Civ Pro Midterm KEEPER

In Personam Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction exercised directly over a defendant.

In Rem Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction exercised over property located within the forum state to determine ownership of that specific property.

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction exercised over a defendant based on their property located within the state, where the court can only enforce judgments up to the sale price of that property.

Full Faith and Credit

The constitutional requirement that when one state issues a valid judgment, all other states must enforce it, provided the original court possessed personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

"Tag" Jurisdiction

A traditional basis of personal jurisdiction established by physically serving process on the defendant while they are present within the forum state.

General Personal Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over all claims where the defendant is "at home" (an individual's domicile or a corporation's state of incorporation and principal place of business), regardless of relationship to contacts or reasonableness.

Specific Personal Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction requiring that a defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, that the suit arises out of those contacts, and that exercising jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice.

Direct Attack

Challenging personal jurisdiction directly in the forum court through a motion to dismiss, a special appearance, or an appeal following a final judgment.

When a defendant wants to challenge personal jurisdiction on appeal, they have to raise it in the original suit and then, on appeal, argue that the trial court erred in its PJ finding? They can't just appeal saying, "Wait, this whole time there wasn't PJ!"

Special Appearance

A procedure in some state courts where a defendant appears exclusively to contest personal jurisdiction without submitting to the court's authority.

Collateral Attack

Challenging personal jurisdiction by defaulting in the original forum and then defending against an enforcement suit in another state on the grounds that the initial court lacked jurisdiction.

State Longarm Statute

A state law that confers jurisdiction on state courts over out-of-state individuals based on their conduct; it can provide less jurisdiction than the Constitution allows, but never more.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A)

The rule providing that serving a summons establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the federal district court is located.

Two-Step Personal Jurisdiction Analysis

Step 1: Determine whether the applicable longarm statute confers jurisdiction over the defendant; Step 2: Determine whether exercising personal jurisdiction is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Hansen

Purposeful Availment: The constitutional requirement that there must be an act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.

Foreseeability (Personal Jurisdiction)

Under World-Wide Volkswagen, the principle that due process does not turn on the mere likelihood that a product enters a state, but whether the defendant's conduct and connection make it reasonable to anticipate being haled into court there.

Unilateral Activity Doctrine

The rule that actions taken unilaterally by a plaintiff or third party (such as transporting a product to another state) do not create personal jurisdiction over a defendant who did not purposefully avail itself of that forum.

Fair Play and Substantial Justice Factors

The five factors assessed under World-Wide Volkswagen: burden on defendant, forum state's interest, plaintiff's interest in effective relief, interstate judicial efficiency, and shared substantive social policies.

Forum Selection Clause

A contractual provision in which parties agree in advance that disputes will be resolved in a specific court, thereby establishing consent to personal jurisdiction in that forum.

Consent by Counterclaim (Adam v. Saenger)

The doctrine establishing that a plaintiff consents to personal jurisdiction regarding counterclaims by choosing to file their lawsuit in that forum state.

Waiver of Personal Jurisdiction by Sanction

The judicial finding of personal jurisdiction as an appropriate sanction when a defendant willfully disobeys a court order to submit to jurisdictional discovery.

In Personam Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction exercised by a court directly over the defendant.

In Rem Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction exercised over property located within the forum state to determine ownership rights in that specific property.

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction exercised over a defendant based on their property located within the forum state, where the court can only enforce judgments by selling the property up to its sale value.

Full Faith and Credit (Enforcement of Judgments)

The constitutional requirement that when one state issues a valid judgment, all other states must enforce that judgment, provided the rendering court possessed personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Traditional Bases for Jurisdiction (Pennoyer)

The four historical bases of personal jurisdiction from Pennoyer: 1) consent and waiver; 2) physical presence and service in the forum state ("tag" jurisdiction); 3) residence/domicile in the state (general jurisdiction); and 4) ownership of property in the state (in rem and quasi in rem).

"Tag" Jurisdiction

A traditional basis of personal jurisdiction established when a defendant is physically present and served with process within the borders of the forum state.

Specific Personal Jurisdiction (International Shoe Test)

Jurisdiction requiring: 1) sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum state; 2) that the suit "arises out of" those contacts; and 3) that exercising jurisdiction is reasonable and comports with "fair play and substantial justice."

General Personal Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over any and all claims brought against a defendant where they are "at home," regardless of the claim's relationship to the forum contacts or considerations of reasonableness.

"At Home" Standard

The criteria establishing general personal jurisdiction over a defendant: an individual's state of domicile, or a corporation's state of incorporation and principal place of business.

Forum Selection Clause

A contractual provision where parties agree to resolve contract disputes in a designated court, constituting consent to personal jurisdiction in that forum.

Adam v. Saenger Rule

The principle that a plaintiff consents to personal jurisdiction in a forum for counterclaims by voluntarily initiating the lawsuit in that forum.

Direct Attack

Challenging personal jurisdiction in the original forum where the suit is filed, typically through a special appearance to file a Rule 12 motion to dismiss or a post-judgment appeal.

When a defendant wants to challenge personal jurisdiction on appeal, they have to raise it in the original suit and then, on appeal, argue that the trial court erred in its PJ finding. They can't just appeal saying, "Wait, this whole time there wasn't PJ!"

Special Appearance

A formal appearance in a lawsuit made exclusively for the sole purpose of contesting personal jurisdiction without submitting to the court's authority on the merits.

Collateral Attack

Contesting personal jurisdiction by refusing to appear and defaulting in the original forum, then challenging the validity of the judgment during an enforcement proceeding in another jurisdiction.

State Longarm Statute

State legislation conferring personal jurisdiction on state courts over nonresidents based on specific conduct; it cannot exceed constitutional Due Process bounds, but may grant less jurisdiction than the Constitution allows.

FRCP 4(k)(1)(A)

The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure providing that serving a summons establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant who would be subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court sits.

Two Considerations for Specific Personal Jurisdiction

The sequential framework used to evaluate personal jurisdiction: Step 1 asks if the applicable longarm statute confers jurisdiction; Step 2 asks if exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Purposeful Availment

The essential requirement that there must be an act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. (Hanson)

Dual Functions of Minimum Contacts (World-Wide Volkswagen)

The two constitutional functions served by the minimum contacts test: 1) protecting defendants against the burdens of litigating in an inconvenient or distant forum, and 2) ensuring states do not reach beyond their limits as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.

Foreseeability (World-Wide Volkswagen)

The standard establishing that foreseeability is not the mere likelihood a product will find its way into the forum state, but that the defendant's conduct and connection are such that they should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.

World Wide Volkswagon

Gave us the rule that the unilateral activity of a plaintiff or third party cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state; the defendant itself must purposefully avail itself of the forum.

Fair Play and Substantial Justice Factors

The five factors considered under World-Wide Volkswagen: 1) burden on the defendant; 2) forum state's interest; 3) plaintiff's interest in convenient and effective relief; 4) interstate judicial system's efficiency; and 5) shared state interest in substantive social policies.

Walden v. Fiore Rule

The principle establishing that minimum contacts must arise from the defendant's own suit-related conduct directed toward the forum state, meaning harm suffered by an in-state resident is insufficient if the defendant's conduct occurred exclusively outside the forum.

Courts of General Jurisdiction

State trial courts that possess the authority to hear every category of dispute, including federal claims, unless Congress has expressly made federal jurisdiction exclusive.

Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

Federal courts that are empowered to hear only those cases affirmatively authorized by a statutory grant from Congress and permitted under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

Non-Waivability of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The structural principle codified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) providing that a lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or stipulation, and may be raised at any point in the litigation by any party or by the court on its own initiative.

Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)

A statutory exception to presumptive concurrent state-court jurisdiction that explicitly bars state courts from hearing claims arising under patent, plant variety protection, and copyright laws.

Minimal Diversity

The constitutional baseline under Article III, Section 2, which requires only that at least one plaintiff be diverse in state citizenship from at least one defendant, with no statutory amount in controversy requirement.

Complete Diversity Rule

The statutory construction of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 derived from Strawbridge v. Curtiss requiring that every plaintiff be a citizen of a different state from every defendant, meaning no shared state citizenship may sit on opposing sides of the dispute.

Federal Ingredient Rule

The broad Article III "arising under" standard established in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, providing that constitutional federal question jurisdiction exists whenever federal law forms an ingredient of the original cause, such as a federally chartered entity being a party.

Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

The interpretation of statutory federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 established in Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley requiring that the federal issue appear on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint, rather than as an anticipated defense or response to a defense.

Connected to but different from the Holmes Creation test that states a claim “arises under” a federal law when the federal law creates the cause of action or provides a significant ingredient of the claim. “Federal ingredient.”

Corporate Citizenship

The standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) assigning a corporation dual citizenship: every state in which it has been incorporated and the single state of its principal place of business.

Nerve Center Test

The Supreme Court standard established in Hertz Corp. v. Friend defining a corporation's principal place of business under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) as the location where its officers direct, control, and coordinate corporate activities, typically its corporate headquarters.

Individual Domicile

The state where a natural person physically resides with the concurrent intent to remain indefinitely; a party maintains their existing domicile until a new physical residence is established alongside an intent to remain there indefinitely.

Citizenship of Unincorporated Associations

The jurisdictional rule from Carden v. Arkoma Associates providing that partnerships, LLCs, and other unincorporated entities take on the state citizenship of every single one of their partners or members.

Permanent Resident Alien Exception to Diversity

The statutory restriction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) excluding federal diversity jurisdiction in civil actions between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence and domiciled in that same state.

Domestic Relations Exception

A judicially recognized doctrine reaffirmed in Ankenbrandt v. Richards holding that federal courts lack diversity jurisdiction to issue or modify divorce, alimony, or child custody decrees.

Where does the legal representative of a deceased person’s estate have citizenship?

The statutory rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2) providing that the legal representative of a decedent's estate is deemed to possess only the citizenship of the decedent, rendering the executor's personal citizenship irrelevant.

Amount in Controversy Requirement

The statutory condition under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requiring that the matter in controversy exceed the sum or value of $75,000$, exclusive of interest and costs.

Legal-Certainty Test

The doctrine from St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co. providing that a plaintiff's good-faith claim for damages controls the amount in controversy unless it appears to a legal certainty from the governing law or facts that the plaintiff cannot recover in excess of $75,000$.

Single-Plaintiff Claim Aggregation

The diversity principle permitting a single plaintiff suing a single defendant to aggregate the dollar values of all claims asserted against that defendant, whether transactionally related or unrelated, to satisfy the amount in controversy threshold.

Joint Liability Aggregation

The principle providing that when multiple defendants are sued jointly and severally for an indivisible injury exceeding $75,000$, the full amount is considered in controversy with respect to each individual defendant.

Holmes Creation Test

The primary test for 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction articulated in American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., stating that a suit arises under federal law when federal law creates the private cause of action asserted.

Grable Test

The four-part framework from Grable & Sons and solidified under Gunn v. Minton establishing that a state-law claim arises under federal law only if an embedded federal issue is necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial to the federal system as a whole, and capable of resolution without disrupting the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Geographic Removal Rule

The statutory requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) dictating that a state court action must be removed exclusively to the federal district court and division embracing the geographic place where the state court action is pending.

Forum-Defendant Rule

The restriction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) prohibiting removal of an action solely based on diversity jurisdiction if any properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the forum state.

Rule of Unanimity

The procedural requirement codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A) providing that all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the notice of removal.

Later-Served Defendant Rule

The statutory provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B)–(C) granting each defendant an individual 30-day removal window starting upon service, and permitting an earlier-served defendant who missed their own window to consent to a later-served defendant's timely removal.

Thirty-Day Remand Rule

The statutory mandate under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) requiring that any motion to remand by any party based on a defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction be filed within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal. (SMJ can be contested any time and has no deadline because it is unwaiveable by either party nor court.)

Severance and Remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)

The mechanism whereby a defendant removes an entire action containing a federal claim joined with an unrelated state claim outside supplemental jurisdiction, requiring the federal court to sever and remand the unrelated state claim back to state court.

United Mine Workers

The constitutional standard from United Mine Workers codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) requiring a non-federal, non-diverse claim to derive from the same factual foundation as an anchor claim within original federal jurisdiction so that they form part of the same case or controversy. Common Nuclear of Operate Facts (CNOF)

Discretionary Declination of Supplemental Jurisdiction

The statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) permitting a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the state claim is novel/complex, substantially predominates, all anchor federal claims are dismissed, or exceptional circumstances exist.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) Diversity Clawback

The statutory restriction barring supplemental jurisdiction over claims asserted by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 when the original federal anchor claim rests solely on diversity jurisdiction under § 1332.

Minimum Contacts

The due process test announced in International Shoe Co. v. Washington requiring that a nonresident defendant have sufficient ties with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Purposeful Availment

The constitutional requirement established in Hanson and World-Wide Volkswagen that personal jurisdiction must rest on the defendant's deliberate, intentional acts directing activities toward the forum state, rather than the unilateral act of a consumer or third party.

Calder Effects Test

The personal jurisdiction doctrine under Calder v. Jones and Walden v. Fiore providing that intentional tortious conduct must be aimed directly at the forum state itself, rather than merely impacting individuals who happen to reside there.

Stream of Commerce Plus

Justice O'Connor's plurality test in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court requiring an intentional act purposefully directed at the forum state (such as designing for the market, advertising, or establishing customer channels) beyond mere awareness that a product may enter the stream of commerce.

Substantial Affiliation Standard

The specific jurisdiction rule reaffirmed in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court holding that a claim must arise out of or relate to forum contacts, meaning a strict causal link is not required when the defendant systematically cultivates a forum market for the very product line involved.

Fair Play and Substantial Justice Factors

The five fairness considerations from Asahi that can independently defeat personal jurisdiction: burden on the defendant, forum state's interest, plaintiff's interest in convenient relief, the interstate judicial system's efficiency, and the shared substantive policy interests of the states.

General Jurisdiction

All-purpose personal jurisdiction permitting a court to hear any claim against a defendant regardless of where the underlying events occurred, restricted to forums where an individual is domiciled or a corporation is essentially at home.

Corporate At-Home Standard

The general jurisdiction standard articulated in Goodyear and Daimler AG v. Bauman providing that a corporation is subject to general jurisdiction only in its place of incorporation and its principal place of business, barring exceptional cases where a temporary headquarters operates elsewhere (Perkins).

Tag Jurisdiction (Transient Jurisdiction)

Personal jurisdiction acquired by serving an individual defendant with process while they are voluntarily and physically present within the territory of the forum state, as upheld in Burnham v. Superior Court.

Collateral Attack on Personal Jurisdiction

The procedural strategy whereby a defendant completely defaults in the original forum and challenges personal jurisdiction for the first time in an enforcement court under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Enumerated Long-Arm Statute

A state statute that authorizes personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants only for claims arising out of specifically listed acts, such as transacting business, contracting to supply goods/services, or committing a tortious act within the state. (specific personal jurisdiction)

Catch-All Long-Arm Statute

A long-arm statute that extends a state court's personal jurisdiction to the outer limits of the state and federal Constitutions, collapsing the statutory inquiry directly into constitutional due process analysis.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A)

The rule establishing that a federal district court borrows and applies the long-arm statute and personal jurisdiction reach of the state courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court sits.

Residential Venue

The venue provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) establishing that a civil action may be brought in any judicial district in which any defendant resides, provided that all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located.

Transactional Venue

The venue provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) permitting suit in any judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property subject to the action is situated.

Fallback Venue

The venue rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) available only if no district satisfies residential or transactional venue, permitting suit in any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.

Corporate Venue in Multi-District States

The rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d) dictating that in a state with multiple judicial districts, a corporate defendant resides only in districts where its contacts would establish personal jurisdiction if that individual judicial district were treated as an independent state.

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) Transfer

The statutory provision permitting a federal district court, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, to transfer an action brought in a proper venue to any other federal district where it might have been brought or to which all parties consent.

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) Transfer or Dismissal

The statutory remedy directing a federal district court that has an action filed in an improper venue to either dismiss the case or, in the interest of justice, transfer it to any judicial district in which it could have been brought.

Forum Non Conveniens

The common-law doctrine applied in Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno permitting a federal court to dismiss a case filed in a proper venue when the far more appropriate and convenient forum lies outside the federal court system, such as in a foreign nation or state court.

pro se

Many people either represent themselves

Declaratory judgment

tell them what the law is and hope they follow it, a type of remedy

Gordon

Domicile test

Strawbridge v. Curtis

complete diversity

Domestic Relations Exception

federal courts will not hear cases about domestic relations cases (divorce, custody, etc)

citizenship of corporations

depends on the state of incorporation and the principal place of business.

citizenship of Unincorporated Entities

determined by the citizenship of its members or partners.