CivPro - Vitiello - Post-Midterm

Define Personal Jurisdiction

Whether or not a court has authority to make decisions binding on the particular parties in a case, but particularly over a D

What can Ps use to enforce a judgment from one state in another state?

1. Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV of Constitution

   1. Helps ensure states will enforce the judgments of other states. Also works for federal court

   2. Exception though, when the court that rendered the judgment lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant 

In what ways can a D challenge personal jurisdiction?

1. Make a special appearance

   1. Though technically federal court no longer distinguishes b/w general and special appearance. D can simply challenge via 12(b) motion

2. Do not appear and then collaterally attack default judgment (Pennoyer)

   1. Baldwin: cannot appear specially, lose, and then collaterally attack

What are the differences between in rem and quasi in rem?

In rem jurisdiction is based on a dispute over a particular piece of property. Quasi in rem merely attaches property as a basis for jurisdiction, but the dispute is over something else

How does the case of Schaffer affect quasi in rem proceedings?

1. P filed shareholder derivative suit against Greyhound Corporation and 28 of its directors/officers. This kind of suit is to enforce corporation’s rights. P alleged violation of federal antitrust, which cost it millions. 

2. P attached shareholders’ stock under quasi-in-rem, aka “sequestration”

3. USSC held no minimum contacts, because the property is not the subject of the litigation or underlying cause of action

What is the rule under Pennoyer?

Rule: Court lacks PJ over non-consenting, non-resident unless they’re served in-hand and in the state

Analogizing Facts: -D was served at their domicile despite not being present

Case: Milliken (1940)

Rule: Individuals can be sued in state of their domicile at all times

Analogizing Facts: D was intentionally and voluntarily (though temporarily) present in the forum state when they were served with process in-hand.

Case: Burnham (1990)

Rule: Tag Jurisdiction: Affirms Pennoyer’s principle of touching/tagging jurisdiction within state’s borders, provided sufficient benefits of forum state to the D

Analogizing Facts: -Out of country P tried to sue out of country D in forum state through their subsidiary corporation, whose SOI and PPB were not in the forum state

Case: Daimler (2014)

Rule: Corporate Ds are subject to general PJ in SOI and PPB

Analogizing Facts: -Forum state statute required out-of-state corp. to consent to general PJ in the state

-P sued in forum state but did not live or work there, and D was incorporated and headquartered in different state

Case: Mallory (2023)

Rule: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit a state from requiring out-of-state corporations to consent to general personal jurisdiction to do business in the state.

Analogizing Facts:

-D had POI and PPB outside of the forum state, which is where P was located

-D directed employees who operated in the forum state and the suit arose out of these operations

Case: International Shoe (1945)

Rule: D must have sufficient minimum contacts equaling fair play and substantial justice such that the defendant would reasonably expect to be hauled before the forum are needed for specific PJ to be proper. Contact typically must be systematic/continuous, though Court states that there could potentially be a single/occasional act sufficient enough

Analogizing Facts:

-D had no offices or agents in the forum state, and was located outside of the forum state

-P resided in the forum state

-D made intentional contacts to P within the forum state for purposes of an insurance policy

Case: McGee (1957)

Rule: PJ is proper where there were such contacts with the forum state on behalf of D that they had adequate notice of the suit and sufficient time to prepare defenses

• forum state had interest in protecting its residents

Analogizing Facts:

-P established a trust in State A, where D operated, before moving to State B

-Suit was brought in State B and P and D had continued contacts after P had moved to State B

-D had no contacts with State B apart from the correspondence to P

Case: Hanson (1958)

Rule: D subject to specific PJ only if they purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state.

Analogizing Facts:

Stream of Commerce - Ps purchased car from D outside of forum state. Sustained a car accident while passing through the forum state. D otherwise did not do business within the forum state.

Case: World-Wide Volkswagen (1980)

Rule: Foreseeability alone is not sufficient to authorize a state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant that has no contacts, ties, or relations with the forum state.

Analogizing Facts:

Tort case - D was never physically present in forum state and did not have other contacts in forum state, but the tortious act was directed at the forum state with expected harm being experiences there

Case: Calder (1984)

Rule: Specific PJ proper based on 1) committing an intentional act, 2) expressly aimed at forum state, 3) causing harm, the brunt of which is suffered in forum state

Analogizing Facts:

-P is corporation based in forum state. 

-Ds are business partners in non-forum state

-P and Ds entered into a contract based in forum-state law, with forum provision, and engaged in business interactions connected to the forum state

Case: Burger King (1985)

Rule: 2-step test for minimum contacts requirement for PJ, the court must consider:

1. The defendant's activities purposefully directed at the forum state, and 

2. Whether the resulting harms are the basis of the litigation.

Also: choice-of-law clause is suggestive toward the establishment of minimum contacts via purposeful availment but certainly not dispositive

o But when combined with long-term employment relationship, constant communication with FL, and deliberate affiliation with FL corporation, contact is not “random or fortuitous”

Analogizing Facts:

Stream of Commerce - D manufactured parts outside of the forum state - these parts were used to create a product also outside of the forum state - these products were then sold to the forum state (not by D), and these products caused injury

Case: Asahi (1987)

Rule: (4-4-1 ruling, so no clear rule)

-O’Connor’s stream-of-commerce-plus some other action directed at forum state that indicates purposeful availment to serve the market in that forum state

-Brennan’s stream-of-commerce that regular and anticipated flow of products into the forum state is enough to establish minimum contacts if foreseeable the product would be marketed in the forum state

Analogizing Facts:

D manufactured machine abroad. It did not market goods in forum state or ship them there. The machine ended up in forum state through sale by a “third party” distributor.

Case: McIntyre (2011)

Rule:

Kennedy Plurality: We must ask whether D has followed a course of conduct directed as the society or economy existing within the J. Absent specific targeting, no PJ

Breyer concurrence: If there had been more machines flowing into forum state, maybe PJ

Ginsburg dissent: D targeted entire U.S., so thus it targeted every state including forum state

Analogizing Facts: D had a website accessible by forum users, but otherwise did not market in forum state, target forum state users, or have other contacts there.

Case: Telemedicine Solutions LLC (2014)

Rule: Personal jurisdiction based on internet contacts requires more purposeful direction at the forum state, such as purposeful targeting, marketing, or distributing there.

Analogizing Facts:

-Nationwide group of Ps sued D in forum state

-General jx was otherwise not proper in forum state

-Non-forum residents had no contacts with the forum state and were not harmed there

Case: Bristol Meyer Squibb (2017)

Rule: For specific PJ, there must be an affiliation between the forum state and the specific claim at issue.

Rejected California’s “sliding scale” approach to specific jurisdiction, which allowed wider ranging contacts in the forum to compensate for the lack of any causal connection between the contacts and the injured parties’ claims.

Analogizing Facts:

D sold, marketed, advertised, serviced vehicles nationwide + in forum state. D did not have its PPB in the forum state and was not incorporated there

P was injured in one of D’s vehicles within the forum state, but did not purchase the vehicle there

Case: Ford Motor Co (2021)

Rule: A state can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in an action arising out of or related to the nonresident defendant’s purposeful contacts with the forum state.
A plaintiff can create forum-contacts by bringing the injury-causing product into a state if the defendant is otherwise involved in a substantial amount of similar business within the state.

Which amendments provide for Due Process?

1. 5th Amendment

   1. Limits federal government

   2. “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

2. 14th Amendment

   1. Limits state government

   2. “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

What are the 5 core questions for service of process?

1. What must be served?

   1. Summons + Complaint (Rule 4)

2. Who may serve process?

   1. Any non-party who is at least 18 years old may serve process

3. Upon whom may process be served?

   1. Defendant themselves or an agent for service of process

   2. Or, at D’s residence with a person of suitable age and discretion

   3. Rule 4(h) governs who can be served on behalf of a corporation

4. How must process be served?

   1. Typically, anywhere within the U.S.

   2. See National Development Co for more

   3. Jx split re email service:

      1. Some courts hold email service is not sufficient

      2. Some allow if other methods are impractical

5. When must P serve D?

   1. 4(m): If a D is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court (on motion or on its own after notice to P) - MUST dismiss the action without prejudice against that D or order that service be made within a specified timeframe

What does Mullane say about service and notice?

1. Notice must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances to give actual notice. But actual notice itself is not required

2. This provides that a D will be apprised of the case and have a sufficient chance to defend

3. Categories of people and their respective notice

   1. Known present interested parties of a known place of residence

      1. Notice must be supplied by regular mail

   2. Interested parties whose interests and whereabouts cannot with due diligence be ascertained

      1. Statutory/constructive notice is adequate

   3. Interested parties whose interests are either conjectural or future

      1. Statutory/constructive notice is adequate if ordinary diligence fails to ascertain their location

What does National Development Co say about service/notice?

 A party can have multiple residences where they may be properly served under Rule 4(e)(2)(B), as long as a residence has sufficient indicia of permanence

How does trickery/fraud interplay with service of process?

1. Cannot induce/trick/lure a D into a separate state in order to serve them

2. BUT! Can smoke out a D within a state to serve them

Generally, what is Subject Matter Jurisdiction?

Whether the federal court has the authority to make a ruling on the type of case of case being heard

Generally, what are the two requirements for a federal court to have SMJ?

1. Must be a basis in Article III (constitutional basis)

2. Must be a congressional grant of jurisdiction (statutory basis)

Where do we get the Constitutional basis for SMJ?

1. Article III: Judicial power to hear cases arising under the law of the Constitution and federal laws

   1. Very broad interpretation, though this is narrowed by statute

Generally, what two statutes provide the congressional grant of Jx?

1331 and 1332

Generally, what are the three primary types of SMJ?

1. Diversity

2. Alienage

3. Federal Question

What statute governs Diversity of Citizenship? What does it require and how do we determine citizenship?

1. Governed by 1332

2. Amount in controversy must be ABOVE $75,000

3. There must be complete diversity, meaning no Ps can be citizens of the same state as any Ds (Strawbridge)

4. Citizenship of Individuals:

   1. Based on domicile

      1. Def: “true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which they have the intention of returning whenever they are absent therefrom”

5. Citizenship of Corporations:

   1. Principal Place of Business AND

   2. Every state of incorporation

      1. Though usually only one (and often Delaware)

6. Citizenship of Unincorporated Entities:

   1. LLCs, like partnerships, are considered citizens of every which of which any member is a citizen

How may a P aggregate to meet the required jurisdictional amount for SMJ?

1. Claims by one P v one D: Single P can aggregate all of her claims against a single D to meet the requirement, even if claims are unrelated legally or transactionally

2. Claims by or against multiple parties: Typically cannot aggregate

3. Joint Claims: If case involves a “common, undivided, joint” claim, courts can permit aggregation. 

2. Equitable relief

   1. How to calculate the value in a case involving equitable relief?

      1. Some courts ask whether D’s alleged acts harm the P by more than $75K

      2. Other courts ask whether complying with the injunction would cost the D more than $75K

What provision provides for Alienage SMJ? What does it state?

1. 1332(a)(2):

   1. “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State”

See Mas v. Perry

What laws provides for Federal Question Jurisdiction? What are the key differences/limitations?

1. Article III and 1331 both allow fed. Courts to adjudicate cases “arising under” federal law (Constitution, treaties, federal statutes and regs)

   1. Article III is much broader though

2. Under Article III:

   1. Federal law needs only be a “potential ingredient” of the case

3. Under 1331, Three limitations on statutory language“arising under”:

   1. The federal law of the case must be substantial

   2. Federal law must be the basis of the claim, not of a defense

      1. See Mottley

   3. Assessment of whether federal law is sufficiently central to the claim asserted in a well-pleaded complaint

      1. See Smith, Grable

4. Creation Test “formula:”

   1. Federal Right + Federal Remedy = FQJ

What does Strawbridge tell us about diversity Jx?

Complete diversity is needed under 1332(a), though Congress could allow minimal diversity if they wanted to do so.

What does Mas v. Perry tell us about diversity Jx?

1. To be a citizen of a state under 1332, a person must be both a citizen of the US and a domiciliary of that State

2. To change domicile as an individual, you must change residence + have intent to remain there indefinitely

What does Randazzo tell us about diversity Jx?

In pleading an action based on diversity against a corporation, you MUST expressly plead the state(s) of incorporation AND the principal place of business.

What does Hertz Corporation v. Friend tell us about diversity Jx?

For purposes of diversity under 1332:

1. Corporations are citizens of their states of incorporation AND PPB

2. To determine PPB, use the “nerve center” test (where are the high level decisions made?)

What does Belleville Catering tell us about diversity Jx?

1. LLCs, like partnerships, are considered citizens of every which of which any member is a citizen

   1. Which means something like a labor union could potentially be a citizen of every state for diversity purposes!

What does Mottley tell us about Federal Question Jx?

1. The federal question must appear on the face of a “Well-Pleaded Complaint”

   1. Def: A complaint that sets forth only a claim (including the elements), unadorned by anticipated defenses or other extraneous material

What does Smith tell us about Federal Question Jx?

1. FQJ proper where the right to relief depends upon the construction/application of the Constitution/US Laws

What does Grable tell us about Federal Questions Jx?

1. Federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: 

   1. necessarily raised, 

   2. actually disputed, 

   3. substantial, and 

   4. capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.

What is Declaratory Judgment? What case speaks to this?

Declaratory Judgment, under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, enables a party to have a ruling as to their legal rights on an issue prior to any case being brought by or against them on that issue

1. Under Skelly Oil Co, declaratory judgment actions are proper only if supported by independent basis of jurisdiction (citizenship, alienage, FQJ)

2. "the declaratory action may be entertained in federal court only if the coercive action that would have been necessary, absent declaratory judgment procedure, might have been so brought."

What is supplemental Jx?

A case that invokes diversity, alienage, or FQJ might include individual claims or issues that do not. These claims/issues can still be heard by a federal court, so long as they are so closely related to the underlying dispute so as to be part of the same “case or controversy” under Article III. Jx over these is Supplemental Jx.

Generally, what statutes cover Removal?

1441, 1446, 1447

What is required for removal under 1441 to be proper? Where does the case get remove to?

1. Removal proper only if the case will invoke federal SMJ (diversity, alienage, FQJ)

   1. If basis is only diversity though, then D can’t remove if the original action was brought in their own state court

2. Burden is on the D in a removal to plead that the case invokes SMJ

   1. If a D improperly removes to federal court, it will be remanded back to state court

3. 1441(a), case gets removed to a federal district “embracing the place where such action is pending”

4. All properly served Defendants must agree to the removal. “Rule of Unanimity”

What does 1446 provide for and what are the requirements?

1446 covers the procedure for removal. Requirements:

1. Must file notice within 30 days of D’s receipt of initial pleading or service of summons

2. If the case isn’t initially removable, the 30 days timeframe starts ticking at the time on which it becomes removable

3. If removed under 1441(a), all Ds must consent

4. Removal based on diversity is limited to 1 year after action begins

5. 1446(c) provides for basis of Jx amount in controversy requirements

What is the key provision to know under 1447?

1447(e): “If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State court.”

What would constitute a fraudulent joinder?

P cannot block removal by joining non-diverse parties against whom he has no real cause of action

Generally, what is Venue?

Venue determines the location within a court system where a case can be brought. Most states have one federal district court, others have several

1. Venue is waivable!

What are the legal bases for venue?

1. No Constitutional right to venue in a particular place

2. Venue is dictated by 28 USC 1391(b):

   1. A civil action may be brought in—

      1.  a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;

      2. a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or

         1. Look to where the harm-causing event took place (Bates, forwarded abusive collection notice)

      3. if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

         1. Rarely applies

How is residency determined for Venue purposes?

Under 1391(c):

1. a natural person, including an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, shall be deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled;

2. an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued in its common name under applicable law, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question and, if a plaintiff, only in the judicial district in which it maintains its principal place of business; and

3. a defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district, and the joinder of such a defendant shall be disregarded in determining where the action may be brought with respect to other defendants.

Generally speaking, how can venue be changed?

1. If P files in improper venue, court may transfer case to a proper venue (1406)

2. If P files in a proper venue, it could still be possible that it gets transferred to a more convenient venue (1404)

What are the factors for a court to consider in a 1404 transfer?

1. Convenience of the parties

2. Convenience of the witnesses

3. “Interest of justice”

Where can a case be transferred under 1404(a)?

to any other “district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.”

What does Hoffman tell us about venue transfer? (skip, was overruled)

1. Cases can be transferred only to a district in which venue and personal jurisdiction would be proper.

2. If D requested transfer to a venue where, without their current consent, venue/PJ would not be otherwise proper, their request would be denied

What does Van Dusen tell us about transfer of venue?

If D seeks 1404 transfer, the transfer only results in change of courtrooms, not change of applicable law

What does 1406(a) provide for?

Based on improper original venue. If 1406(a) applies, the court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 

What does Goldlawr tell us about 1406 transfer of venue?

If case is filed where both venue AND PJ are improper, court can still transfer as it is consistent with the objective of “removing whatever obstacles may impede an expeditious and orderly adjudication of cases and controversies on their merits”

How are Forum Selection Clauses handled for venue?

1. Nowadays, these clauses are enforced unless otherwise overreaching or unconscionable

2. 1406(a) only applies where P’s chosen venue is contrary to the venue statute, not if it’s contrary to the forum selection clause. If contrary to the forum selection clause, then it falls under a 1404 transfer

3. But, Van Dusen doesn’t apply in a 1404(a) transfer to enforce a forum selection clause, as it would allow the party violating the clause to “capture” favorable law of a district in another state

When can 1407 apply for transfer of venue? What is the result and what are the benefits?

1. Allows transfer of multiple related cases into one federal district for pretrial proceedings, then are remanded back to the districts they came from

   1. Benefits: Motions to dismiss, SJs, global settlement

2. Cases consolidated this way remain separate actions

Generally, what is Forum non Conveniens?

A court's discretionary power to decline to exercise its jurisdiction where another court, or forum, may more conveniently hear a case.

What are the 5 aspects of FNC doctrine?

1. Remedy: Court has power to “stay” the case. Remains on docket but inactive. If P can’t pursue elsewhere, may be able to return to original court

2. Alternative Forum: Party moving for FNC must demonstrate an alternative forum available and “adequate” for the P

3. Domestic Context: FNC can still apply domestically to dismiss or stay a case. States can’t transfer cases between each other

4. Forum Selection Clauses: These can be enforced through FNC

5. Conditional grant of a motion under FNC: Dismissal/stay could be conditioned on D waiving defenses in alternative forum

What is the two step analysis to determine the proper venue under FNC? What case provides for this?

1. Two step analysis (Piper, Scottish air crash case) to determine the “center of gravity” of a case:

   1. Private Interest Considerations

      1. Relative ease of access to sources of proof

      2. Availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses

      3. Cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses

      4. Possibility of view of premises, if appropriate to the action

      5. All other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive

   2. Public Interest Considerations

      1. Local interest in having localized controversies decided at home

      2. Interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action

      3. Avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws or in the application of foreign law

      4. Unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty

What is the 3-step analysis for Joinder?

1. Is there a joinder Rule that permits assertion of a claim or addition of a party?

2. If so, is the claim supported by SMJ?

   1. Diversity/Alienage

   2. FQJ

   3. Supplement

3. If so, is there PJ over the D?

What do 1367(a) and 1367(b) provide for?

(a) “...the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.”

(b) Exceptions for cases created solely on diversity! “...the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules”

For cases that have a federal claim and state claim filed together, how do we assess whether a federal court has Jx over the state claim? What case provides this process?

1. Gibbs identifies following elements to determine whether Supp. Jx is proper:

   1. Federal and nonfederal claims must share a “common nucleus of operative fact”

   2. The claims must be so related that a P “would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding”

   3. The Federal Q must “have substance sufficient to confer SMJ” 

Generally, what rules cover Joinder of a party?

Rule 14 (Impleader)

Rule 19 (Required Joinder)

Rule 20 (Permissive Joinder)

Under Rule 19, when must a party be joined?

1. Person must be joined as a party if:

   1. (A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or

   2. (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may:

      1. (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest; or

      2. (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

   3. The joinder would not destroy SMJ

What happens if a party is required to be joined, but cannot be joined?

1. Court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. 

2. The factors for the court to consider include:

   1. (1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person's absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;

   2. (2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:

      1. (A) protective provisions in the judgment;

      2. (B) shaping the relief; or

      3. (C) other measures;

   3. (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence would be adequate; and

   4. (4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.

How should we construe Rule 19 and why?

Rule 19 is very narrow. Reading it broadly would have adverse consequences, such as rendering it impossible for P to bring a case anywhere

What does Temple v. Synthes Corp tell us about joinder of parties?

Not all joint tortfeasors need to be included as defendants in a single lawsuit; they are considered permissive rather than necessary or indispensable parties.

What is the 3-step analysis to evaluate joinder of a party?

1. Assess whether the absentee is a “required/necessary party” under 19(a)(1)(A) or 19(a)(1)(B)

2. If required/necessary, assess whether joinder is “feasible,” based on:

   1. Whether absentee is subject to PJ

   2. Whether venue is proper

   3. Whether the claim asserted by/against the absentee invokes FQJ or diversity

3. If joinder is not feasible, then court must assess whether it should “in equity and good conscience” proceed with litigation or to dismiss the case

   1. If dismissed, then the absentee is deemed an “indispensable” party

What Ps can be joined under Rule 20?

1. 20(a)(1), any Ps can join if

   1. (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

   2. (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.

What Ds can be joined under rule 20?

1. 20(a)(2), any Ds can join if

   1. (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

   2. (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

What does Schwartz v. Swan say about joinder of Ds?

Ps can join multiple defendants in a single action even when the relief sought relates to a series of wrongful acts, which were committed by different defendants, if the wrongful acts involve related questions of law or fact.

What are some reasons why a P may not join all possible Ps/Ds?

1. PJ issues

2. Destroys diversity

3. Litigation strategy

What are the two types of counterclaims and what rules govern them? What is required under both?

1. Compulsory Counterclaim under 13(a)

   1. Def: Claim made by a defendant against a plaintiff that arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim AND does not require adding another party that would break Jx

   2. Forfeited if not raised in the same lawsuit

2. Permissive Counterclaim under 13(b)

   1. Party may state as a counterclaim any claim that is not compulsory (ie, it does not arise from the same transaction or occurrence)

3. Both types still must be supported by SMJ (though most will)

   1. If it does, then it can be asserted in federal court 

   2. If it does not, then it needs supplemental Jx

-Must arise from “a common nucleus of operative fact” a la Gibbs

What is a crossclaim and what rule provides for it?

Under Rule 13(g):

1. Allows a party to assert an offensive claim against a co-party if it arises from same transaction/occurrence 

   1. Not required/compulsory unless by state statute

2. Opens the door for supplemental Jx, since it must arise from the same transaction/occurrence, BUT always first assess whether there is an independent basis of SMJ

What does LaFollette tell us about counterclaims?

1. D failed to respond with a counterclaim under the original suit against him. Case was settled without D’s knowledge/consent prior to trial, D then brought separate counter suit against the original P

2. Court held that Rule 1 meant D should be able to pursue this new claim

What does King v. Blanton tell us about counterclaims?

1. There is no indication that King was unaware of her right to file a counterclaim or uninformed of the consequences of not doing so.

2. Based on these facts, the court held that King’s failure to file the compulsory counterclaim constitutes a waiver

What does impleader provide for? What rule covers it?

1. Allows party to join an absentee party, typically for contribution/indemnification

   1. Indemnity is a shifting of burden

   2. Contribution is based on a common liability, helps ensure a proportionate payment of damages

2. When D impleads a thirty party defendant, the D also becomes a third party plaintiff

3. Governed by Rule 14

What is required/permitted of a third party defendant after being added by the third party plaintiff?

1. Third party D:

   1. Must assert any defenses against TPP

   2. Must assert any counterclaims/crossclaims

   3. May assert against the P any defense

   4. May assert against the P any claim arising out of same transaction/occurrence

What issue does Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger address? What was rule and analysis? How does this differ from Gibbs?

1. P v D, then D impleaded the TPD. P added complaint against TPD, but this broke diversity.

2. In cases where federal jurisdiction is based on diversity, the court cannot hear a plaintiff’s claim against a third-party defendant without an independent federal jurisdiction basis for that claim. (Constitutional authority AND statutory authority needed) 

3. Court stressed Defensive Initiation in this case: Supplemental Jx primarily for claims by a party in a defensive posture. Because P is not in a defensive posture in a suit against TPD, Supp Jx would not apply

Distinguished from Gibbs: Gibbs was regarding pendent jurisdiction over a state claim and federal claim in a single action. Here, it’s just state claims against two defendants

What is always needed with respect to Personal Jurisdiction for an out-of-state defendant?

Long-arm Statute

What are the benefits of having a case heard in federal court vs. state court, particularly for FQJ?

1. Avoiding biases of state court

2. Interest for federal judges to decides federal law

What is the jurisdictional split on whether 1367 provides for supplemental Jx when P files a counterclaim against a TPD?

1. Textualist:

   1. Counterclaim is precluded strictly by 1367(b) as it is a claim v. a Rule 14 party

2. Theory/Legislative Intent

   1. The P is now in a Defensive Posture, for which 1367 wants to provide supplemental Jx (Owen Equipment)

Generally, what rules govern Interpleader and what is its purpose/benefits?

Interpleader can be brought through Rule 22 OR 28 USC 1335, 1397, 2361
Interpleader works to resolve conflicting claims to a tangible res or a fund of money.

1. Instituted by a “stakeholder”

2. In an interpleading, the stakeholder as a P sues claimants to force them to assert claims against the stakeholder

   1. Benefits: efficiency, threat of inconsistent rulings, risk of multiple recoveries

What are the two classifications of interpleader?

1. True/Pure

   1. Stakeholder does not claim to own the res. They are “disinterested”

2. In the Nature of Interpleader

   1. Stakeholder does claim to own the disputed property, and forces the claimants into a single proceeding

What are the two stages of interpleader litigation?

1. Stakeholder files the action and joins any claimants

   1. Issue then is whether the interpleader is proper

2. Litigation of the ownership of the res

   1. If True/Pure, stakeholder is not involved

   2. If “INI,” then stakeholder participates as a claimant

What are the differences between Statutory and Rule Interpleader?

1. Statutory: 1335, 1397, 2361

   1. Allows for minimal diversity b/w the claimants

   2. 2361 provides for nationwide service of process allowed. Service permitted “in the respective districts where the claimants reside or may be found”

      1. Established Personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k) through nationwide service of process

   3. 1397 permits venue in a district in which any claimant resides

      1. 1391 does not apply to interpleader (“except otherwise provided by law”)

   4. 1335(a)(2) requires deposit of the res, which must be worth $500 or more

2. Rule 22:

   1. Needs its own basis of SMJ

      1. Typically invoked through 1332(a)(1)2, bound by complete diversity across the “v”

         1. Needs the jurisdictional amount too

   2. Federal Rule 4 affects service

   3. 1391(b) permits venue where a “substantial part” of the claim arose

   4. Traditional PJ analysis still needed, minimum contacts for all D’s

   5. Deposit of the res is de facto required, even though Rule 22 doesn’t state it. Courts will order it regardless

How did Swift v. Tyson interpret the Rules of Decision Act? What happened with this decision?

The Rules of Decision Act does not bind federal courts to state common law. Federal courts can create their own general common law (OVERRULED BY ERIE)

What was the ruling of Erie? What were its aims?

1. Overrules Tyson, finds that there is no federal general common law

2. Clarifies under the FDA that a federal court sitting in diversity, the “laws of the states” includes state case law 

3. Courts in diversity must apply the state substantive law and federal procedure

Twin aims:

1. Avoid intra-jurisdictional forum shopping

2. Avoid inequitable decisions/administration of law

What was the ruling of Klaxon?

For diversity cases, a federal court must apply the choice-of-laws rules of the state in which it sits

What was the ruling of Guaranty Trust Co v. York?

1. For diversity cases, federal court must apply the state statute-of-limitations

2. Criticizes the classification of rules between “substantive” and “procedure”

3. Creates “outcome determinative” test instead:

   1. If applying federal law would result in a substantially different outcome, then the court should apply state law.

   2. Issues: Most procedural rules could be construed as outcome determinative

      1. “Polka dot paper” example

What was the ruling of Byrd?

1. If a state law is “bound up” in both substance and procedure, the federal court should apply it

2. If not bound up, then consider factors that influence forum shopping (Erie)

   1. In determining whether to apply state or federal law, court must balance the federal system’s interest in its procedural system against the state’s

What were the two rulings of Hanna?

1. Hanna I: When a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is "on point" and conflicts with a state procedural rule, the federal rule must be applied, provided it is valid under the Rules Enabling Act. The FRCP takes precedence due to its validity as federal law. And it's valid because the FRCP rule is rationally classifiable as procedural: it does not abridge, enlarge, or modify the rules of decision for any state substantive law.

2. Hanna II: The Court notes that the Erie opinion did not involve a federal statute/rule. So the Court essentially also analyzes the Hanna facts as if it were judge-made law, similar to the law that was at issue in Erie. The Court then clarifies the "outcome-determinative" test with regard to the twin aims of Erie and says that service of process does not affect the outcome in any Erie-relevant way

If a court is applying state substantive law, what must it do if there is no federal provision on point AND no case law on point from the chosen state’s highest court?

1. Mason

Federal court must predict what the highest court would decide in the current case, which could include trends in the law as well as dicta from the state’s court

Process for Addressing an Erie-Hanna issue