Civil Procedure I Outline

Civ. Pro. Outline (2)
 
PJ:
1. Does the Long- Arm Statute authorize jx?
FOR FEDERAL COURTS:
a. Because the case is being heard in federal court, the relevant long-arm statute is Rule 4(k)(1)(A). Rule 4(k)(1)(A) authorizes a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over a D “who could be subjected to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state in which the district court is located,” as long as the D is served or filed a waiver of service. (Basically, look at the state LAS where the D.C. is located)
 
b. (Basically, if individual does not have enough contacts w/ any one state, use 4(k)(2)): 4(k)(2) allows a federal court to exercise personal jx over a D if:
1.        The D is served or waives service
2.        the court has federal question jx over the claim (do federal question analysis)
3.        the D would not be subject to personal jurisdiction in the court of any state (as explained above) and
4.        the exercise of jx is consistent w/ the Constitution (“minimum contacts” w/ the U.S.: Contacts w/ the entire US & Nexusà Specific, General, fair play/substantial justice)
This means that the D has “minimum contacts” w/ the U.S. as a whole, rather than w/ any one state.
2. If the LAS is satisfied, then we ask whether the exercise of jurisdiction over the D comports w/ the requirements of the DPC?
DPC: The conduct of legal proceedings according to established rules and principles for the protection and enforcement of private rights, including notice an the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal w/ the power to decide the case. (14th Amendment à p. 215 in Supplement)
 
A. Traditional Bases of jurisdiction:
D.C. will be able to exercise PJ over (the D) if on of the traditional bases of jx exists:
1.        establishing that the D consented to jurisdiction: A D is subject to PJ of a D.C. if they consent either explicitly (Adam v. Saenger) or impliedly (Hess)
2.        personally serving the D in the forum state (“tagging”): A D is subject to PJ of a D.C. if they are personally served while in the state.
3.        establishing that the D is a domicile of the forum state: A D is subject to PJ of a D.C. if they are a domicile of the forum state. A person is a domicile of a forum state if they are physically present and have an intent to remain. (Court has PJ over absent citizen. Blackmer)
If anyone of the aforementioned ways is met, then the court has in personam jurisdiction over the D, if not, then the court must engage in an International Shoe analysis: The DPC will be satisfied if the D has “minimum contacts” w/ California and if the exercise of jurisdiction satisfied “our traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (Burger King)
International Shoe Analysis: “MINIMUM CONTACTS”
 
1.       GENERAL JURISDICTION:
 
The central issue is whether the D purposefully availed herself of the benefits and protections of (forum state), or whether she purposefully directed her activities towards California. (WWV) In deciding whether a D has purposefully directed its activities to a forum state, courts focus on conduct of the D, not conduct of the P or third parties. Hanson.
 
In order for a court to exercise general jurisdiction over a D, the D must have purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the forum and the contacts w/ the forum must be continuous and systematic. (Perkins, Helicopteros) The contacts must be considerably more substantial than those required for the exercise of specific jurisdiction.
 
MINIMUM CONTACTS ANALYSIS:
1. Are there sufficient minimum contacts?
 
§         Was there a contractual relationship? (Burger King: a K ALONE is NOT sufficient minimum contacts b/c in Burger King the minimum contacts had already been established prior to the signing of the K b/c franchisees had “reached out” to Florida in the hopes of starting a Burger King restaurant.)
§         Who approached who?
§         Did D “reach out” to someone in forum state.
§         Where was the K negotiated?
§         Are products tailored to forum state?
 
Asahi: STREAM OF COMMERCEàThe chain of commercial distribution. From the manufacturer to the retail sales. When the product reaches the customers hands, it is no longer in the SOC.
·         O’Connor: (majority) Even if minimum contacts were satisfied, jx would conflict w/ the notions of “fair play and substantial justice” in the 14th Amendment.
·         O’Connor: (plurality) Minimum contacts NOT sufficient. Mere awareness is NOT sufficient. Asahi did NOT purposefully avail itself to the benefits and protections of the forum state b/c they merely placed their product in the “SOC” where it may at some point end up in the forum state. Even if they could have foreseen that the product might end up in Ca., wouldn’t constitution purposeful availment. D did not have offices in Ca., did not market to Ca., did not sell in Ca., did not offer repair services in Ca.
·         Brennan: (concur, plurality) Agreed w/ FPSJ holding but disagreed w/ the minimum contacts analysis. Awareness that the product is being placed in the stream of commerce and could end up in the forum state is sufficient to constitute purposeful availment.  As long as D knew that the final product is being marketed in the forum state, it should be reasonably foreseeable to be haled into court regarding that products circulation in that state. Also, D was receiving a known benefit from Ca.
 
Hanson: court rejected jx (NOT A MEANINGFUL CONTACT)
o        PJ is authorized if the D purposefully avails itself of the benefits and protections of the forum state through its contacts w/ the state. UNILATERAL ACTIVITY of someone claiming some relationship w/ the non-resident D is not enough to satisfy the purposeful availment requirement. (NOTE: Did D “reach out” to forum state, or did someone from forum state approach D?)
 
 
CONTINUOUS AND SYSTEMATIC:
2. If there were sufficient minimum contacts, were they continuous and systematic?
 
Perkins: substantial contacts w/ Ohio
o        Are Ds contacts continuous and systematic?
o        Regular intervals of shipments or payments, etc.? For how long?
o        Representatives/agents, bank accounts?
 
Helicopteros: no GJ even though D had entered into a K w/ a Texas resident, the K had been partly negotiated in Texas, the D purchased equipment from Texas and the D sent employees to Texas.
o        Did D visited the forum state? Purchase anything from the forum state?
 
2. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION:
If a court concludes that D’s contacts are insufficient for GJ, it might nonetheless conclude that it can exercise specific jurisdiction over her. Even isolated contacts can sometimes be enough for specific jx, as long as the COA arises out of or relates to the P’s COA.
a. Contacts:
I have already discussed D’s contacts w/ (forum state) above: List them. Briefly restate conclusions. “As explained, the first (#) constitute purposeful availment, but (#) may not.
 
b. Nexus
The difficult issue is whether P’s COA arises out of or relates to D’s contacts w/ (forum state). P is suing b/c (fill it in). Analyze:
 
o        Did the contacts directly cause the injury or harm that resulted?
o        Gray: Tortious act cannot be separated from the place where the injury occurred. Accordingly, since the tortious act occurred in Illinois, and cannot be separated from the place where the injury occurred, AND a single isolated contact is sufficient to elicit PJ IF that single contact created the COA.
o        Bellino:D’s contacts through INTERNET USE were sufficient to establish minimum contacts b/c: D initiated contact, provided services, AND COA was a direct result of the contacts w/ forum state.
o        Zippo Mfg. Co:
§         “Active” websites: conducting business over the internetà ALMOST ALWAYS specific jx.
§         “Passive” website: just infoà ALMOST NO jx.
§         “Interactive”: sliding scale where the likelihood of jx is directly proportional to the nature and quality of commercial activity conducted over the internet. (Was there an “800” number? Argue)
 
3. Fair Play and Substantial Justice:
If the court concludes that D has enough contacts to support either specific or general jurisdiction, it must still consider whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over D will be fair. A strong showing of reasonableness may outweigh slim contacts. The court will consider the following factors as enumerated in Burger King:
 
1.       Burden on D: prejudiced/ compromised? Discuss witness availability. Ability to present a defense is/is not compromised.
2.       forum state’s interest in adjudicating dispute: Where did the injury occur? Is P a citizen of (forum state)? Does forum state have an interest in hearing the case? Does the forum state have an interest in regulating actions/products?
3.       P’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief: Does P have an interest in litigating this case in forum state? Is it his/her home state? Is this forum state possibly the only state that P can have their suit heard in U.S.? Will P be seriously prejudiced if the case is not heard in forum state? Will P have difficulty in presenting its case in another forum?
4.       Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies: court might have to apply law of another forum (Judicial economy). Also consider location of evidence, witnesses. Where will the case be most efficiently handled?
5.       Shared Interest of the several states in furthering fundamental social policies: Which state will have a greater interest in hearing the suit? Which country might be opposed to D being subject to American court system? Is there a foreign policy interest in satisfying other country’s interest? What about the U.S.’s countervailing interest in enforcing its federal statutes? Will hearing this case in forum state promote or impede the shared interests of the several states? (Basically, will it piss anyone off???)               
 
SMJ:
 
Federal Courts have limited SMJ. Therefore, a federal court must always have constitutional and statutory authority to hear a case.
·         SMJ is NEVER waived 12(h)(3)
·         Any party may object to the lack of jx over the subject matter (12(b)(1) or the court may raise sua sponte.
 
 Constitutional Authority:
§         Art. III § 1: Creates the Supreme Court and allows Congress to create lower federal courts. Implies the necessary statutory authority. Also, that they have the authority to determine what subject matter the lower courts are allowed to hear.
§         Art. III §2: Grants the “judicial power” of the U.S. federal courts to “all cases” arising under the Constitution, or between citizens of different states.
 
I. Diversity:  A D.C. has subject-matter jx to hear cases between citizens of different states, as long as the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)
·         NICOLE: don’t forget that diversity for purposes of §1332 is fulfilled as long as P is from a different state then D. EVEN IF 3 Ds are from the same state, that’s o.k. as long as P is from a different state.
A. Constitutional authority: Art. III § 2à only requires diversity of citizenship.
B. Statutory authority: § 1332
 
Amount in controversy: §1332(a)
§         A single P can aggregate claims against a single D to meet the amt. in controversy requirement, even if they are unrelated claims.
§         Multiple Ps can aggregate claims ONLY IF they arise from a single indivisible harm.
·         Zahn: Each individual P must meet the amount in controversy.
§         The sum claimed by the P on its complaint controls unless it was made in bad faith or it appears to a legal certainty that the P cannot recover more than $75,000. AFA Tours v. Whitechurch.
 
Citizenship: §1332(a)(1)
·         Individual citizen: An individual is a “citizen” of the State in which they are domiciled which is where: (can only be 1)
1.        physically present
2.        intent to stay (to change domiciliary, must move AND intent to stay à Mas v. Perry)
 
·         Corporation: §1332(c)(1): a corporation is a citizen of the state(s) in which it is incorporated and the state in which it has its PPB. Courts use one of three tests to determine a company’s PPB:
 
[(so and so) is incorporated in (wherever), so it is a citizen of (wherever). Then analyze PPBà ONLY ONE!!!]:
1.        The “nerve center” test: says that the locus of corporate decision-making authority and overall control constitutes a corporation’s PPB.
2.        The “corporate activities” or “operating assets” test: attaches greater weight to the location of the company’s production or service activities. (a.k.a. “muscle test”)
3.        The “total activity” test: is a hybrid of the first two and it considers all the circumstances to determine the PPB.
 
·         Unincorporated association: citizens of the state(s) of which its members are citizens. Same is true for limited partnership.
 
·         §1332(c)(2): the legal representative of the estate of a decedent is considered a citizen of the state of the decedent and the representative of an infant or incompetent person is considered a resident of the respective state.
 
Complete diversity:
·         There must be complete diversity of citizenship at the outset of the suit. (Strawbridge v. Curtis)
 
II. Federal Question Jurisdiction: A court has federal question jurisdiction to hear a claim if the claim “arises under” the Constitution, federal statute or a Treaty.”
·         Constitutional authority: Art. III, §2à authorizes judicial power over all cases that “arise under this Constitution, the laws of the U.S. and Treaties.”
·         Osborne: Marshall int