CIVIL PROCEDURE MOLITERNO FALL 2016
1. PERSONAL JURISDICTION
A topic referred to pertaining to the authority of a court to render a decision that will bind the parties before it. The general rule in the federal courts is that jurisdiction over the defendant is proper where the defendant could be subjected to the jurisdiction of courts of the state where the federal district court is located.
Personal jurisdiction analysis involves two main steps: (1) determination of whether the state’s long-arm statute confers jurisdiction and (2) an analysis of whether the federal constitution – specifically the due process clause of the 14th amendment – permits the particular exercise of personal jurisdiction of the case at hand.
Two general types of long-arm statutes:
(1) A long-arm statute that simply authorizes jurisdiction to the extent that is permitted under the federal constitution.
(2) A long-arm statute that specifically articulates the factual circumstances under which state courts will be permitted to exercise jurisdiction. Referred to as an enumerated act statute.
International Shoe Company v. Washington
A case that established the fundamental test for whether assertions or personal jurisdiction are consistent with the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The fundamental test included:
If the defendant has “certain minimum contacts with the forum such the maintenance of the suit does no offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
This expanded on the previous standard of Pennoyer v. Neff which established that “every state possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory” but that “no state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without its territory.”
Court indicated that contacts should be evaluated with reference to whether they are “continuous and systematic” versus “single or isolated: and with respect to whether they “give rise to the liabilities sued on” or are “unconnected” with the cause of action.
Fact patterns that show contracts that are systematic and continuous and give rise to the claim will always enjoy jurisdiction.
Fact patterns that show contracts that are systematic and continuous by are unrelated to the cause of action has come to represent the area of general jurisdiction: jurisdiction is appropriate for this category of cases if the systematic and continuous contacts can be described as “substantial.”
Fact patterns with isolated and sporadic contracts giving rise to the cause of action are considered specific jurisdiction: jurisdiction is appropriate for this category of cases if the defendant can be said to have purposefully availed itself to the forum state and if the assertion of jurisdiction would be reasonable.
Purposeful Availment:
Purposefully availment requires that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself the privilege of conducting activities with the forum state, the invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
Merely being able to foresee that one’s actions will cause injury in the forum is not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
Entering into a contract with a forum resident can also constitute purposeful availment under the so-called contracts-plus analysis, where on considers the place of negotiation, execution, and performance of the contract to determine whether those factors support a finding of purposeful availment.
Purposeful availment cannot exist on the basis of the actions by the plaintiff or third parties.
After finding minimum contacts exists, one still has to determine whether the assentation of personal jurisdiction be reasonable.
A reasonable review involves a five-factor analysis evaluating: (first 3 most significant to the courts)
the burden on the defendant
the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies
the share interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.
For contracts that are mediated through the so-called stream of commerce the courts are split on how to determine this. Asahi Metals.
Justice O’Conner’s view is the mere placement of a product into the stream of commerce is insufficient to establish minimum contacts, rather the party must intend to serve the forum state when they participate in the stream of commerce.
Justice Brennan on the other hand felt that placing a product into the stream of commerce with the awareness that it would be marketed in the forum state sufficed to establish minimum contacts with that state.
No majority for either side, so courts can decide which to use but more lean towards O’Conner’s view.
Fact patterns that show isolated but unrelated contracts do not give jurisdiction to the courts.
Exception: The Calder Effects Test, which will allow jurisdiction if intentionally targeting wrongful conduct towards a forum resident will support an assertion of jurisdiction if they suffer harm there.
Personal jurisdiction can be waved by the defendant if the do not want to challenge the jurisdiction which must happen in their initial response to the complaint. Defendant’s can make a special appearance to challenge the jurisdiction but they must only go to the court and leave. If they step outside the special appearance they can be subject to “got-cha” jurisdiction.
Can challenge with a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (12(b)(2)
Challenging jurisdiction in their answer, provided that the answer is the initial response to complaint.
However, if the defendant foregoes any direct challenge to personal jurisdiction and fails to appear at all in an a
tate of incorporation
The state where its principal place of business is located.
A corporation can have citizenship in two states of diversity jurisdiction purposes.
Some courts use the Nerve Center test, the location of the decision-making authority) to determine the location of the corporation’s principal place of business
Other courts use the Muscle Test, the location of the bulk of the corporation’s production or service activities.
Partnerships and unincorporated associations are citizens of every state and country of which its partners or members are citizens.
Legal representatives are deemed to be citizens only of the state of the party whom they represent.
There must be complete diversity in the parties for it to fall under diversity jurisdiction. This means that no party on one side of a case may share state citizenship with any party on the other side of the case. However, if there is evidence that a party has been improperly or collusively name simply for the purpose of creating a basis for diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of the collusively or improperly names party may be ignored for diversity purposes.
In figuring out the amount of controversy, compensatory and punitive damages can be counted. Prejudgment interest and costs however are not to be included in the amount. All individual plaintiffs must meet this amount and the amount cannot be aggregated to reach the jurisdictional amounts.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
Federal question jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. 1331, which provides for federal jurisdiction over all cases arising under federal law. This provision has been interpreted to require that a claim contain an essential federal element that appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. The means that federal defenses or claims raised by the defendant will be insufficient to serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Motley. There appears to be no uniform standard for determining whether a federal interest is sufficiently substantial. What is clear is that the existence of a federal constitutional question is generally viewed as creating a substantial federal interest. The Supreme Court has also suggested that a controversy respecting the construction and effect of federal laws will be considered substantial.
