawsuit enough?
i.        Why due process?
                                                  i.      Gives (appearance of) fairness
j.        NOTE: if emotional distress is claimed, it must be the emotional stress for not having the hearing that you deserve under due process clause
II.     Rewards of Litigation: Post-judgment Remedies
a.      Rule 69 – Damages
b.      Compensatory damages
                                                  i.      Actual try to put plaintiff in position before breach; must show
1.      Harm caused by defendant
2.      Harm capable of monetary quantification, not speculatively
                                               ii.      Nominal damages: no harm or value is hard to prove (civil rights cases – about the legal issues, $1 in nominal damages)
                                             iii.      Statutory damages: proscribed by specific statutes
c.       Punitive damages
                                                  i.      Goal is not to compensate, only to deter conduct; must prove egregious conduct, usually (threats to public safety, etc)
d.     Enforcing money judgments
                                                  i.      Judgment for money doesn’t order defendant to pay, only establishes plaintiffs right to that money. Plaintiff will have to initiate enforcement proceedings
                                               ii.      “Hunting license for defendant’s assets”
e.      Rule 70 – Equitable Remedies (means injunctions, basically)
                                                  i.      Injunction: court decree intended to control behavior of the defendant, either by order to or restrain from acting; forward looking
                                               ii.      Evolved to supplement monetary damages
f.        Smith v. Western Electric Co.: injunctive relief was appropriate
                                                  i.      Test (for specifics, see class notes)
1.      Actual success on the merits
a.      Here: show that 2nd hand smoke was dangerous, that he was exposed, and that there should be a remedy
2.      Plaintiff would suffer imminent and irreparable harm w/o injunction
a.      This means: no monetary compensation is adequate
3.      Balance of hardships favors injunction
a.      Defendant, plaintiff; also third parties (consumers, other employees, kids, etc)
4.      Injunction would serve public interest
5.      Convince the court that it can practically administer the injunction
a.      Difficult in desegregation cases
g.      If injunction isn’t followed: hold in contempt of court
                                                  i.      Much bigger deal than breaking a local ordinance or something; can require monetary compensation, heavy fines to court, etc
h.      Rule 57 / 28 USC § 2201 – Declaratory Judgments
                                                  i.      Only a binding adjudication of the litigants without any kind of relief
                                               ii.      Could be concurrent with injunctions and/or monetary damages
                                             iii.      Even if P lays out all elements necessary, still up to the court to grant or not (court’s discretion)
III.   Cost of Litigation: it’s gonna cost a lot
a.      Rule 54 / 28 USC § 1920
b.      Venegas v. Mitchell: convoluted case; could get contribution for legal fees since it was a civil rights action (one of the only types authorized, see R54)
                                                  i.      Why do we compensate in these cases? Want to encourage this type of litigation.
                                               ii.      Effective statute in this case: 42 USC § 1988
c.       Rule 54d: loser should pay winners’ costs as a matter of course
                                                  i.      However, usually small; hundreds to few thousands
d.     In England, fees are shifted… is this what we want? Policy issue
IV. Personal Jurisdiction: rules come from cases
a.      Pennoyer v. Neff: served by publication (provided by statute); Rule: since Neff was not served in the state (OR), court had no authority to issue binding decision
b.      Neff hypos (personal jurisdiction yes/no)
                                                  i.      Served in OR, leaves and doesn’t return: yes
                                               ii.      Served in OR for accident in WA on his way home to CA: yes
                                             iii.      Not served in OR, but files answer in OR: consented, yes
                                             iv.      Domiciled in OR, not served in OR, extended stay in CA: yes
                                                v.      Married in PA, moved to OR: yes in PA, retains juris. over legal status
                                             vi.      Files divorce in OR against abandoned wife in PA: yes, OR jurisdiction over its citizens
c.       Shortcomings in Neff
                                                  i.      Travelers at advantage or disadvantage, depending
                                               ii.      Allows one to simply avoid the state to avoid suit there
d.     In rem jurisdiction
                                                  i.      Refers to a court’s jurisdiction over personal/real property
                                               ii.      Can bring suit against any and all persons having a claim to that property – a way to adjudicate property rights
                                             iii.      The suit is actually against the property itself, making a claim to that property
                                  

ices/support activities, advertising, shipment to state
f.        MORE CONSIDERATIONS FOR REASONABLENESS
                                                  i.      Location of witnesses/evidence
                                               ii.      Balance of conveniences favors the forum
                                             iii.      State’s interest in regulating defendant’s conduct
                                             iv.      Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief in that forum
                                                v.      State interest in enforcing substantive law or policy
                                             vi.      Whether defendant derives benefit from its contacts with state
                                           vii.      Whether defendant could foresee suit in state
g.      When looking at contacts…
                                                  i.      “Purposeful availment:” did defendant purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws?
VII.           Intentional Impact in the Forum
a.      Calder v. Jones: in judging minimum contacts, court properly focuses on “the relationship among ∆, the forum, and the litigation”
                                                  i.      Facts: difficult to get the editor of the paper since he was never in the forum state; so contacts prong was weak as fuck; so…. The court focuses on the effect of the conduct, not where it occurred
b.      Three part Calder Effects Test
                                                  i.      ∆ committed intentional tort, and
                                               ii.      Brunt of π’s harm in forum = forum is ‘focal point’ of harm
1.      Substantial injury and whether ∆ can anticipate being sued there
                                             iii.      ∆ aimed tortuous conduct at forum = forum is ‘focal point’ of ∆’s activity
c.       Use of Calder: Hustler case
                                                  i.      Even though only a tiny percentage of sales in NH, regular monthly sales of thousands of magazines was enough to pass iii (not random, isolated, or fortuitous)
d.     Remember: don’t get hung up on the words in the test, the ultimate analysis is case by case and based on ∆’s conduct and whether they could have reasonably foreseen being sued in that forum
VIII.         Intentional affiliation with forum actor
a.      Burger King: MI citizen sued in FL, was proper; BK could show contacts
                                                  i.      Contacts: purchasing franchise, negotiating, attending training session; forum selection clause speaks to deliberate affiliation with forum state and reasonable foreseeabilityof suit in FL
                                               ii.      Reasonableness: inconvenience alone cannot constitute unreasonableness
b.      Establishes that π must prove minimum contacts, but after that reasonableness is presumed (burden is on ∆ to prove unreasonable)
IX. Use of the Internet
a.      Pavlovich v. Superior Court: mere unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state