federal civil procedure

Personal jurisdiction

courts' power over the defendant and is rooted in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendmen

Subject matter jurisdiction

courts' power over the specific type of case and is rooted in Article 13 of the constitution

subject matter jurisdiction

Constitution Article 3, Section 2 - sets the bounds of federal court jurisdiction

Federal question jurisdiction 28 USC 1331

Diversity jurisdiction 28 USC 1332

Supplemental Jurisdiction 28 USC 1367

Hawkins v. Masters Farms Inc

A person is a citizen of the state in which they are domiciled, established by physical presence in a place and a state of mind concerning one’s intent to remain there.

Pennoyer v. Neff

A state court may enter a judgement against a non resident if they are personally served while in a state or if they have property in state and it is attached before the lawsuit begins.

personal jurisdiction

Every state possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and properties in its territory.

No state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without its territory.

Processes from the tribunals of one state cannot run into another state and summon parties domiciled there to leave its territory and respond to proceedings against them.

Publication of process or notice within the state where the tribunal sits cannot create any greater obligation upon the non resident to appear.

In personam

power over persons

Presence of defendant

Consent of defendant

in rem

power over property

Defendant owns property located in the state

FCRP 12

Defenses and Objections

Rule 12(b)

How to present defenses

Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required.

But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:

1. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction

2. Lack of personal jurisdiction

3. Improper venue

4. Insufficient process

5. Insufficient service of process

6. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and 

7. Failure to join a party under Rule 19

Motion

 asserting any of these defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed.

must be made before answering a claim.

Can raise jurisdictional defense either in the answer to a complaint or to a pre answer motion.

If a defense of jurisdiction is omitted in the answer/motion, it is treated as a waiver of objection to jurisdiction.

Milikin v. Meyer

Domicile in the state (alone) is sufficient to bring an absent defendant within reach of the state’s jurisdiction and received personal notice

International Shoe Co. v. Washington

If the subject has minimum contacts with a state, they are under its jurisdiction.

minimum contacts

requires the individual to have certain minimum contacts with a state such that the maintenance of a suit does not offend traditional notes of fair play and substantial justice.

Factors for General Jurisdiction over individuals

• Presence (service of process or tag jurisdiction)

• Consent/Waiver

• Domicile

Factors for General Jurisdiction over corporations

• Principal place of business

• State of Incorporation

• Contacts with the state that are so systematic and continuous as to render them essentially at home

• consent

general jurisdiction

Heavy contacts support jurisdiction over unrelated claims

Burnham v. Superior Court

Jurisdiction based on physical presence in a state does follow due process, because it traditionally has been so. 

There is general jurisdiction when there is personal service in the forum state. - Tag jurisdiction

Not applicable to corporate defendants, only individuals. Does not apply if individual is tricked into going to the forum state.

Daimler AG v. Bauman

A corporation must have affiliations with the state that are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the forum state. Business of a company in a state must be a significant amount of their total business.

Goodyear Dunlop Tire Operations, SA, v. Brown

Must have continuous and systematic general business contact in the state as such to render it essentially at home

Continuous activity in a state is not rough to support general jurisdiction over suits unrelated to the activity.

Specific Jurisdiction

If defendant’s activities fall short of general jurisdiction, courts consider both the extent of the contacts and the relation between defendant's contacts with the state and the claim plaintiff is suing for.

Jurisdiction arises for the specific claim but not all claims.

Light contacts support jurisdiction over claims related to those contacts

Shaffer v. Heifner

Heard that Shoe’s personal jurisdiction framework applied both to individual and corporate defendants and applied to cases brought against people and against property.

Specific Jurisdiction

• Due process

• Minimum contacts

• Claims arising out of or connected to the contacts in the forum state

• Reasonableness factors

• State long arm statute

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.

If the defendant has minimum contacts to the state and the claim arises out of those contacts, then there is specific jurisdiction. Defendant must have availed themselves of the benefits and privileges of the state.

Physical presence is not required.

Hanson v. Denckla

Defendant must have minimum contacts and benefits from privileges in the state. They must purposely avail themselves of the state.

Unilateral activity is not enough, must be action of the defendant.

Purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.

purposeful availment

To show minimum contacts with forum state, must show defendant purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.

Unilateral activity/conduct of plaintiff not sufficient to create minimum contacts.

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson

It is the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that they should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court there for there to be jurisdiction.

J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd v. Nicastro

Defendant must purposefully avail themselves of the forum state. Business must be specifically directed at the state.

Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court

In order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a claim, there must be an affiliation between the forum and underlying controversy, or occurrence that takes place in the forum state.

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana

The relationship among the defendant, the forums, and the litigation must be close enough to support specific jurisdiction. 

“Arise out of OR relates to contacts”

Doesn’t always require proof of causation

reasonableness factors

• Burden on defendant

• Forum state’s interest

• Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief

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

• And the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies

specific jurisdiction

Due process:

• Minimum contacts

  • Purposeful availment

Relevant cases: McGee, Hanson, WWVW, McIntyre

• Court can assert valid personal jurisdiction over a defendant only as to claims arising out of or connected to the contacts with the forum state

• Reasonableness factors

• State long arm statute

  • Long arm statute - each state can determine whether to place additional requirements on PJ requirements

long arm statutes

Statutes authorizing courts to reach beyond their own borders

Some states have long arm statutes limiting jurisdiction to specified situations.

Some have long arm statutes that reach for as much jurisdiction as the constitution allows.

State does not have to go as far as the constitution permits.

Still bind federal courts in the state.

Blanket Statute

Any basis for jurisdiction consistent to state constitutions and US constitution

enumerated statute

List of circumstances

There must be valid PJ under the state Long Arm Statute and under due process.

Forum Selection Clause

Agreed to be governed by a state’s law

Appoints an agent for service of process

Agree to bring case in a state

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute

A forum clause can be enforced if it was previously communicated and agreed to without fraud or overreach

Gibbons v. Brown

A party’s filing of a suit in a state does not always give rise to jurisdiction in the state for a different case if there is an enumerated long arm statute

Piper Aircraft v. Reyno

A court can dismiss a case if another jurisdiction is more appropriate and if the current forum would be overly burdened by the trial, for either the defendant or court.

Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court

Provision 1404 (a), for the convenience of parties, and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district court where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties consent

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley

Well pleaded complaint rule

A suit arises under the constitution and laws of the US only when the plaintiff’s statement of action shows that it is based on those laws or constitution.

Mas v. Perry

Domicile can only be changed by taking up residence in a different domicile with the intention to remain there. Domicile at time of filing case matters, doesn’t matter if a party moves after.

Good faith for the compensation alleged means even if they don’t recover more than $75k they could still qualify for diversity jurisdiction

Rodner v. Sanders

Citizen does not equal resident

Must match statutory language/definition

Hertz Corp v. Friend

Principal place of business = nerve center = headquarters

Where officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities

In Re Ameriquest Mortgage Co. Mortgage Lending Practicing Litigation

There is supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that are so related to claims in the action with original jurisdiction they form part of the same case

Can the state claims be resolved or dismissed without affecting the federal claims?

Szedrey-Ramos v. First Bancorp

No supplemental jurisdiction if the state law claims raise complex or novel issues &/or that the state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claim

Consent

Rule 12 (b), (h), and (g)

if defense is not brought up before pleading an answer

Don’t have to have a motion

Can put a defense in the answer

Tag jurisdiction

PJ can be established by the defendant’s presence in the forum state, which allows them to be served with summons and notice of state (Burnham case)

stream of commerce

targeted or direct action required - only when defendant has targeted the forum state (McIntyre case)

Not enough to foresee that the goods could end up in the forum state

internet Sliding Scale

jurisdiction when website is:

• Very interactive

• Targets residents of forum

• Defendant clearly does business over the internet with residents of foreign jurisdictions

Calder Effects Test

A defendant’s tortious acts can serve as a source of personal jurisdiction only where the plaintiff makes prima facie showing that the defendant’s acts:

1. were intentional, 

2. were uniquely or expressly aimed at the forum state, and 

3. caused harm, the brunt of which was suffered—and which the defendant knew was likely to be suffered in the forum state.

Federal courts

Original jurisdiction limited to:

•  federal question - claims arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the US

• diversity - claims that exceed $75k, and involve parties that are not citizens of the same state

• Supplemental jurisdiction - can only use if one of the other claims is present

Some federal statues expressly give federal courts jurisdiction over claims involving those statutes (ex. bankruptcy) (specific grant of jurisdiction)

Federal Question Jurisdiction

• Gives district courts jurisdiction over cases arising under the constitution, statues, or treaties of the federal government

• Well pleaded complaint rule - focus is on the plaintiff’s statement of their own cause of action, potential defenses of defendant not considered

• Only when plaintiff’s statement of their own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or constitution

• It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to their cause of action and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some statute or law or constitution

Well pleaded complaint rule

• focus is on the plaintiff’s statement of their own cause of action, potential defenses of defendant not considered

• Only when plaintiff’s statement of their own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or constitution

• It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to their cause of action and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some statute or law or constitution

Diversity Jurisdiction

• Diversity of citizenship

• Between citizens of different states

• Between a state of citizens and foreign states, citizens, or subjects

• Jurisdiction in civil activities between citizens of different states, between US citizens and foreign citizens, or by foreign states against US citizens, except for subjects of foreign states who are lawfully admitted for personal residence in the US and are domiciled in the same state

• Need complete diversity among the parties, can’t have same state on both sides

complete diversity

• can’t have same state/place of residence on both sides

domicile

• Citizenship = domicile plus intent to stay in the state

• Diversity of citizenship is determined at the commencement of the claim, upon filing date

• Subsequent changes in domicile of the original parties does not affect diversity

Corporation citizenship

PPB

Place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities - Nerve Center Test (Hertz case)

Nerve center test

Place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities (Hertz case)

28 USC 1359

District courts do not have jurisdiction in cases where a party was later improperly or collusively joined to invoke diversity

Amount in Controversy

• Requires amount to be greater than $75k in controversy for diversity jurisdiction

• Amount in pleading is controlling

• Includes actual damages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages

• Punitive damages cannot be the basis entirely

• Inability of plaintiff to recover an amount adequate to give the court jurisdiction does not show bad faith or oust the jurisdiction

• If legal certainty plaintiff cannot recover that amount, then it will be dismissed

Aggregation of Claims

A single plaintiff can aggregate claims over a single defendant

No, if multiple plaintiffs have claims that are separate or discrete cannot aggregate. Claims by each plaintiff against each defendant must be in excess of $75k

If one plaintiff has a claim in excess of the statutory amount and plaintiff 2 has a claim against same defendant for less than the statutory amount, they can aggregate the claims as long as both claims arise out of the same case or controversy as the first (Supplemental Jurisdiction 28 USC 1367)

Supplemental Jurisdiction

C 1367 - Supplemental Jurisdiction

• Not an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction

• Must have subject matter jurisdiction over each claim

• Can be over the second claim if it arises out of the same case or controversy as the first if it qualified for federal jurisdiction

• Stretches federal jurisdiction to cover parts of cases that if brought independently would not have fit within district courts’ subject matter jurisdiction

• Claims that are so related to claims in the action with such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Art. 3 of the Constitution to allow joining of related claims

• Must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact (Gibbs Case)

• Even when supplemental JD is permitted, court can decline to exercise supplemental JD

• Needs and anchor claim

• Can bring joined claims under supplemental JD

28 USC 1367 (b)

In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, 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, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.

28 USC 1367 (c)

The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if — 

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, 

(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, 

(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or 

(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction

reasons to decline supplemental jurisdiction

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, 

(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, 

(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or 

(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction

IRAC Format

Issue, Rule, Analysis (apply rules to facts), conclusion

(Reason) (legal rule) when (fact)