Barbri - Civil procedure

Personal Jurisdiction is:

the court's power over the parties

PJ for the plaintiff vs. defendant

Because the plaintiff filed the case, the court automatically has power over her; the plaintiff has consented to PJ.

The question is whether the court has PJ over the defendant.

What is the definition of personal jurisdiction?

The defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state so that the exercise of personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable

2-step PJ analysis

1. PJ must fall within a statute

2. PJ must satisfy the constitution

the same analysis in state and federal court

PJ statutory step

- each state has its own statutes

- long arm statutes and laundry-list long arm statutes

long arm statute

A state statute that permits a state to exercise jurisdiction over nonresidents who cause certain things

laundry-list long arm statutes

state long-arm statutes thats specify the situations in which PJ can be exercised over nonresidents

PJ constitutionality step

does the ∆ have such minimum contacts with the forum so jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

1. contact

2. relatedness

3. fairness

What factors need to be assessed for the constitutional analysis for PJ?

contact (purposeful availment and foreseeability),

relatedness (specific: "arise out of and relate to", or general: "at home" , and

fairness (specific pj only - Burden/convenience, state's interest, and plaintiff's interest)

PJ constitutionality: contact

There must be relevant "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum state

What two factors make up "contact" for PJ purposes?

purposeful availment + foreseeability

What is purposeful availment for PJ purposes?

D must reach out to the forum and the contact must result from this targeting of the forum. It can be some type of voluntary act. D does not have to set foot in the forum, just causing an effect in the forum is enough.

What is foreseeability for PJ purposes?

whether it is foreseeable that Defendant could be sued in the forum

PJ constitutionality: relatedness

- does cause of action arise from or relate to ∆'s contacts with forum?

- broader than actual causal connection

It clearly arises out of the contact if Defendant's contact caused the harm to Plaintiff.

If Defendant has substantial contact with the forum state, relatedness is satisfied if the claim merely relates to Defendant's contacts with the forum.

if contacts related to case

PJ is "specific PJ" and skip to fairness step

if contacts unrelated to case

need "general" jurisdiction (PJ over any cause of action, related or unrelated)

requires ∆ to be "at home" aka domiciled in the forum

general PJ if ∆ served with process in the forum

Where is a human always "at home"?

A human is "at home" where she is domiciled

what is tag jurisdiction?

The court has general jurisdiction when a defendant is served with process in the state

where is a corporation subject to general PJ

a corporation is "at home" in:

- state of incorporation and

- state of principal place of business

OR In any state that allows PJ to be exercised on registration with the state.

PJ constitutionality: fairness

only addressed in specific PJ

assess whether PJ would be fair or reasonable under the circumstances:

1. burden on the ∆ and witnesses

2. state's interest

3. π's interest

notice

∆ is entitled to notice

must be reasonably calculated, under all of the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the action

What does notice consist of? also called process

consists of two documents:

1. summons

2. copy of complaint

who can serve process

- any person who is at least 18 and not a party

- no court appointment necessary

when must process be served

within 90 days of the filing of the complaint

may be extended for good cause

options for service on individual

- personal service (in-hand delivery)

- substituted service at ∆'s usual abode on someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there. may be used in federal court even if personal service is possible

- service on agent

- state law methods (where the federal court sits or where service is to be made)

what is substituted service?

Substituted service can be done only (1) at the defendant's usual place of abode; (2) with someone of suitable age and discretion; (3) who resides there.

Use common sense to determine whether D resides there every day of the year for it to qualify as her "usual place of abode"

the person on whom service is made does NOT have to be related to D, but the person must reside there

service on business organization

1. on officer or agent

2. state law methods (where the federal court sits or where service is to be made)

service on a minor or incompetent person

ONLY OPTION: use state law method where service is made

Service on party in foreign country

a method allowed by international agreement, directed by American court, what's allowed by the foreign country's law, personal service if allowed, mail sent by clerk of American court

waiver of service of process

D can waive if P mails D a notice and request to waive service - must include a copy of the complaint, two copies of a waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning the form

D waives by executing and returning within 30 days

effect of waiver

D does not waive defenses by waiving service

when is waiver effective

when P files the waiver with the court - that day the D is technically served

penalty for failing to waive service

D pays for service as penalty for not waiving (unless good cause)

proving service

Process server files a report with the court detailing how service was made

If server was a civilian, the report is by affidavit (sworn statement, under oath)

The failure to file this report does not affect the validity of service

geographical reach of service

process may be served within the state in which the federal court sits or served outside that state if state law allows

immunity from service

D is immune from process while appearing in another case in a state

What is Subject matter jurisdiction

court's power over the case

What courts have what kind of SMJ

federal = limited SMJ

state = general SMJ

what cases can't state courts hear

Only a few federal cases like patent infringement, bankruptcy, and some federal securities and antitrust claims

Can SMJ be waived

NO

how can a federal court have SMJ?

has to be either:

1. federal question or

2. diversity of citizenship

diversity of citizenship (applies to alienage as well)

requirements:

1. right kind of litigants (parties) AND

2. amount in controversy exceeding $75K

Diversity: Alienage

Parties must be citizen of a US state and a foreign country (cannot be between two non-US citizens)

diversity: who are the right kind of litigants?

completely diverse litigants

- no SMJ if any P is a citizen of the same state as any D

when is citizenship determined for diversity purposes

when the case is filed

diversity/alienage and permanent residents

- a permanent resident (green card holder) is not a citizen of a state for diversity purposes

- jurisdiction is withdrawn if that permanent resident is domiciled in the same state as an adverse party

citizenship of natural person (human)

- domicile

- but only one domicile

how to change domicile

1. physical presence in new place AND

2. subjective intent to make new place domicile for foreseeable future

What factors do courts look for to establish intent to change domiciles?

courts look to all relevant factors—like taking a job, buying a house, joining civic organizations, registering to vote, qualifying for in-state tuition, etc.

citizenship of a corporation

1. any state or country where incorporated AND

2. one state or country where its principal place of business is

citizenship of a corporation: PPB

where the corporation's managers direct, coordinate, and control the business (corporate HQ)

citizenship for partnerships, LLC, etc (unincorporated associations)

an unincorporated association takes on citizenships of all members

limited partnership includes general and limited partners

citizenship of decedents, minors, and incompetent people

a representative takes on citizenship of the person represented

class action citizenship

use the citizenship of the named representative

diversity: amount in controversy

must exceed $75,000

good faith allegation by P usually controls unless to a legal certainty $75K+ is not possible

Diversity: amount in controversy: how to calculate

only the claim itself is considered (litigation costs and prejudgment interests on the claim are not included)

If you are suing for interest, that is included

diversity: amount in controversy rule 1: single P v. single D

a single P may aggregate all claims against a single D (claims do not need to be related)

multiple Ps cannot do this

diversity: amount in controversy rule 2: joint claims

use the total value of the claim

number of parties is irrelevant (this is for a situation where P is suing joint tortfeasors)

diversity: amount in controversy rule 3: how to determine the cost of equitable relief

amount in controversy is determined by looking at value of relief to P OR cost of relief for D (if either tests exceeds $75k, then amount in controversy is satisfied)

Include analysis of both tests on essay

when can federal court decline diversity SMJ

federal court decline actions for divorce, alimony, child custody, and probate (can still hear other cases that fall in these realms, like a family dispute, just cant hear these specific ones)

Collusive Creation of Diversity

If a party attempts to create diversity jurisdiction with the intent to collect on a claim (like a sham transaction), the court will ignore the assignment and diversity will not exist

voluntary changes of citizenship creating diversity

genuine change of citizenship before action commenced creates diversity even if that was the motive

Federal Question (FQ) jurisdiction

- claim arises under federal law

- determined by well-pleaded complaint

determining if FQ is in the well-pleaded complaint

ask: is the P enforcing a federal right?

removal

procedure allowing D to move case from state court to federal court

court can remand if removal improper

remand

send back to state court

standard for removal

case filed in state court could have been brought in federal court - diversity or federal question requirements met

notice of removal

1. files in federal court

2. grounds of removal stated

3. court permission not required

4. serves copy on adverse parties

5. files copy in state court

timing of removal

- 30 days after service of the first paper that shows the case is removable

- usually 30 days after the service of process

who joins in a removal

- all Ds served with process must join

- earlier-served D may join later served Ds removal even if 30-day period expired

Who can remove a case to federal court

Ds only!! Plaintiffs can never remove, even if the defendant files a counterclaim against the plaintiff that, by itself, could be heard in federal court

what cases can be removed?

1. removal starting point is always SMJ (FQ or diversity)

2. limits on removal based on diversity:

- any D is citizen of forum state

- one-year time limit

diversity case 30 day and one year removal rules

- 30 days to remove from the time it becomes removable

- no removal more than one year after case filed (usually)

1-year restriction does not apply if D was originally joined to prevent removal

removal venue

- case must be removed to federal court embracing the state court

- doesn't matter if not proper venue under venue statutes

remand to state court

- P must move to remand within 30 days after the filing of notice of removal OR ELSE right to remand is waived

- UNLESS the remand is for lack of SMJ, this is never waived

- must remand if no SMJ (no time limit)

SMJ - supplemental jurisdiction

- does not get cases into court

- it gets claims into a federal case even though the claims cannot use diversity or FQ SMJ

SMJ - supplemental jurisdiction requirements

must have a case already in federal court

Step one: look for SMJ in additional claim

- no need for supplemental if claim SMJ over additional claim

step two: must arise from common nucleus of operative fact as claim in existing federal court case

- same transaction or occurrence always satisfies common nucleus test

Limitation of supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases

Ps generally cannot invoke supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases.

BUT when there are multiple plaintiffs, and the claim by one of them does not meet the amount in controversy requirement, if it meets common nucleus test it gets in!!

discretionary factors for supplemental jurisdiction

the court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction

most likely reason: if the claim on which federal SMJ is based is dismissed early in the case

Erie doctrine

step 1: is there a federal law (FRCP) on point that directly conflicts with state law? if so = apply valid federal law

step 2: if there is no federal law on point, apply state law if issue is substantive

step 3: if there is no federal law and the issue is not one of the 5, determine whether the issue is substantive

Erie doctrine: the 5 clearly substantive issues

1. conflict or choice of law rules

2. elements of a claim or defense

3. statutes of limitations

4. tolling of statutes of limitations

5. standard of granting a new trial because the jury's award was excessive or inadequate

substantive law tests

1. outcome determinative

2. balance of interests

3. avoid forum shopping

Venue tells you:

in which federal court to bring a case

two possible venues

1. any district where all Ds reside OR

2. where substantial part of claim arose or substantial part of property is located

venue for removed cases

the federal district embracing the state court where the action was filed

venue - residential nuance

- venue proper in any district where D resides if all Ds reside within state

- Ds have to reside in same state for residential venue

transactional venue

- substantial part of the claim must arise in the district

- substantial part does not mean all

- more than 1 district can satisfy requirement

venue - plaintiff

it does not matter where the plaintiff resides

venue - defendants outside United States

If the defendant resides outside the United States, venue is proper in any federal district court, but if another defendant does reside in the United States, venue must be proper as to her

where Ds reside for venue purposes

human = federal district where they are domiciled

business = in all districts where they are subject to PJ for the case

transfer of venue

goes from one trial court to another in the same judicial system

transferor = original court

transferee = new court

transferee must be a proper venue and have PJ over the D (generally those must be true without waiver by the defendant)

transfer waiver minor exception

court can transfer to any district, even an improper one, if all parties consent and the court finds cause for the transfer

transfer from a proper venue

the court can order transfer based on convenience of the parties and witnesses in the interests of justice. burden is on the party seeking transfer

court has discretion and will consider public and private factors

public factors: what law applies, what community should be burdened, local controversy

private factors: convenience (e.g., where are the defendants, evidence, and witnesses)

(transfer has no strict time limit)

transfer from a proper venue: effect on choice of law

transferee court usually must apply choice of law rules of transferor court

transfer from a proper venue: forum selection clause

provisions in which the parties agree that a dispute between them will be litigated in a particular place

1. federal law enforces FSCs if they're not unreasonable

2. when there is a valid FSC, only public interest factors are considered

3. when the transfer is to enforce an FSC, the transferee court will apply its own choice of law rules

transfer from improper venue

if improper venue, court will:

1. transfer if in interest of justice OR

2. dismiss

(must be raised in defendant's first response)

transfer from improper venue: effect on choice of law

when transfers a diversity case because original venue was improper, transferee will apply its own laws

forum non conveniens

- center of gravity is elsewhere in another judicial system

- stay or dismissal (transfer not possible)

the idea is that the P will then sue in the other court and the court may impose conditions on the party requesting transfer

forum non conveniens - factors

the forum non conveniens decision is based on the same public and private factors as the transfer from a proper venue statute, including the existence of a valid forum selection clause

public factors: what law applies, what community should be burdened, local controversy

private factors: convenience (e.g., where are the defendants, evidence, and witnesses)

forum non conveniens - adequacy

the center of gravity court must be "adequate," which it is unless the plaintiff can get no remedy there