Civil Procedure

Diversity of Citizenship SMJ

Cases that arise from “Citizens of different states”

Federal Question SMJ

Cases “arising under this Constitution [or] the Laws of the United States, and Treaties”

28 U.S.C. § 1332

Establishing diversity SMJ.  The two requirements are: (1) Diversity of citizenship of the parties and (2) amount in controversy (minimum of $75,000)

Rules of Diversity of Citizenship

• Citizenship is determined at the time of filing suit.

• Burden of proof is on the party seeking to establish federal jurisdiction

• Two part test: (1) residence (2) with intent to remain indefinitely

Strawbridge rule

no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any defendant

28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) - Corporate Citizenship

• Every state and foreign state by which it has been incorporated.

• The state or foreign state where it has its principal place of business (PPB)

Principal place of business

the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. Typically, a corporation’s PPB will be its headquarters, unless the office is only where the corporation holds its occasional board of director meetings

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) - Amount-in-controversy

• currently set at $75,000

• the amount in controversy has been set to prevent petty controversies from consuming the federal courts, but not high enough to be solely a court for big business.

St. Paul Mercury rule

A claim must be made in good faith, and it must appear to be a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.

Constitution Art. III, § 2

Creates FQ SMJ - “arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”

Osborn

as long as the “original cause” involves a question of federal law, the case arises under federal law (need an ingredient of federal law injected into the case, including an injection by the defense)

Mottley/well-pleaded complaint rule

a case arises under federal law if the federal issue appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

forum defendant rule

a civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of § 1332(a) may not be removed if any of the Ds is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought.

Main Rule for Minimum Contacts

SPJ is proper when a D has “such minimum contacts with [the forum] that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (taken from International Shoe Co. v. Washington (U.S. 1945))

Motion

a request for a court order

Pleadings

details the claims and defenses of the parties

Requirements for a proper complaint

(1) a statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction
(2) claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief
(3) demand (or prayer) for relief sought

Twombly-Iqbal Rule

(1) the court accepts as true all factual allegations, but not legal conclusions or recital of elements
(2) the complaint states enough facts, taken as true, together to plausibly state a claim for relief.

Removal

D may remove only if the action is one of which the federal district courts have original jurisdiction (SMJ)

Minimum contacts

requires the ‘twins’ of purposeful availment and reasonable anticipation.

Purposeful availment

“There must be some act [singular] by which D purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”

Reasonable anticipation

D’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that it reasonably anticipates being haled into court there.

P’s claim arose out of or related to D’s contacts with the forum.

The majority rule is that “arising out of” means a but-for causal relationship between P’s claim and Ds’ contacts.

Fairness factors

D’s burden is to ‘present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable’ or unfair

The most important factor is the burden that the exercise of jurisdiction will impose on the out-of-state defendant

List of fairness factors

(1) the burden that the exercise of jurisdiction will impose on the defendant;
(2) the interests of the forum state in adjudicating the case;
(3) the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief;
(4) the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of the controversy; and
(5) the shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social policies

Calder Effects Test (for intentional torts)

Purposeful availment is modified to “expressly aimed.”

P suffered the brunt of the harm in the forum and Ds knew the brunt of the harm would occur in the form [replaces RA]

Forum state must be the ‘focal point’ of both the story and the harm

Presence Jurisdiction

allows for personal jurisdiction to be established by service through D’s voluntary presence in the forum state; not available for corporations

General Personal Jurisdiction

means that P’s claim does not arise out of or relate to D’s contacts with the forum state.

Rules for GPJ

GPJ is proper when D is “at home” in the forum state. What does “at home mean” for:

• An individual D: Her state of citizenship.

• A corporate D: GPJ over a corporation is proper where it is at home, which is the state of incorporation and principal place of business.

Proper service must be

“reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise [D] of the pendency of the action.”

The Four Waivable defenses

Lack of PJ; Improper venue; Insufficient process; Insufficient service of process

3 basic responses that D can make to an allegation

admit, deny, lacking information/knowledge (LKI)

Rule for Affirmative defenses

Affirmative defenses need only be a sentence or two long

Venue

refers to the geographic specification of the proper court or courts for the litigation of a civil action that is within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the district courts in general

forum non conveniens

relevant only when the more appropriate court is in a different judicial system

When must a D file a notice of removal?

within 30 days after receipt of P’s state-court complaint

When must P move to remand to state court if D removes?

within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal unless the defect is SMJ (which can be raised at any time)

When must D answer P’s complaint?

within 21 days after service of the summons and complaint

If D’s 12(b) or 12(e) motions are denied, when must D answer?

within 14 days after notice of denial

How long does a party have to amend without leave of court?

21 days after serving the filing

If P amends the complaint, D must answer

within 14 days of service of the amended pleadings.

If a D agrees to waive service, how long will the D have to respond to the P’s complaint?

60 days from the date on which P requested the waiver of service to respond to the complaint

Res Judicata Elements

(1) first suit goes to final judgment on the merits; (2) first and second suits have “same” claims; and (3) first and second suits have “same” parties

Res Judicata “same” claims

defined as related in time, space, origin, and motivation