Civil Procedure

Vocabulary flashcards covering key Civil Procedure concepts: PJ/SMJ, FRCP, pre-litigation, discovery, and types of jurisdiction.

Purpose of Civil Procedure

Governs how lawsuits start, are conducted, and end; includes pleadings, forum selection, joinder, remedies, and discovery.

Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)

Court's power over the defendant; requires power over the person, consent to jurisdiction, and notice of the action; applies where the defendant lives, is served, or where relevant events occurred.

In Personam Jurisdiction

Power over the person; established by personal service in-state or by the defendant's consent; also when the defendant lives in the forum or is served there while present.

In Rem Jurisdiction

Power over property; court can adjudicate property located in the forum state, when the property is the subject of the lawsuit, and seized at the outset.

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

Power over a defendant via property located in the forum state; used when the property is present but not the main subject; still requires minimum contacts after Shaffer v. Heitner.

Shaffer v. Heitner (1877)

Case establishing that minimum contacts apply to quasi in rem; due process requires adequate connection to the forum state.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ)

Court's power over the type of case; state courts generally have general jurisdiction; federal courts have limited jurisdiction.

Full Faith and Credit Clause (Art. IV)

States must honor judgments from other states if the original court had PJ and SMJ.

PENNOYER v. NEFF (1877)

A court may not enter judgment until it has both personal jurisdiction (PJ) over the defendant and subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ).

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)

Procedural rules for federal courts authorized by 28 U.S.C. 2072; SCOTUS may adopt; cannot alter substantive rights; some states adopt FRCP; stages include complaint, response, trial, judgment, and appeal.

28 U.S.C. 2072

Statutory authority granting the Supreme Court power to prescribe the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Procedural vs Substantive Rules

FRCP are procedural rules and do not alter the substantive rights of the parties.

Stages of Civil Procedure

Complaint → Response → Trial → Judgment → Appeal.

Pre-Litigation

Efforts to avoid trial, including demand letters and mediation.

Demand Letter

A pre-litigation communication attempting to settle the dispute without filing suit.

Mediation

Voluntary process for resolving disputes before or during litigation.

Discovery

Stage of litigation where parties obtain information from each other through various tools.

Interrogatories

Written questions submitted to a party to be answered under oath.

Depositions

Oral testimony given under oath, typically conducted outside of trial.

Document Requests (Direct)

Requests to obtain documents directly from the opposing party.

Subpoenas (Indirect, Third Parties)

Orders directing third parties to produce documents or testify.

Pennoyer v. Neff rule

Personal jurisdiction grounded in physical presence, consent, and notice.

Why Pennoyer became unworkable

Industrialization, corporations, and national commerce made rigid territorial rules impractical.

Milliken v. Meyer rule

Domicile in a state is sufficient for PJ even if the defendant is served elsewhere.

Milliken v. Meyer policy

States can exercise power over absent domiciliaries with substituted service if it is reasonably calculated to give notice and opportunity to be heard.

International Shoe rule

A defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum such that jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

General jurisdiction definition

Applies when defendant’s contacts are continuous and systematic, making them “at home” in the forum.

General jurisdiction for individuals

State of domicile.

General jurisdiction for corporations

State of incorporation or principal place of business.

Specific jurisdiction definition

Applies when jurisdiction is tied to the defendant’s contacts related to the cause of action.

Specific jurisdiction test

1) Does the defendant have minimum contacts with the forum state? 2) Does the claim arise from those contacts?

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. holding

Jurisdiction upheld in California because the contract had a substantial connection to the state, which had an interest in protecting residents.

Hanson v. Denckla rule

No jurisdiction because the trustee had no purposeful availment of Florida law; unilateral activity of others is not enough.

Shaffer v. Heitner rule

International Shoe’s minimum contacts test applies to all cases, including in rem jurisdiction.

Shaffer v. Heitner application

Property-based jurisdiction must be tied to purposeful contacts; owning property alone is insufficient unless the dispute arises from that property.

Pennoyer vs. International Shoe comparison

Pennoyer asked “Is the defendant there physically?” Modern doctrine asks “Is it fair, given the defendant’s contacts, to make them defend here?”

Framework for specific jurisdiction

1) Did the defendant purposefully avail the forum 2) Does the claim arise from or relate to that contact 3) Would exercising jurisdiction offend fair play and substantial justice

World-Wide Volkswagen facts

NY family bought a car in NY, crashed in OK, sued the NY dealer and distributor in OK who did no business there

World-Wide Volkswagen rule

Foreseeability that a product ends up in a forum is not enough; the defendant must deliberately target the forum

World-Wide Volkswagen example

Selling a car in NY does not mean you can be sued in OK just because the buyer drove it there

Burger King facts

Michigan franchisees signed a 20 year contract with Burger King HQ in Florida, trained in Florida, sent payments to Florida, with a Florida choice of law clause

Burger King holding

Florida had specific jurisdiction because the defendants purposefully availed themselves of Florida through training, payments, and contract terms

Burger King fairness factors

After minimum contacts, courts weigh burden on defendant, forum interest, plaintiff interest, efficiency, and policy

Burger King example

If you sign a long term deal tied to Florida and send payments there, you can expect to be sued in Florida if the deal fails

Asahi facts

California injury case where a Taiwanese tire company sued a Japanese valve maker for indemnity; the Japanese company only sold parts abroad

Asahi issue

Is awareness that products might reach a forum through the stream of commerce enough for jurisdiction

Asahi holding

No; stream of commerce awareness is not enough, there must be extra conduct targeting the forum such as ads, design for the forum, or distributor agreements

Asahi fairness analysis

Even if contacts exist, jurisdiction can be unreasonable due to heavy burden on a foreign defendant, low forum interest, and a dispute between foreign parties

Asahi example

Two foreign companies selling parts abroad that end up in California does not give California courts jurisdiction over them

Purposeful availment definition

Voluntary, deliberate connection to the forum by the defendant, not just a product drifting there or the plaintiff moving there

Fair play and substantial justice factors

Burden on defendant, forum state interest, plaintiff interest in convenient relief, efficiency of the interstate system, shared policy interests