Civil Procedure I Outline

Knudsen-Civil Procedure Winter 2015 Outline

Introduction

1. Why Procedure Matters

Procedure mirrors our most basic notions of fairness and meaning of justice. Tries to capture our ideas about the acceptable forms of settling disputes—about whether we most desire peace or truth, efficiency or justice.

As you encounter cases in procedure you have two questions to answer: what principle of law determined who prevailed in this situation? And, which lawyer for which side picked this particular fight and why-what tactical advantage was she hoping to achieve?

2. An Anatomy of the System and a Case

Anatomy of the System

Where do Federal Rules of Civil Procedure come from?

Constitution à Necessary & Proper Clause àCongress à Rules Enabling Act à Supreme Court à Judicial Conference à Advisory Committee.

Anatomy of a Case

Pleadings: gives notice of the claims/counterclaims and establishes power of the court.

Early Motions: protects the ∆ from harassment and burden of litigating non-meritorious claims, or claims over which court have no power anyway.

Discovery: provides access to information, seeks to balance trust with burdens.

Pretrial: efficient resolution of cases where there are no issues of facts-either b/c the case can be decided on a point of law or b/c no reasonable jury could find for one of the parties.

Trial: balancing power of fact-finder with the power of the judge

Post-trial: balancing for jury with errors as a matter of law and egregious factual errors.

Appeal: balance respect for fact finder with errors of law, seeks accountability of lower courts, encourages transparency

Jurisdiction: Where Can the Suit Be Brought?

1. Personal Jurisdiction—the power of a court to render a judgment that is binding against ∆

1. The Constitutional Framework –

Pennoyer v. Neff pg. 66 [Foundational Case—No longer good law] Attorney originally sued π for fees and a default judgment was entered in OR against π. Π was a nonresident of OR and was only served constructive notice. Π’s recently acquired property in OR was sold to ∆ via sheriff’s deed. Π sued ∆ to eject ∆ from land on the grounds that the original suit was invalid because of personal jurisdiction and thus the sheriff’s deed was invalid. Issue: when does a state have personal jurisdiction over a nonresident ∆? RULE: presence of the ∆ is required. Rationale: the 14th Amendment makes the due process clause (5th Amendment) applicable to states and is a constitutional check on the full faith and credit clause.

Ways you can get personal jurisdiction in a Pennoyer framework:

Serve ∆ while physically present in forum state

∆ owns property in forum state that is attached at outset

In rem proceeding (case is about property in forum state)

Waiver—∆ shows up w/o objecting to personal jurisdiction

Contract

Consent by statute

Marriage/custody “status” disputes

2. Minimum Contacts Test –

International Shoe Co. v. Washington pg. 80 [Jurisdiction of Salesmen] π had salesman in WA and failed to make contributions to an unemployment compensation fund under statutory law. ∆ brought suit and π appealed TC by saying ∆ had no personal jurisdiction. Issue: whether due to business dealings in WA by company the 14th Amend. allows the court to bind the company to the laws of WA? RULE: due process requires only that in order to subject a ∆ to judgment in personam, if he be not present within the forum state, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

Test: is there contact? Is there a relationship between the contact and the claim? What are the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice? Reasonableness? Burden on the ∆? Relative interest to the π? Did the ∆ choose to do business or take deliberate action to make contact in forum state? What are the policy interests of the forum state?

Low burden on the ∆

Continuous and systematic contacts

Connection to the dispute

Forum state has interest

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. pg. 89 [Contracts & Personal Jurisdiction] π’s father purchased insurance policy that was bought by another company ∆. ∆ offered to reinsure and was paid premiums by π’s father. ∆ refused to pay π when father died. Issue: whether a nonresident corporation is subject to jurisdiction in a state that it never had any agent or office, merely b/c it was a party to a contract with a resident of the state? RULE: a state court’s jurisdiction satisfies due process when it is based on a contract with substantial connection with that state. Rationale: a state has manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents when their insurers refuse to pay claims.

Hanson v. Denclka pg. 90 [Unilateral activity à No jurisdiction] π’s mother established trust in DE then moved to FL. Issue: whether a nonresident corp. with no offices or business transactions n a state is subject to jurisdiction in the state by virtue of unilateral activity of having a π have some relationship with ∆? RULE: the unilateral activity of a π who claims some relationship with a nonresident ∆ can’t satisfy the minimum contact requirement with the forum state.

3. Specific jurisdiction –

World-Wide Volkswagen v.Woodson [how far does PJ follow a product?] π purchased an Audi from ∆. One year later while driving through OK, another car hit them causing a fire that resulted in severe injuries. Π’s brought a products liability suit against ∆ in OK. ∆ is based in NY, π resides in AZ and bought the car in NY. Issue: in order to exercise PJ over a nonresident party, how extensive must the party’s contact be to satisfy due process? RULE: the degree o foreseeability that must exist is not the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the state, but that the ∆’s conduct and connection with the state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being hailed into court there. (Purposefully availed)

Test: two functions of the minimum contacts test are protects the ∆ from the burden of litigating far from their home state and limit the sovereignty of the individual states. Reasonableness:

Forum states interest in adjudicating dispute

The π’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief

Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution

Shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies

Burger King v. Rudzewicz [what kind of contracts give rise to PJ?] π and ∆ had a franchise agreement specifying that ∆’s may be subject to suit in FL. ∆ fell behind in monthly payments. Π brought a diversity action in federal court in FL. Issue: may a court exercise PJ on a franchise in an action for breach of contract when the franchise voluntarily accepts long term and exacting regulation by the franchisor’s headquarters and the franchise had notice and would not be gravely disadvantages? RULE: when the ∆ has a business relationship and agreement with a corporation located in the forum state and there is a forum selection clause in the agreement, the forum state may exercise PJ if the long-arm statute permits. If exercising jurisdiction would cause grave hardship to the ∆, then exercising jurisdiction would violate due process. Contact through contract is enough.

4. Specific jurisdiction – applying cases where the contacts aren’t so continuous that you would be able to automatically sue in the forum state [minimum contact test]

Pavlovich v. Superior Court [internet context & PJ, Calder test] π while in college created a static website that provided information. Π had no contacts in CA. ∆ was a company with its principal place of business in CA that was damaged due to the information on π’s website. Issue: whether a state court can exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident whose only connection to the state is an Internet posting? RULE: a π asserting a claim based on specific jurisdiction against a non-resident ∆ performing no business in the state must point to contacts that demonstrate that the ∆ expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum state. Rationale: creating a site, like placing a product into the stream of commerce, may be felt nationwide or even worldwide, but w/o more it is not an act purposely directed at the forum state.

Calder Effects Test: comes from Shoe and is for purposeful availment, expands the framework. [information/dissemination]

Intentionally committed an act

Expressly aimed at the forum state; and

Knowledge the effect would disproportionately harm the forum state

Zippo Manufacturing Sliding Scale Analysis: passive vs. interactive web activity. Just because the website can reach the forum state, doesn’t mean it is purposefully availing itself. Similar to World Wide analysis.

J. McIntyre v. Nicastro [Foreign ∆ à outcome & fairness] π was injured by a machine manufactured by the ∆. The machine was manufactured in E