Civil Procedure I Outline

University of Tennessee College of Law
Civil Procedure Gidi Fall 2012
 
 
LEARN: Pennoyer, International Shoe, Burger King, WWV, Erie, York, Hanna, Parklane (created Non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel), Blonder-Tongue (created non-mutual defensive collateral estoppel), Mottley, Gibbs
 
Rule 12- Defenses and Objections – (12b motion to dismiss)
Rule 14- Third Party Claim- Impleader
Rule 18- Joinder of Claims
Rule 19- Compulsorily Joinder of Parties
Rule 20- Permissive Joinder of Parties
Rule 23- Class Action
Rule 24- Intervention
 
Title 28
§ 1367- Supplemental
§ 1331- Federal Question
§ 1332- Diversity
§ 1391- Venue
§ 1404- Transfer of Venue
§ 1406- Lacks Venue, Transfer for justice
§ 1446- Removal
§ 1738- Full Faith & Credit
§ 1257- State Supreme Court Certiorari
 
Motley v. Nashville and Louisville Railroad- “Creation Test” –law creates the cause of action arising under it.
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction Checklist
1)    Does the court have Subject Matter Jurisdiction?
2)    Does the Court have Personal Jurisdiction?
3)    Has the defendant been given Notice and an opportunity to be heard?
4)    Has the Defendant been served with Process properly?
5)    Does the court have Venue?
6)    Can the claim be removed? – Removal
7)    Have any of the above been waived? (NOTE: Cannot waive subject matter jurisdiction.)
I: Personal Jurisdiction
 
Personal jurisdiction places territorial limits on a state court’s power.  Court must have jurisdiction over Δ in order to adjudicate a suit involving him.(In Personum Jursidiction)
o   General jurisdiction- Where a forum in which any claim from anywhere can have jurisdiction over you. (Tennessee) or continuous and systematic contact (minimum contacts)
o   Specific Jurisdiction- claim arises out of an isolated incident in the forum. (Minimum contacts required)
Four types of jurisdiction
In Personam (aka personal)= court asserts authority directly over Δ before it
In Rem= court decides ownership of property against the whole world. NOTE: Property must have value (Worthless stock doesn’t count.)
Quasi in Rem type 1= court decides ownership of property between a particular Π and Δ
Quasi in Rem type 2= Property serves as a jurisdictional hook to allow court to adjudicate a dispute on a totally different subject- usually as a substitute for in personam.  Judgment amount limited to value of property. (ALMOST DEAD DUE TO SHAFFER- Can still work if something happens on your land.)
Jurisdiction is part of due process clause of 5th amendment, which is imposed upon each state by the 14th amendment.
The Full Faith and Credit clause, Article 4 § 1, requires states to enforce judgments issued by other states.  This doesn’t include judgments by courts that didn’t have valid jurisdiction over a Δ.
Two ways of contesting jurisdiction
Direct attack= entering a special appearance to contest jurisdiction.  This is useful if you think that you have a very strong case, because if a default judgment was entered against you and the court did in fact have valid jurisdiction, you’d be screwed.
Collateral attack= letting the court enter a default judgment against you and then contesting jurisdiction when they try to enforce it in another state under the Full Faith and Credit clause.  This is useful if you think you’d probably lose the case on the merits, so jurisdiction is your best bet for not losing money.
Federal district courts have jurisdiction over a Δ only when a state court in that district would have jurisdiction if it were a state case.
 
BIG CASES AND THEIR WORD
1.     International Shoe- Minimum Contacts
2.     Hanson v. Denckla- Purpose Availment
3.     Gray v. American Radiator – Stream of Commerce
4.     World- Wide Volkswagen- Foreseeability
5.     Shaffer- Minimum Contacts to In-rem Jurisdiction
6.     Calder v. Jones- “Effects Test” = Expressed Intent
7.     Burger King- Fairness to the D + Minimum Contacts
8.     Asahi- Seek to Serve “Stream of Commerce +”
9.     Burnham v. Superior Court= Transient/Tag Jurisdiction (Harris v. Balk debt follows)
10.Pennoyer= Physical Presence
11.Hess v. Pawloski- Implied Consent
12.Kulko v. California= 13 Magazines
13.Swift v. Tyson= Rules Decisions Act
14.Erie v. Thomkins= Substantive State law applies, federal procedure- To stop forum shopping and inequitable administration of justice
15. York= Any law that is outcome determinative applies state
16.  Byrd= Countervailing Federal Consideration and Federal Policy v. State Policy
17.  Hanna v. Plumber= Rules Enabling Act is there a clashing of state and federal rule? Federal Rule must be directly applicable and not infringe on a substantive right.
 
 
 
·         Personal jurisdiction is also called territorial jurisdiction.
·         First rule- A court must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant in order to issue a judgment about that person’s right.
·         By bringing a lawsuit in to play, the plaintiff subjects himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
·         Second rule- IF the first rule is violated in a court without jurisdiction and the court without jurisdiction proceeds, that judgment issued by the court is void.
·         Full faith and credit is for judgments in which the court does have jurisdiction.
 
Ø  Purposeful availment- A defendant must avail himself to privileges of a state to be subjected to it.
 
Ø  STREAM OF COMMERCE theory- If a business elects to sell its products for ultimate use in another state, they are held liable for wherever the injury occurs.
 
THE REAL FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TEST
o   The burden of the defendant
o   The interests of the forum state
o   The plaintiffs interest in obtaining relief
o   Also must weigh the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies
o   The shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive policies
 
0.      In Personam- A judgment is “in personam” when it makes D personally liable.
 .         A court can enter a valid judgment in personam only when jurisdiction has been obtained by personal service of process in the state, although it does not matter that D was present in the state only briefly.
                                         ii.            Transient Jurisdiction- Harris v. Balk; – Permits a state to exercise jurisdiction over a D even if he was only present in the state for a short period of time and was served there.
 
b.      In Rem- Focuses on property (the res) and permits the court to dispose of the property in accordance with the outcome of the litigation.
                                                                   i.            Personal service in the jurisdiction is not necessary for the state to exercise its power over property in the state.
                                                                 ii.            The presence of property in a state under traditional practice could conceivably give rise to “in rem” and “quasi in rem.”
 
c.       Quasi-in-Rem- In these cases, the action is purely in personam; the substance of the case has nothing to do with D's property. It is a way of imposing personal jurisdiction when you don't have it by attaching property that D has in your territory to D.
                                                                    i.            Limited to the value of the property (attachment jurisdiction).
 
d.       Pennoyer- Physical Power (Presence). Each state would be exclusively powerful over the people and property inside its borders and completely powerless outside of its borders. “tag jurisdiction”
                                                                    i.            Every state possess exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over the persons and property within its territory
                                                                  ii.            Every state owes protection to its own citizens; and, when non-residents deal with them, it is a legitimate and just exercise of authority to hold and appripriate any propery owned by such non-residents to satisfy the claims of its citizens.
·         The validity of every judgment depends on the jurisdiction of the court before it is rendered, not upon what may occur subsequently.
 
Hess v Pawloski.docx
 
·         In Balk, the debt clinged wherever you were
·         Hess states that under Pennoyer, it was Constitutional to have implied consent to appoint someone on your behalf for service of process for driving a motor vehicle.
 
International Shoe- Shift to Minimum Contacts
 
·         Minimum contacts- there must be substantial and systemic number of contacts in a forum. OR one contact that results in the action. It must be fair as well not to place an undue burden on the defend