Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Iowa School of Law
Elias, Stella Burch

Civil Procedure Outline – Spring 2017 – Stella Elias

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Phase One: Before Filing of The Lawsuit

General Notes

Federal Court à Limited SMJ
State Courts à General SMJ

Relevant Cases

Capron v. Van Noorden (page 26)

SMJ capstone
Fed. Ct. can look at SMJ anytime

Osborn (page 297)

Original ingredient must be cause of action

Mottley (page 299)

Defenses aren’t enough to get into Fed. Ct.
Even if you anticipate your opponent will respond with federal response that’s not good enough
Must be an original argument / cause of action

Strawbridge v. Curtis (page 272)

There must be complete diversity

Rose v. Giamatti (page 284)

Nominal parties versus formal parties
When dealing with SMJ – only formal parties have to have diversity
Outlier case

United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs (page 325)

The state and federal claims must “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” and are such that the P “would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding . . . there is power in the federal district courts to heart the whole”
Discretion is allowed à “the power need not be exercised in every case in which it is found to exist”

Aldinger v. Howard (page 336)

P wanted to add a state law claim against the county à P couldn’t join a pendent jurisdiction against the count

Owen Equipment v. Kroger (page 332)

No federal ancillary jurisdiction
Iowa woman à husband dies in crane incident – thinks it’s a NE company but after cross-claim etc. it’s an Iowa company – get’s dismissed for lack of SMJ

Finley v. United States (page 334)

San Diego air crash à couldn’t add add’l D with only state claims

Relevant Statutes

ART III § 2 Jurisdiction

1) “Arising Under” the constitution (FQ)

E.g. 1st Amendment right or others

2) ”Arising Under” a federal statute (FQ)

E.g. Title IX Women’s Rights

3) Treaties Made (FQ)

E.g. treaty with another country

4) Ambassadors and Diplomats (FQ)
5) Admiralty and Maritime (ALL) (FQ)

No state jurisdiction on open water

6) U.S. is a party (FQ)

Anytime you want to sue the feds or they want to sue you

7) 2 or more States (FQ)

Bias, the states are really important so we want it in a good court

So important – must be heard by the federal courts

8) Citizens of different states (Diversity)

Protected from bias

9) Land grants from different states (Diversity)

Bias

10) Foreigners (Diversity)

Fed gov’t interest the feds make foreign policy doesn’t want a foreign embarrassment

28 U.S.C. §1331 Federal Question
28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity of Citizenship $75K
28 U.S.C. § 1367 Supplemental SMJ

Before this was enacted Court had come up with two doctrines to deal with this
“Pendent jurisdiction” allowing a P with a legal claim that does have a basis for federal SMJ to APPEND to her complaint another legal claim that does not have such a basis
“Ancillary jurisdiction” applying when either a P or a D, following the filing of the initial complaint over which the federal court has SMJ, responds by filing a counterclaim or cross-claim, or a third-party complaint over which the court would not ordinarily exercise SMJ

28 U.S.C.§1441 Removal Jurisdiction

Removal Jurisdiction gives a D who has been sued in STATE court the right to transfer the action to federal court, but generally ONLY if: “the federal court would have had jurisdiction to entertain the case if the P had chosen to go there originally.”

Personal Jurisdiction

Phase One: Before Filing of The Lawsuit

General Notes

SMJ à can I sue the D in state or fed court?
PJ à In which State Court? / In which Federal Court?
Personal Jurisdiction = the legal right of a court to exercise its power over a particular person or entity (in personam jurisdiction) or thing (in rem jurisdiction)

Only about D à it’s assumed that P consent to the jurisdiction she files in

Three Kinds of PJ

In personam (against a person)

The court exercises its power to render a judgment for or against a person by virtue of his presence within the state’s territory or his citizenship there

In rem (against a thing)

The court exercises its power to determine the status of a property located within its territory, and the determination of the court is binding with respect to all the possible interest holder in that property

Quasi-in-rem (as if against a thing)

The court renders a judgment for or against a person but recovery is limited to the value of the property that is within the jurisdiction and thus subject to the court’s authority. The dispute that gives rise to an action quasi-in-rem may be related to the property or unrelated to it, an the property may be used to satisfy any judgment asses in the action.

* What’s the original cause of action?

Super important question you should ask a lot to determine this stuff

General jurisdiction = all activity

(Much easier than specific jurisdiction in some aspects)
“Continuous and systematic” contact with the state

Specific jurisdiction = single activity

(very narrow)
Act in State or Act Directed to State à lawsuit

Courts are looking at 3 specifics

Facts
Sovereignty (does the state have an interest to protect its residents)
Judicial economy

Quasi-in-rem jurisdiction

Old Rule

Harris v. Balk

New Rule

Shaifer v. Heitner
You always have to undertake fair play and minimum contacts

Relevant Cases

Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) (page 71)

Holding: didn’t have jurisdiction crated a test for jurisdiction
The Field Theory

1) if process is served on a citizen of the state
2) if process is served on someone while present in the state (no

nvoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”

Key takeaway from McGee and Hanson: Purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state as a metric of minimum contacts
World-Wide Volkswagon Corp. v. Woodson (1980) (page 105)

Wife and children in fairly new audi – truck swipes them – horrible fire and injuries to all
QP: may an OK court exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident car retailers and its wholesale distributor in a products liability action, when these D’s only connect with OK is the fact that a car sold in NY to NY residents became involved in an accident in OK? à NO
Dissent – argues International Shoe’s main point was “fair play and substantive justice” and this holding doesn’t do that
WWVW two step test:

1. Sovereignty analysis (did the D purposefully avail himself of the benefits of the forum state.) This grows out of Hanson (with roots in Pennoyer)
Convenience analysis (is this the best forum to adjudicate for D, P, and state) This grows out of McGee (and is manifested in Gray). (Justice Brennan, in dissent seems to be suggesting that convenience should be sole test.)

1) Sovereignty / 2) Convenience

Kulko v. Superior Court (1978) (page 117)

Divorce / child support case
Children were in NY with father – mother was in CA
Father bought plane ticket for daughter to move out to CA
QP: did the CA court have jurisdiction over the NY based ex-husband / father for the purposes of modifying the child support agreement à no
The “effects test” only applies to commercial activity
Personal / domestic effects: different

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) (page 119)

Florida had jurisdiction over the MI franchisee
A contract alone cannot automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts to establish jurisdiction (“contract plus” standard)
Reaffirmation in the majority opinion of weighing the facts in each case to determine whether PJ would comport with “fair play and substantive justice”

Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court (1987) (page 129)

Man in motorcycle accident because tire de-inflates (Asahi made the metal valve component – added into the suit)
QP: Does Asahi’s awareness that the component that it manufactured, sold, and delivered outside of the US would reach California in the stream of commerce permit CA courts to exercise PJ over Asahi? –No