civpro midterm

28 U.S.C 1338

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any act of congress, relating to patents, copyrights, trademarks, and plant variety protections. 

30-day rule — (1446)

D generally has 30 days after service to remove.
If the case was not initially removable but later becomes removable, D gets 30 days from receiving the document that makes it removable.

One-Year Diversity Limit (§ 1446(c))
What is the 1-year limit on diversity removal

If a case becomes removable later based on diversity, D generally cannot remove more than 1 year after the action began, even if D acts within the new 30-day window.

Choice of law

Federal court sitting in diversity must apply the same "choice of law" rules that the state court in that jurisdiction would apply. 
This may result in the application of another states law. 

Citizens of the US who are domiciled in a foreign state are..

- NOT citizens of a state
- cannot invoke diversity jurisdiction or sue / be sued in federal courts 
- exception exist for those with dual citizenship

Claim aggregation - single P v. single D

Allowed. Single P may aggregate all claims against a single D to get over 75K

Corporation citizenship

- incorporation 
- principal place of business (HQ, nerve center) 

Diversity Jurisdiction - 28 U.S.C 1332

- Citizens of different states 
- Citizens of a state and citizens / subjects of a foreign state 
- Amount in contervsorsy exceeds 75k 

Domicile 

- citizenship is the the party's domicile at the time of the suit 
- residence + intent to remian indefinetly = domicile 
- One cannot lose their domicile until they gain a new one

Embedded federal question: grable test 

Federal question must be: 
- necessarily raised, and 
- actually disputed, and 
- substaintal, and 
- capable of resolution in federal court without upsetting the federal - state balence 

Erie Doctrine 

In cases of diversity, federal courts must always apply the substantive laws of the state in which their jursdiction sits, inclusing the states's choice of law rules 
Aims to: (1) discourage from forum shopping (2) avoid the inequiable administartion of laws

Federal question jurisdiction - 28 U.S.C 1331

- Federal courts have original jurisdiction for any case where P's complaint is based on a question of federal law, if federal law is just an ingredient to the original cause, lower courts may be given jurisdiction 
- it is not enough that defendent is likely to raise a defense asserting a federal issue. 

Forseeability in minimum contacts 

Minimum contacts must be such that it is forseeable / known / reasonably anticipated that d could be haled into court from forum state 

In forum D rule (1332) 

A defendant is not allowed to petition for removal if the complaint is filed in their home state.

lack of SMJ

under 1331 and 1332 if the court lacks SMJ at any time during the trial the case must be dismissed

Minimum contacts - interantional shoe

1.) sufficient contacts 
2.) relatedness of claim with contacts 
3.) fair and reasonable

Multiple PS v. Single D 

Not allowed
exception: supplimental jurisdiction - when the action arises from the same incident, a plaintiff with a claim that does not meet the minimum can sometimes "tag along" with a plaintiff whose claim agaisnt D is over 75K - 28 U.S.C 1367

Removal jurisdiction - 28 U.S.C 1441

- P is the "master of the complaint", so they chose whether to file in state or federal court
- Only D can remove a case from state to federal court
- Can move when (1) federal courts have original jurisdiction (2) district courts had original jurisdiction at the time the complaint was entered and (3) if mulitple defendents all d's must agree to removal

Single P v. Multiple Ds

generally NOT allowed 
- single P cannot aggregate claims agaisnt 2 different Ds to get 75k, BUT single P can sue two different Ds on a single damage to determine which is liable

State Supreme Court predictive approach 28 USC 1652

- When supreme court is deciding on a state law issue, they should predict how the highest state court would rule and follow that 
- States highest court decisions = binding; lower & intermediate = persuasive 
- Federal courts can ignore a states highest court decision only if they beleive its an old decision and they believe it would be overruled at the present (must be staggerignly obvious)

Ways to thwart removal

- bring only state claims, even if there is a basis for federal claims 
- add a forum stste defendent 
- add a defendent from p's state 
- ask for less than 75k or 75k

General personal jurisdiction

the court has the authority to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant for any claim no matter where in the world it occurred.

specific personal jurisdiction

the court has authority to exercise jurisdiction over the defendent for only the issues / claims that arrise under / relate to d’s contact within the state

Pure in rem

court declares the true owner of a piece of property as to the entire world

Quasi in rem type I

Multiple parties have an interest in property and courts determine whose interest is superior

Quasi in rem type II

A party admits he has no interest in the property but ask the court to give him the property

Quasi in Rem

The forum has the power to determine ownership over the particular persons in regard to a property

In Rem

The forum has the power to adjudicate the rights of persons all over the world in respect to a particular item of property - property must be in the forum state and attached prior to commencing the action

Four traditional contacts where PJX is “fair and reasonable” under Pennoyer

1.) D is present and personally served with the process in the forum

2.) Domicile

3.) consent

4.) Implied consent - D has implied consent to the states jurisdiction through purposeful availment of the forums benefits

Supplemental Jx USC 1367

When the action arises from the same incident, a plaintiff with a claim that does not meet the minimum can sometimes “tag along” with a plaintiff whose claim against D is over 75,000

Fairness factors

1.) convenience - “so gravely difficult and inconvenient that a party is unfairly put at a severe disadvantage in comparison to his opponent” - difficult standard to meet

2.) States Interest - State’s have recognized interest in protecting their citizens’ rights

3.) P’s interest - In obtaining coinvent and effective relief

4.) legal systems interest in efficiency

5.) States shared substantive policies

General jurisdiction

Where a party is subject to general jurisdiction, the court has the authority to adjudicate cases cases over any claim, not only those that occurred within the states territory

Sufficient notices to court

By mail - sufficient if identity and address is known, insufficient when P knows for certain that D never received notice

Publication - only acceptable if all other reasonable efforts have been exhausted

Rules enabling act 2071 - 2077

Authorized the supreme court to prescribe the federal rules of procedure as long as they do not “abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right”

Constitution supremacy clause (procedural)

When federal laws conflict with state laws, federal laws win.

Step 1 of Hanna

yes, federal rule on point

If the issue is procedural, apply the twin aims of Erie (discourage forum shopping and unequal distribution of law)

if it does not follow the twin aims of Erie, state law

if it does - federal law

Step 2 - No federal rule on point

(assume it conflicts with state law)

ask if valid under rules enabling act - if yes, apply federal rule

if no, ask if it affects a substantive right (modifies, enlarges, or abridges) if no, apply fed, if yes apply state

According to Hanna test a federal rule will not apply if

1.) difference in outcome is is substantial enough that it might lead litigant to choose federal rule over state court (forum shopping)

2.) Rule confers a significant litigation advantage such that ignoring the state rule would make it unfair. (inequitable administration of law)

3 approaches to stream of commerce

O'Connor - proof of an action directed at the forum state. Stream of commerce “plus”  (most used)

Brennan - When a defendant's components are incorporated into a final product, the defendant has a contact with any forum where the defendant knows the final product is sold. Pure stream of commerce.

Stevens - Should consider volume, value of sales, hazardous of the product assessing whether PJ is appropriate. Middle ground.

Objecting to Removal Defects (§ 1447(c))
How long does P have to object to an improper removal?

For a procedural removal defect, P must move to remand within 30 days after removal.
Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is not waived.

1367 - right to decline supplemental jurisdiction

Grants discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction if:

• it raises a novel or complex issue of state law;

• it substantially predominates over federal anchor claims or:

• all anchor claims are dismissed.

(original federal question or diversity claim)

Complete diversity - 1332

No plaintiff can share a state with any defendant in a federal lawsuit

• federal courts have original jurisdiction

Purposeful contact + connection between contact and claim + fairness

Specific personal jurisdiction

Ford v. Montana specific personal jurisdiction

specific personal jurisdiction may exist where the claims arise from activity that is closely related to the defendant’s purposeful contacts with the forum, even if the claim does not itself arise directly from the defendant’s activity in the forum

well pleaded complaint rule (for 1331)

A federal question complaint must appear on the face of the plaintiffs complaint

Holmes creation test

When looking at plaintiffs complain, what law provides plaintiff with a remedy? State law or Federal law? If YES, FQJ exists

Gordon v. Steele

A person’s citizenship is determined by domicile = physical presence + intent to remain

Mas v. Perry

For purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, a person's state citizenship is determined by their domicile, not their residence. A domicile is established by physical presence in a place combined with an intent to remain there indefinitely, and one's previous domicile is maintained until a new one is acquired.

Hertz v. Friend

A corporation’s principal place of business is its nerve center, where high-level officers direct and control the company.

Carden v. Arkoma

An unincorporated entity takes the citizenship of all of its members or partners.

Diefenthal v. C.A.B.

The plaintiff’s claimed amount controls if made in good faith, unless it is not adequately

supported when challenged.

Exxon Mobil v. Allapattah

If one plaintiff independently satisfies the amount requirement, a related co-plaintiff claim below

$75,000 may come in through supplemental jurisdiction.

Mottley

A federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint, not in a

defense or counterclaim.

Grable / Gunn

A state-law claim can support federal-question jurisdiction if the federal issue is necessarily

raised, actually disputed, substantial, and consistent with the federal-state balance.

Avitts v. Amoco

Removal requires actual original federal jurisdiction; vague references to federal law do not

create federal-question jurisdiction.

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs

Supplemental jurisdiction reaches claims arising from the same common nucleus of operative fact as the anchor claim

Owen Equipment v. Kroger

Article III relatedness alone is not enough; the court also needs statutory authority, and a plaintiff

cannot use supplemental jurisdiction to evade diversity requirements.

Erie v. Tompkins

Federal courts hearing state-law claims apply state substantive law and may not create general

federal common law.

Klaxon v. Stentor

A federal diversity court applies the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it sit

Guaranty Trust v. York

If a case is in federal court just because the people suing are from different states, the federal court has to follow the state's specific deadline for filing that lawsuit. This ensures you can't get a different result just by picking a federal court over a state court.

Byrd v. Blue Ridge

Balance the state’s substantive interest against any countervailing federal judicial interest.

Hanna v. Plumer

Use Hanna I for federal judicial practice versus state law, but Hanna II / the Rules Enabling Act for a direct conflict between an FRCP and state law.

Walker v. Armco Steel

Before using Hanna II, first ask whether the Federal Rule actually directly conflicts with and controls the issue

International Shoe

Purposeful forum contacts can support PJ when exercising jurisdiction is consistent with fair play and substantial justice.

World-Wide Volkswagen

Mere foreseeability that a consumer may carry a product into the forum is not purposeful availment; D must itself target or engage the forum.

Ford Motor Co.

The claim need not be strictly caused by D’s forum activity if there is a strong relationship among D, the forum, and the litigation

Milliken v. Meyer

An individual is subject to PJ in the state of their domicile even when served outside the stat

Hess v. Pawlosk

Conduct such as driving in the forum can support implied consent to PJ for claims arising from that conduct.

Keeton v. Hustler

Regularly distributing the allegedly tortious material in the forum can create sufficient forum contacts.

Calder v. Jones

A state court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant whose intentional, allegedly tortious actions were expressly aimed at the forum state and caused harm, the brunt of which was suffered in that state.

Walden v. Fiore

Knowing the plaintiff resides in the forum is not enough without defendant-created contacts with the forum itself.

Burger King v. Rudzewicz

A contract alone is insufficient; examine negotiations, contemplated future consequences, and contract provisions connecting D to the forum.

Asahi

Because there is no controlling stream-of-commerce test, analyze O’Connor’s plus, Brennan’s knowledge, and Stevens’s volume/value/hazardousness approaches.

McIntyre v. Nicastro

The Supreme Court still did not resolve the stream-of-commerce split, so the competing Asahi approaches remain relevant.

hanna part 2

direct conflict

1.) whether congress has authority to regulate rule

2.) whether it fits rules enabling act (2072)

rule must regulate procedure and practice (2072)

Must not abridge, modify, or enlarge any substantive right (2072)

if rule passes then it governs under supremacy clause

procedural issues

filing deadlines

court rules & procedures

discovery practices

rules of evidence

substantive

• Elements of claim or defense

• burdens of proof

• statutes of limitations