Personal Jurisdiction

Personal Jurisdiction

A court must have personal jurisdiction in order to adjudicate the rights and liabilities of a defendant.

Rejection of Supplemental Jurisdiction

Courts have discretion to reject supplemental jurisdiction if:

• Complex claims or predominate the lawsuit

• Federal law claims are dismissed

• Any other compelling reasons other compelling reasons

Domicile for Personal Jurisdiction

Domicile will be satisfied if the defendant is domiciled in the forum state. If the D is a corporation, it must be “at home” in the forum state (state of inc. and ppb)

Personal Jurisdiction under a Long-Arm Statute

Most statutes allow the exercise of PJ to the extent allowed by the Constitution

Due Process in Personal Jurisdiction

Federal courts may not exercise PJ over a D unless the

1) D has “minimum contacts” with the forum state and

2) the exercise of JX would be fair and reasonable.

Evaluation for PJ using Long-Arm Statute

There is general or specific JX AND Due Process by looking at whether

1. the D has minimum contacts with the state and

2. whether the exercise of JX would be fair and reasonable.

State Long Arm Statute Factors for fairness

1. Convenience for the D

2. Whether the forum state has a legitimate interest in providing redress

3. Whether the P’s interest in obtaining relief is proper

4. The interstate judicial system’s interest in efficiency; AND

5. The shared interest of the several states in furthering social policies

General Jurisdiction

General JX is present when the D is essentially “at home” in the forum state. When general JX is present, the D can be sued on ANY claim (even if the claim is unrelated to the D’s contact with the forum state)

Traditional bases for Personal Jurisdiction

1. Domicile: Individual or Corp. is domiciled in the state.

2. Physical Presence: Service of process on the D while he is physically present in the forum state will satisfy this base UNLESS the D was in the state only to answer a summons or was brought there by force or fraud.

3. Consent: Out-of-state Ds may consent to personal jurisdiction (express or implied)

   1. Waiver: Lack of PJ can be waived by the D. D waives any objection to PJ by substantial participation on the merits before raising the objection.

Evaluation of Fairness in Due Process for JX

• Interest of the forum state in adjudicating the matter

• Burden on the D of appearing in the case

• Interest of the judicial system in efficient resolution and

• Shared interests of the states in promoting common social policies

Appropriate venue

• Appropriate venue is a district in which any D resides.

• If all Ds reside in the state, then appropriate in any district in which any of the Ds reside.

• If neither of above apply, then venue is proper in a judicial district where any D is subject to PJ.

Transfer of Venue Analysis

1. Is there PJ?

2. Is there SMJ?

3. Is venue proper in the new district?

4. Is transfer to the new venue in the interest of justice?

Erie Doctrine

Choice of law

FQ-federal substantive and procedural law controls, as well as federal common law

DJ-state substantive law and applicable federal procedural law

SJ-state substantive law for state law claim

Change of venue

General Rule-transfer permitted to any district where the case might have been brought or to which all parties consent.

DJ-new district court must apply law from previous court

FQ-new district court in another appellate circuit will apply federal law as interpreted by its court of appeals (not the appellate circuit of the transferring district court)

Original venue improper

General rule-dismiss case or transfer case to proper district if it’s in the interest of justice.

DJ-district court to which the case is transferred applies the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it is located (not the state law of the court transferring the case)

FQ-new court will apply its own court of appeals’ interpretation of law (not the appellate circuit of the transferring district court)

No PJ-a court lacking PJ over the D may transfer the case to a different venue.

Diversity JX for Erie Doctrine

• A state law that alters the calculation of damages is a substantive law under Erie

• A state law regarding a statute of limitations is substantive under Erie

• State laws that create evidentiary privileges are substantive under Erie

Federal Question JX under Erie

Federal substantive law and procedural law will control.

TRO

Party seeks to maintain the status quo prior to a hearing for a preliminary injunction

Must show:

• Immediate and irreparable injury would occur absent the TRO; and

• Effort made to give notice to opposing side (or reason notice shouldn’t

  be required)

Court may grant TRO without the opposing party present.

Preliminary Injunction

Requires notice to the opposing party and a hearing

P must show:

1. Likely to succeed on the merits;

2. Likely to suffer irreparable harm in absence of injunction;

3. Balancing the equities favors granting; and

4. Injunction is in the best interests of the public

Rule 4 Service of Process

Corporations—service may be made on an officer, managing agent, general agent, or agent appointed or authorized by law

Exam Tip 3: Rules governing service of process are considered procedural.

Rule 12 Motions Against the Complaint

Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss—lack of SMJ, lack of PJ, improper venue, etc

Rule 12 Motions Against the Complaint Timing

• Lack of SMJ—can be raised at any time, even on appeal

• Lack of PJ, improper venue, and insufficient process—must be raised at 1st opportunity (the first pre-answer motion or, if none, the answer)

• Failure to raise these defenses in a timely manner will waive the defense

• Failure to state a claim or failure to join a necessary party under Rule 19—may be raised in any pleading, in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at trial.

Rule 15 Amendments (Relation Back)

Plaintiff may amend its pleading once as a matter of right within 21 days after service on the defendant

o Otherwise, party may seek leave of court or written consent from opponent

Adding a new claim—permitted if:

1. The original complaint was timely; and

2. The new claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original claims

Adding a new defendant—permitted if

• The claim arose out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence;

• The new defendant received notice of the action within 90 days of the original

  complaint; and

• The new defendant knew or should have known that but-for a mistake, he would have been part of the original complaint

Rule 11 Standards for Filing

• When an attorney (or unrepresented party) submits a pleading, motion or other signed document, he certifies that the documents are filed in good faith.

• If challenged, must withdraw or revise the document

• May be subject to sanctions for violation of this Rule

Compulsory Joinder of Parties (Rule 19) Requirements:

1. The party must be necessary

2. There must be PJ over the new party

3. There must be SMJ (adding the party cannot destroy diversity)

• If adding the party would ruin diversity, the court must decide whether the party is

  indispensable (dismiss the case) or not (proceed without the party)

Necessary Party if:

• Court cannot afford complete relief without the party;

• There is a danger that the party would be harmed without joining; or

• There is a risk of an inconsistent judgment or double liability

Factors to determine whether the new party is indispensable:

1. Extent to which judgment would prejudice the parties in the person’s absence;

2. Extent to which prejudice could be reduced or avoided by protective provisions;

3. Whether a judgment rendered would be adequate; and

4. Whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if action were dismissed for

   nonjoinder

Cross-claims (Rule 13)

(P sues 2 Ds. The issue is if D1 can sue D2)

Can bring a cross-claim so long as it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as

the plaintiff’s original claim.

Must have SMJ over the cross-claim (FQ, DJ, or SJ)

Impleader (Rule 14)

)D tries to pull a 3rd party into the lawsuit)

• Impleaded claim must relate to the original claim between the P and D

• Must have SMJ over the impleaded claim (federal question, diversity, or supplemental)

Intervention (Rule 24)

(A nonparty is seeking to join the lawsuit)

Intervention as of right if:

• Nonparty has an interest in the subject matter of the action;

• The action may affect their interest; and

• The nonparty’s interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties

Intervention (Rule 24)

Permissive intervention allow if:

• Nonparty is granted a conditional right under federal statute; or

• Nonparty has a claim or defense related to the original cause of action

Discovery (Rule 26)

Scope of Discovery

• Parties may discover any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to a claim or defense.

• Court may limit discovery if unduly expensive or burdensome

• Doesn’t need to be admissible evidence in order to be subject to discovery

• A party may not discover privileged information.

Work product privilege

Protects materials prepared by a party in anticipation of litigation

Exception:

• Information is not reasonably available by other means; and

• The party would be substantially prejudiced if not allowed to access the materials

• A party can never discover the mental thoughts and opinions about the case

Discovery of Expert Reports

Expert not called as a witness—reports only accessible in exceptional circumstances

Duty to Preserve Electronically Stored Information in Anticipation of Litigation

• Must take reasonable steps to preserve or could be subject to sanctions

• Court may presume that lost info was unfavorable to the party that failed to preserve it

• Court may also dismiss the case or enter default judgment

Discovery of Physical and Mental Exams

Can compel a mental or physical exam of a party if that party’s mental or physical condition is at issue.

Deposition

• A party can depose another party or a nonparty

• To depose a nonparty, must serve a subpoena

• Can also request that a nonparty produce documents by serving a subpoena duces tecum

Summary Judgment Motion (Rule 56)

Asserts that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law

Exam Tip 5: If the fact pattern contains conflicting facts presented by the parties, that is a genuine dispute of fact. As long as it is a material fact, summary judgment is inappropriate.

Jury Trial

• 7th Amendment-right to jury trial when damages exceed $20

• Must demand jury trial within 14 days after service of last pleading

Judgment as a Matter of Law (Directed Verdict)

• Motion made by either party at the close of plaintiff’s evidence or the close of all evidence

• Granted if no reasonable person could differ as to the outcome

Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JNOV)

• Motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied and the issue goes to the jury

• The jury deliberates and delivers a verdict

• Renewed motion for judgment as matter of law asks court to override jury’s verdict

• Can only “renew” this motion if it was made earlier

Appeals

• Generally, must be a final judgment

• Interlocutory appeal allowed after the denial or grant of an injunction.

Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata)

Typically, see a P attempting to asserting claim preclusion against a D who lost an earlier case.

3 Requirements for Claim Preclusion

1. The same plaintiff and the same defendant from lawsuit #1;

2. Lawsuit #1 ended in a valid final judgment on the merits; and

3. Claimant is asserting the same claim as in Lawsuit #1

Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel) example

P1 sues D. P1 wins an issue of fact or law. P2 brings a 2nd lawsuit against the same D and asks court to preclude the D from relitigating the issue.

Issue Preclusion Four Requirements

1. Same issue was actually litigated;

2. Final valid judgment on the merits;

3. Issue was essential to the judgment; and

4. The party against whom issue preclusion is asserted must have been a party in the prior lawsuit or represented in that lawsuit (a successor-in-interest)—must be fair for new plaintiff to assert same issue (prior law required a mutuality of parties)