Civil Procedure
August 14th, 2023
What is civil procedure
Method for determining the proper court for civil litigation (this semester) and how to proceed once you get there (next semester)
Purpose of civil procedure
To provide a just, efficient, and economical means by which parties can resolve their disputes
Why is civil procedure important?
Most litigation never advances beyond pre-trial phase and may be disposed of purely on procedural grounds.
Of what good are the protections provided by contract, tort, property law, etc. if there are no procedures in place to provide relief when promises are broken, cares are wrecked or poverty is destroyed?
Civil procedure allows private citizens to translate their private grievances into public concerns to be resolved by a court.
Federal Courts | State Courts |
U.S. Supreme court | Supreme Court |
What courts may be proper to handle specific disputes. - this is the question we are answering this semester
Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction)
Aka when is it okay to drag/carry someone from one state to try them in another state.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (federal courts)
Is the court authorized to hear this type of dispute?
Is it proper for a federal court to hear this case?
Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction.
Plaintiff’s usually get the first bout of choosing where the case will be heard.
Notice/Opportunity to be heard
The defendant needs proper notice given so that they may have the opportunity to be heard.
Venue
Narrowing down the location of the court given the jurisdiction.
Does not raise constitutional concerns like the other subjects above
What Law
Erie Doctrine : in federal court, as between federal and state law, which law should govern?
Which practice ought to be applied?
Personal Jurisdiction
A court lacking the power to exercise jurisdiction over a party may not render a binding judgment
Pennoyer v Neff
Two lawsuits going beyond the scenes
There was an oregon statute that said that he could
First action
Collection of attorney’s fees filed in Oregon state court
Mitchell uses constructive service by publication for summons on Neff according to Oregon Statute
Neff doesn’t show
Mitchell obtains
Second action
Neff is trying to get Pennoyer off his land
What did the trial court lawsuit
Neff won at the trial court
Trial court said he wins due to the defects in the affidavits
Ejectment action in federal court sitting in Oregon
Neff wins at trial
Pennoyer appeals
What other arguments did Neff make?
Wasnt personally served and he was not living in the state
pp. 3-14; 17-19 | Introduction |
pp. 147-326 | Personal Jurisdiction |
pp. 327-365 | Constitutional Notice and Service of Process |
pp. 43-143 | Subject Matter Jurisdiction |
pp. 369-417 | Venue |
pp. 871-949 | Erie Doctrine (Vertical Choice of Law) |
August 16th, 2023 - in class notes
Traditional View Of Personal Jurisdiction
Pennoyer v Neff
Whether Neff can get his land back in action 2 is tied to the result of action 1.
Action 1 had to do with the personal liability
Whether constructive service of process by publication is sufficient to submit a non-resident defendant to the personal jurisdiction of a court in a case that solely involves a determination of personal liability?
No. Constructive service by publication is not sufficient to submit a non-resident D. It is ineffectual for any service for an out of state resident
2 ways in order
Defendant voluntarily appearance
D is served process within the state
A problem of the Pennoyer’s In Personam
Issue of state sovereignty
Allowing states to hold pressure or authority over people and property that it is not within the outside of their borders
Traditional Notions of State Sovereignty
Every state possess exclusive jurisdiction over persons and property within its territory
No state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without its territory.
The independence of one [State’ implies the exclusion of power from all others.
If a non-resident does not set up an agent or property in that state then the state does not have authority over the non-resident
One way that Mitchell could have gotten what he wanted - he could have attached the land before the law suit
THIS DECISION DEALT WITH IN PERSONAM
Domiclie - a person lives in the state indefinitely with no plans to relocate
Requires two thing s
Physical residence in the state
And current intent to remain in state.
You would have both of these requirements
You will be subject to PJ where you are domicile
Your domicile is determined at the time as of the date of which the lawsuit is filed.
Pennoyer works for a time but at the time went on there was much strain on the framework
Which brings us to Hess v Pawloshi
Mass had a mobile driver
By virtue of driving on the state’s roads. You are giving implied consent to designation of some state agency to receive service on your behalf as if you yourself were present
Started in Mass. and went to the Supreme Court
The issue is whether the Mass Statute (non-resident motorist) is messing with the 14th Amendment?
SCOTUS ultimately allowed Mass. to have PJ over the non-resident motorist due to the fact that the act of driving is dangerous and how when people are driving harm is a great possibility and they are trying to protect its citizens.
Why important?
Because under Pennoyer there was two ways in which PJ could be given. It was really strict however the Mass statute sort of changed it and expanded it to their own wishes.
Consent and carrying on/doing business
Pennoyer’s Legal Formalism : rule requires presence in state (either service within State or voluntary appearance.)
Corporate fiction j
August 21st, 2023 - in class notes
Two ways to establish in personam in Pennoyer
Which was appearing in person to be served.
This became a problem to states to protect their citizens
Merely driving on the road deemed to be
(HISTORICALLY) Typically a corporation would only be able to do business in the state if the corporation asked permission to work in that state
There is a problem of entities wanting to fly under the radar.
How do we get jurisdiction in the state
Courts struggled to find what working meant
International shoe
They are a company that is based in Missouri and incorporated in Delaware
Delaware created this really corporate friendly law
The chancery court judges have a lot of experience with corporate law
They also had offices in other places but not Washington
They were having salesmen sale one shoe and then
Shoe didn’t pay into the unemployment fund for the state of washington
11-13 employees
Don’t pay into the unemployment funds
Washington serves one of the salesman and mailed a copy to their headquarters in Missouri
Int Shoe appears especially -
The voluntarily appeared to the court
Don’t wave your right to challenge personal jurisdiction
Get that suit dismissed
International show is arguing with Pennoyer
Clinging to the legal formalism
Can this court put a definition of an out of state defendant
These defendants are arguing that this is a violation of their due process rights \\
Suits need to deal with that type of activity. SOmetimes… the connections are important during the suit.
What is the context in which the court gives the scenarios
This is the court attempting to not let you get your panties in a bunch
August 23, 2023 - in class notes
This is the question that we are trying to answer while looking at personal jurisdiction
When is it constitutional to drag a defendant across state lines to defend themselves
International Shoe Test
Does the nonresident defendant have sufficient (minimum) contacts with the forum, such that the maintenance of the suit within the forum does not offend traditional notions of fairplay and substantial justice?
Socrative Questions for review
Question 1 :
A truck loaded with shoes, owned by Worldwide Shoe Co. (a MO company) and driven by one of its employees, traveled through Wyoming on its way to the State of Washington. While in Wyoming, the truck collided with a pickup driven by a rancher, who was injured in the accident.
The rancher filed suit against Worldwide Shoe in Wyoming, alleging negligence by the Worldwide Shoe driver. Assume the Wyoming long-arm statute authorizes any exercise of PJ consistent with due process.
May Wyoming constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over Worldwide Shoe in this case? – Yes or No?
Answer 1 :
Single and Isolated - So what is the current underlying action here? : a car wreck. Which gives rise to an action. This fact pattern is close to the case of Hess and International Shoe gave rise to Hess as an example of single or isolated
Yes, it is proper to have personal jurisdiction
Question 2 :
In Wyoming there also lives a former employee of Worldwide Show, who used to live and work for the company in its Missouri headquarters. Alleging that she was wrongfully discharged from her job in Missouri, she files suit against Worldwide Show in Wyoming. Would personal jurisdiction over Worldwide Show in Wyoming be consistent with due process?
Answer 2 :
The defendant is in Wyoming and the plaintiff is in Missouri. What connection does the defendant have to the forum state? : Well, it has some work done in the state. But there is a single and isolated state.
No, it is not proper to have personal jurisdiction.
Question 3 :
Bill, a lifelong Florida citizen, falls asleep at the wheel and causes an accident while driving through Alabama, injuring Kim, an Alabama citizen. Alabama has a nonresident motorist statute, but Florida just has a CA-esque statute. Fearing that Alabama judges hate women, Kim wants to avoid suit in that state.
Assuming proper venue, would a judgment obtained by Kim against Bill in a FL court be binding on Bill?
Answer 3 :
Yes there would be personal jurisdiction because the defendant is DOMICILED in the state in which the plaintiff is suing.
How to challenge PJ?
Specialty appearance
In federal court
B-12 motion
You don’t do either of these you waive your right of PJ
Win?
If you make that challenge and win [as a defendant]. That's great but the plaintiff may refiled in the [quote] proper jurisdiction
Lose?
If you lose, then you have to litigate your case in that jurisdiction. And it is basically just a one time hearing in the trial court. And if you appealed the decision then the appeals court could find that there is no personal jurisdiction and completely throw out the case.
Long Arm Statutes
When announcing the international show test the federal government allowed the states to determine how much they wanted the courts can
When you are in state court then the long arm statutes are going to
Long as these statutes stay within the
Two Types of Long Arm Statutes
Numerated
These are the type of things that will allow our state to try to allow personal jurisdiction
States identifying specific acts in which they can attempt to exercise PJ
If it is not on the list can the court even try to execute personal jurisdiction?
No.
All in
Permit the exercise if PJ to the fullest extent to the means of the constitution
State Long Arm Statutes
Two step analysis
Does the state court have authority to exercise personal jurisdiction in the given situation pursuant to statute?
Does the US Constitution permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction under the circumstances identified in the statute?
McGee
McGee v International Life Insurance Co. (1957)
Seems to be a board exercise of PJ
August 28th,2023
Hanson v Denckla
Established a trust in delaware
Some money was going to one of her daughter’s children
And the estate where to go to her other two daughters
The daughters sued
Issue
Does Florida have PJ over a delaware trust
Result
Florida did not have PJ over the trust
How do we honor a
The majority is focusing on the minimum contacts with the forum state
New Concept
The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state
Purposeful Availment
It is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state
The concerns that Justice Black has raised in international shoe has come to fruition
What does sufficient and minimum contact mean?
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980)
Sued Volkswagen of American, Volkswagen World-wide, Audi manufacturing, and Seaway
Sued in the Oklahoma State Court
State courts jurors and judges tend to give more money to the plaintiffs in their forum state
It's kinda (really) political for the judges because they are trying to get reelected and they can say that I got this person so much money don’t you want me to do it again for you?
World-wide Volkswagen is a regional distributor that operated in the Tri State area (not in Oklahoma) and Seaway is a local dealership and is only in New York
What did they do when the lawsuit was filed?
Specialty appearance - challenged PJ on the basis of no connection to the state of oklahoma
What did the Supreme Court of Oklahoma say yes we have Pj over you.
The long arm statute gave the state the authority to TRY to exercise PJ over these companies.
The U.S. Supreme courts affirmed that the states can exercise Pj
Two Functions of the minimum contact
1) Protects defendants against burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum
2) Acts to ensure that the state through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system (Think Hansen)
The World-wide volkswagen majority thinks that this is the more important factor
Relationship but contacts and reasonableness
Even if exercise of jurisdiction appears to be “reasonable”, the Due process clause, acting as an instrument of interstate federalism, may sometimes act to divest (or deprive) the state of its power to render a valid judgment.
Reasonableness Factors
Burden on defendant
Interest of forum state; and
Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
Alos must weight
The 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.
What gives us minimum contact
Purposeful availment
It is essential in each case that there be some 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.
Why?
Because when a defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there. It should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there
Defendant can thus structure its activities accordingly
If minimum contacts is not met then you do not get to the rest
The majority says this is how we achieve a sound and thing of judgment
September 6th, 2023
Keeton v Hustler Magazine INC (1984) and Calder v Jones (1984)
First step is does the defendant have sufficient contact in the forum
You have to access defendants individually
You cannot attribute contacts of one defendant to another.
Burger King Corp v Rudzewicz (1985)
1st - burger king sues Rudzewicz for not paying franchise dues
Sued in federal district court of Florida still had to used the state’s long arm statutes
What was the defendant’s contact with the forum state?
Rud. filed paperwork and entered into a contract in the Florida
In the contract it stated that all fees and regulations would be under Florida state law for 20 years
Rud. would get business materials and access to tax and investment opportunities and advertisement materials
Plaintiff has the initial burden to prove jurisdiction
If teh plaintiff prevails then it shifts to the defendant to have the burden to to disprove jurisdiction
Contracts plus
Mere existence of contract is not sufficient. Look to :
Prior negotiations amongst parties. Coontemplated future consequences; terms of contract; parties’ course of dealing
Has sufficient contact in the forum state because of the contract and the initial contact
September 11th, 2023
Purposeful availments
If the defendant avails itself and protects itself within the forum state’s law it should be aware that they may be called to defend themselves in that forum state
If you don’t want to protect yourself in the forum state then you should adjust their behavior
Asahi Metal Industry Co. V Superior court
Stream of commerce
O’Connor : placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not an act of defendant purposefully directed toward the forum
O’Connor wants something more:
Indicate intent to serve market in forum:
Design product for forum;
Advertise in forum;
Establish channels to provide advice to customers in forum; or
Marketing product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum.
September 13th, 2023
Stream of Commerce <Brennan’s Deal>
Brennan : As long as {the defendant} is aware that the final product is begin marketed in the forum, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise.
The international shoe test is not a unanimous amongst the supreme court
McIntyre
O’Connor/Kennedy want something more
Indicate intent to serve market in forum :
Design product for forum;
Advertise in forum;
Establish channels to provide advice to customers in forum; or
Marketing product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales against in the forum
Specific v general
Amount of contacts
As a defendant, you want a general jurisdiction
You don't want specific because any one thing could subject you to jurisdiction
But general jurisdiction gives many options
Specific Personal Jurisdiction
Involved where the plaintiff’s claim “arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts withe the forum”
There must be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, an activity or occurrence that takes place in the forum states and is therefore subject to the states regulations. For this reason specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of issues derived from, or connection with, the very controversy that
General jurisdiction
Shaffer v Heitner (1977)
Justice Majority
All assertions of state-court [personal] jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny.
After
Is the presence of property alone enough to give PJ?
NOPE not anymore
Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice can be as readily offended by the perpetuation of ancient forms that are no longer justified as by the adoption of new procedures that are inconsistent with the basic values of our constitutional heritage.
September 25th, 2023
Burnham v Superior Court
P and D are filing for divorce
The contacts in California is not
Scalia discussion in 2c are good review
How can it violate the tradition when it is the tradition?
Brennan applies international shoe
Contact is sufficient because D purposely avails himself and uses benefits and protections in the state of california - so he can perceive that he could be held into court.
Tradition is still relevant - how?
One of the reason why Scalia is over it with Brenan
Circle arguments
Federalism issues
Fundamental they are being ask to assess if a states position has the ability to
Breenan - I want to access the traditions to see if they are still applicable
The purpose fo the supreme court is to look back at tradition and see if it is still the case of today… Does it now violate the role of the constitution
Supreme Court : “Can we trust the states to do the right thing?”
Stevens concurs - not much difference basically the same thing as before
What does this all mean?
Service while present in the forum allow jurisdiction.
September 27th, 2023
Corporations have their own laws/designated by the court as different from persons
When the suit is filed in federal court the first place that you will look is Rule 4(k)
For most cases, we are going to look to the long arm statute in the state in which the federal courts is at. (ex. Look to State’s long arm statute)
Territory of the federal government is the whole country so the 5th amendment is interpreted more broadly.
Federal Lawsuits with Long arm statutes
4(k) 1b -
Notice/Opportunity to be heard
Was proper notice given, such that the defendant has an opportunity to be heard?
How is the plaintiff supposed to know how they are to serve a lawsuit? They have to look at the jurisdictions statutes and rules for that process.
MUllane v Central Hanover Bank and Trust
The form does not need to be the best but it does need to substantially less likely than feasible
tHE LEVEL OF DILIGENCE is not defined by the court instead it is determined by the reasonabilness under the circumstances.
Must be substantially less likely to reach them under those circumstances/
The law does not actually require notice.
If we required actually notice then the plaintiff has the burden of risk. If we don;t required enough notice then all of the burden is on the defendants.
The second attempt can be less than what your first attempt was
October 4th, 2023
The Mullane Standard
Due process requires that notice be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections”...”The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it”...”Within the limits of practicability, notice must be such as is reasonably calculated to rach interested parties” … “the form chose must not be substantially less likely to bring home notice than other feasible and customary substitutes.”
Rule 4 (e)
Enhance service
Leave summons at defendants dwelling with person of suitable age
State approaches must satisfy the federal rule (aka. Mulane Standard)
RUle 4 (h)
Special rules for corporations and officers
Not going to count in terms of personal jurisdiction.
What is being served to the defendant?
Summons and Complaint
Summon is a appear in court at such date and time
Complaint is the why
Whose responsibility is to make sure the serve happens?
The plaintiff
But the plaintiff is not allowed to serve the defendant themselves.
When does service need to be made?
90 days.
But you cannot serve until you get the summons from the court in order to deliver the summons to the court.
If the court decides to dismiss the action because notice was not given in appropriate time
That is called dismissal without prejudice. (This means you can refile if you are still within the statute of limitations)
Defendants can waive the right to be summoned
They are aware that they are being sued and the plaintiff has 60 more days in order to serve
If you waive formal service, you have not waived your right/ability to challenge : venue, personal jurisdiction, etc. (Rule 4 (d5)
If you don’t challenge service then you waive your right/ability to challenge the venue, personal jurisdiction etc.
What stops the clock on the statute of limitations?
It is based on the state’s statute so you need to know what the statute was. DO NOT WAIT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE.
Baidoo v Blood-Dzraku
1st had to show that she tried the alternatives in the rule
What is service?
Summons and complaint
It comes down to jurisdiction
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (federal courts)
State courts are general jurisdiction courts
Unlike state courts - federal courts are limited jurisdiction courts
Federal courts derive that authority from Article 3 section 2 of the constitution.
Lower Federal Courts comes from the congress that makes the statutes that makes the lower courts in theory of the supreme court
If it has not been confirmed to the federal courts by Congress than it is heard by the state courts
Federalism
What does federalism have to do with what Federal courts get to hear what?
Why would we even allow federal courts to hear matters involving state law?
States favoring in state parties to the disadvantage of out of state parties
It is political
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (federal courts)
Diversity 28 U.S.C. section 1332
Permits lower (federal courts) to hear
Federal Question
Supplemental
Removal
October 9th, 2023
It comes down to jurisdiction
Article 3 section 2 of the constitution and congress has to confer the jurisdiction for the lower courts
Federalism issue
A federal court applying and determining state law matters
Why do federal courts do this?
Because everything is political
Diversity 28 U.S.C. section 1332
Diversity of citizenship
Gordon v Steele
Domicile test - Is Gordon a resident of the state of Idaho.
Subject matter is if we can have jurisdiction at all and general is if we have venue
Mas v Perry
You need to have complete diversity
Strawbridge
Requires not only diversity but complete diversity
All the parties have to be domicile in different states
Com. Div - Louisiana Plaintiff and Mississippi Defendant
Not Com. Div. - Mississippi Plaintiff AND defendant
Designed to prevent bias
Who bears the burden of asserting diversity?
The party invoking the federal courts jurisdiction has to the burden to plead that the requirements of diversity
The presumption is that the federal court DOES NOT have jurisdiction
Non-state domicile people cannot not litigate in federal court they would have litigate in state court under this statute
1332 (c) (1) on citizenship of corporations
1. Principal place of business
2. State of incorporation
Determining place of business gives courts a fit in how they will determine all of this.
What test did they use?
Nerve center test - nerve center sends us to the headquarters or where the high level officers are.
Benefits? - Easier to determine
How do you determine citizenship for unincorporated entities?
You look to the people and where they are domiciled.
7.1 was amended to say that unless the court provides otherwise the parties must submit a disclosure in which it states where the LLC was domiciled.
Gallon - another aspect comes from 1332 c 2 and legal representatives
Citizenship is tied to the person who is being represented, not the one who is doing the representing.
The system is set up to prevent gaming of the system
To be in controversy
It is supposed to exceed $75,000 according to the statute
This does not mean minimum 75 grand
Congress has not given jurisdiction to the full extent that the constitution will allow
How do we determine the amount?
Amount in Controversy
St Paul Mercy:
“Plaintiff’s claim for damages must be made in good faith. Will generally be accepted “Unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.”
Plaintiff given benefit of the doubt
As long as it is possible that the ward could be for more than $75k, the jurisdictional amount is satisfied.
If challenged, must come forward with facts to support damages sought.
It doesn’t matter if the amount awarded does not meet the amount in controversy
If it is clear to a legal certainty that you won’t win or can’t win to the amount in controversy than you don’t have a case
Midterms
Facts - think mirror image rule from LAC
Use the facts to support your analysis
October 11th, 2023
Lawyers can get in trouble
Rule 11 (next semester) - you can not allege BS in order to take advantage of the system
Aggregation Rules
Single plaintiff can aggregate multiple claims (related and unrelated) against single defendant;
P1 (C1 +C2) v. D1 = YES
Multiple Plaintiffs cannot aggregate their distinct claims together
Except where they seek to enforce a single right or title in which they share a common and undivided interest.
P1 +P2 v. D1 = NO
Single plaintiff cannot aggregate claims against multiple defendants
This rule does not apply to cases where the plaintiff seeks joint liability of full amount from both; as in 100k total from either D1 or D2.
P1 v. D1 + D2 = NO
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
28 U.S.C. section 1332(d)
Generally speaking
Allows class action to proceed to federal court even if full diversity is not met
It allows jurisdiction over aggregation if the amount exceeds 5 mil
1332 diversity jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear about state law issues
Federal Question Jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. section 1331
For the first 100yrs of the lower federal courts, they could hear state issues but not federal issues? (1875)
Osborn v Bank of the United States (1824)
Article 3 section 2 “Arising under” = Federal ingredient
Interprets the language itself
Constitution permits federal courts to hear a case if it promotes a federal ingredient
Louisville & Nashville RR Co. v. Mottley (1908)
Federal Question Conferring Statute
The lower trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
The litigants could not waive because the court raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction
It is unconstitutional for a federal court to hear a case it has not been authorized to hear by Congress.
How does the court interpret the underlying language in the statute?
When does the court think a case arises under the statute?
Well-pleaded Complaint Rule
To qualify for federal question jurisdiction (under 1331) the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.
Regardless of how the constitution is interpreted, the
Plaintiff has control over the claim
October 16th, 2023
Statute 1331 does not require diversity or amount in controversy
However they do require
To qualify for federal question jurisdiction (Under 1331) the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.
Creation test
A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action
Using the creation test would there be subject matter jurisdiction
The court said that it was not set up for plaintiffs to strap that issue onto state law claims in order to get it into a federal court
Merriel created a split in the courts
Smith Test still exists
CREATION TEST IS NOT THE LAW - THE LAW IS GRABLE (pg 110)
But…
Grable Standard : Where a state- law claim implicates a federal question
Does the Well-Pleaded Complaint include :
A state-law claim that necessarily raises a federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a
Federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities
With respect to “substantiality,” how serious is the federal issue at stake?
Whether allowing this action into court would it upset the balance between the state and federal courts?
It is not the law that Grabble allo
If you get into federal court with your claim then you don't need to argue Grabble
Summary
Authority for federal question
Article 2 section 3 and a statute
Congress Allows and then a statute
If you have a state law claim that qualifies under 1332, it would be a horrendous mistake for you to talk about Grabble
Grabble will only be used when you cannot get in under 1332 and have to interpret
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Why is this even an issue?
These statutes are invitations to the federal court
If you meet the Grabble standard then you made it in by the 1331 statute
This asks :
Once you have the invitation to the federal court, what and who else can come along for the ride? (Potential Guests to the court)
There are different types of uninvited guests
To what extent should an unqualified claim attached to a qualified claim should be able to attend.
Courts develop a doctrine of — to prevent multiple lawsuit
Courts are authorized to hear cases or controversy
Gibbs v UMW
INitial Lawsuit
Section 303
Conspiracy/interface w/K (state law)
When does pendant jurisdiction exists : when a claim aries under the constitution and
The state and federal claim must arise under the f
Gibbs standard
Pendant jurisdiction exists where:
There is a [qualifying claim] and the relationship between that claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises bit one constitutional case/
The state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact
Discretionary Factors
Consideration of judicial economy and convenience and fairness to litigants
Avoidance of needless decisions of state law
Implication that if federal claims are dismissed before trial, state claims should be dismissed as well/
Whether state issues substantially predominate [if so} the state claims may be dismissed without prejudice and left for resolution in state court/
Likelihood of jury confusion in treating divergent theories of relief (justification for separation state and federal claims for trial.)
Do not confuse Gibbs and federal Law
October 18th, 2023
1331 is an example of Congress conferring jurisdiction to the lower federal courts
Supplemental jurisdiction
Once you get an invitation, who or what else can come along? (aka. Potential guests to the party)
Gibbs
Pendent Jurisdiction
Plaintiff asserts a claim that can be heard in federal court but also another claim that would not USUALLY be heard in the lower federal court.
Rule 1337 encouraged parties to bring as many claims to the table as possible.
Pendent Jurisdiction exists where:
There is a qualifying claim and the relationship between that claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional case.
The state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact
Breenan says that this pendent jurisdiction is evolving as the case comes to the court. So the elements of the question at hand are reevaluated throughout the onslaught of the case.
If the federal courts would not hear the case what would Gibbs options be.
File both claims in state courts
State courts will be hearing a federal issue
File two different suits
Double the issue
Don’t file one of the two cases
Discretionary Factors
Consideration of judicial economy and convenience and fairness to litigants
Avoidance of needless decisions of state law.
Implication that if federal claims are dismissed before trial, state claims should be dismissed as well.
Whether state issues substantially predominate…{if so} the state claims may be dismissed without prejudice and left for resolution in state court.
Likelihood of jury confusion in treating divergent legal theories of relief (justification for separating state and federal claims for trial)
Breenan and earlier justices thought that courts would use these factors to not hear many cases, however, it was the opposite and the courts took a very broad view of factors.
Finley v. US (1989)
Plaintiff files in state court against city of San Diego and the utility company (In california state court) (California State Law claim)
Plaintiff also files a suit in federal court against the US ( really FAA) (federal tort claim)
THEN…
Plaintiff and lawyers looped the state claim into the federal
The question was whether the federal court could hear the non-qualifying state law claims
Why did Gibbs not establish this?
Gibbs has one defendant and multiple claims
In Finley, we are adding different defendants
Scalia - Congress changes and enter statute 1367
Usurpation of power not granted by congress
Court cannot hear these claims
Section 1367(b) - in federal court SOLELY on diversity
Federal courts SHALL NOT have supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(a) over claims brought by plaintiff’s against:
Third parties impleaded under Rule 14;
Necessary parties joined under Rule 19;
Permissively joined parties under Rule 20; or
Parties intervening under Rule 24
When exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of 1332
Federal court SHALL NOT have supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(a) over claims brought by:
Necessary parties proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19; or
Parties seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24
When exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.
IF YOU GET INTO FEDERAL COURT UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF 1332 THEN YOU NEVER NEED TO LOOK AT SECTION 1367!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carmen (CA) files a complaint against Sarah (GA) in Alabama federal court based on an automobile accident in which Carmen was severely injured. Carmen is seeking $100,000 in damages.
Sarah files a third-party complaint under Rule 14 against Grace (FL), alleging that Grace is in fact responsible for half of the harm caused to Carmen. Carmen then files a claim against Grace for $50,000 seeking recovery for harm caused in the same accident.
Is there supplemental jurisdiction over Carmen’s claim against Grace?
1332 - complete diversity + exceed 75k (amount in controversy)
So no i
Original Jurisdiction
Complete diversity -
Cool kid action in Carmen (CA) v Sarah (GA)
The suit is alleging from the same event in which the original lawsuit
Adding the non-qualifying claim to the
Do they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact
These fact do because of Graces involvement in th
1367(b) - The courts has original jurisdiction based solely on
Peter (TX) sues Donald (NY) in federal court for tortious interference with prospective business advantage, a state law claim, seeking $100,000 in damages. Peter also seeks to sue Debbie (CA) for defamation arising out of the same incident involving Donald’s alleged wrongdoing. He seeks $40,000 on that claim. The rule that permits Donald and Debbie to be sued together is Rule 20, thus making Donald and Debbie parties joined under Rule 20.
Is there supplemental jurisdiction over the claim against Debbie?
There is complete diversity between all above parties.
The amount in controversy is also met
SO the federal court has jurisdiction over the case.
However, there is supplemental jurisdiction is not allowed with Debbie because the case can be heard under the 1332 statute and 1367 states that plaintiffs added through rule 20 do not have supplemental jurisdiction
Actually,
We care about the claim against Peter v Debbie,
They are diverse however, the amount in controversy is not met
Next we head to 1367, and we acknowledge the qualifying claim and see if the non-qualifying claim derives from the same event.
The point claim
Mary (VA) sues Lindsey (NY) for $500,000 over a breach of contract in New York
federal court.
Carl (NY) is proposed to be joined as a plaintiff under Rule 19 to sue Lindsey for $25,000 for breach of the same contract.
Does the New York federal court have jurisdiction over Carl’s claim against Lindsey?
Claimed by a certain type of plaintiff (one supposed to be joining under rule 19)
October 23rd, 2023
Just because a federal rule allows you to joinder rules does not mean that the court will have jurisdiction
Do not forget to see if you even have to look at b in rule 1367
NEVER say “it” instead state if it is the qualifying claim or unqualifying claim
Finley
If this case had been decided after 1367
The state law claim could have been added to the federal question
Federal concern to hear a case
Unfortunately there will be other cases in which there will be a mixture of a federal question and
Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Applpattah
Two sister cases
1 out of the 1st circuit (Star-Kist)
Little girl cut her finger on a tuna can
Files in federal court
Filed with parents (three plaintiffs)
P1 met amount in controversy
P2 and P3 did not meet in amount in controversy
P2 and P# entered under rule 20
1 out of 11th circuit
Class action under rule 23
Claimed exxon was price gouging
Again we had plaintiffs with qualifying claims and other plaintiffs with unqualifying claims
These two circuits came to different conclusions
1st circuit said that there is no jurisdiction under the civil action with the second and third plaintiffs
11th circuit says hold up. They say that they had to identify
Tying the language to the statute
There is already an invitation to the party
The court is only talking about a failure of the amount in controversy requirement
EXXON DOES NOT SAVE A CASE WHEN COMPLETE DIVERSITY IS NOT MET - THIS ONLY HAS TO DO WITH SAVING A CASE WHEN THEY FAIL THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT
Rule -
If there is a qualifying claim that satisfies the amount in controversy and there is no other relevant defects then the court has original jurisdiction over a “civil action”
Why is it so important for a court to reply in this way?
Because 1367 first asks if you have original jurisdiction
October 25th, 2023
Removal Jurisdiction
State courts are subject matter jurisdiction
Why should we give defendants the option/ability to remove
To level the playing field
If it is a federal question may be viewed more naturally in front of a federal judge
Move from biased judges
The ability for a defendant to remove them
Plaintiffs cannot remove after they file in state court, only a defendant can
They would have to dismiss and then refile
To where is the case removed?
Avitts v Amoco Production Co (5th Cir. 1995)
How does supplemental jurisdiction work with removal
Not complicated they work together just fine
In other words, the federal court cannot cherry pick what they want to hear.
Everything attached to the federal question goes.
The plaintiff might send a motion to remand and attempt to send it back to state court
How do they approach that?
Do they have original jurisdiction
Nuts n Bolts of 1447 and 1446
Plaintiff filed complaint in state court
If multiple defendants, how many have to agree to remove?
All the defendants
They would file a notice of removal
Filing a notice does not constitute a waiver to challenge personal jurisdiction
How long do defendant to file a notice
30 days of receiving initial notice of the complaint
Ex. notice is given today, tomorrow is day 1
If you don't file then you are waiving your right of removal
In the cases of multiple defendants?
The 30 days start when the last defendant receives the notice of complaint
ALL THE DEFENDANTS HAVE TO AGREE TO REMOVAL NOT MAJORITY RULES
Plaintiff amends complaint to include federal question
Does the case become removable?
Yes, within 30 days of receipt of information of the change.
In the context, of non-diverse parties being dismissed
Plaintiff has 30 days to remain after the 30 days of filing of the motion to remove
The parties that seeks the federal court is the one who has to prove
There is no mechanism for the defendants to seek a removal from federal court to state court. They would instead have to challenge subject matter jurisdiction.
The general policy is against removal!
Federal court is a limited jurisdiction
The EggPlant, a CA corporation and fertility clinic, files a state-law defamation claim against Brangelina, a CA citizen, in CA State court, when Brangelina refuses to stop picketing outside the clinic using signs with derogatory comments. Brangelina files a counterclaim against The EggPlant alleging a violation of Brangelina’s First Amendment rights. Brangelina then tries to remove the case to federal court. Removable?
No, because the case could not be filed in federal court to begin with as it deals with a state law claim and does not have an amount in controversy or complete diversity. And the federal question brought is a counterclaim which you cannot have subject matter jurisdiction on a federal question counterclaim.
The EggPlant, a CA corporation and fertility clinic, files a state-law defamation claim against Brangelina, a CA citizen, in CA State court, when Brangelina refuses to stop picketing outside the clinic using signs with derogatory comments. Brangelina files a counterclaim against The EggPlant alleging a violation of Brangelina’s First Amendment rights. This time, The EggPlant tries to remove. Removable?
No, only defendants can remove.
Willy, a Florida citizen, files a lawsuit arising under state law in FL state court against Gustav, a GA citizen, for $100,000 resulting from contamination that Gustav caused to Willy’s chocolate river. Gustav removes the case to federal court, at which time Willy promptly reduces his claim to $75,000 and seeks a remand to state court. Is the federal court required to remand to State court?
No, the court had original jurisdiction
Birntout Wunell, a MS citizen, properly files a state-law personal injury claim joining and serving J. Daniels, a TN citizen, P. Noir, a CA citizen, and M. Ultra, a MO citizen, in TN State court seeking $100,000 in damages from each of them stemming from injuries he suffered after a run in the four had at a Halloween party. The defendants attempt to remove the case to federal court. Removable?
No, no complete diversity. If a case is filed in the state in which one of the defendants is residing. There should not be a concern under bias. Only concerns in solely diversity cases. Not in federal question cases.
October 30th, 2023
Supplemental Jurisdiction Review in the CNF on Monday, Nov. 6th at 2:30pm
Venue - 28 U.S.C. section 1391
Pertains to the geographical location
Does not raise constitutional issues
Seeks to establish the most convenient court for the party to be held in
Narrowing down to where ultimately you will litigate the claim
Each states has its own venue rule
Which federal courts the federal system would be
Standard for venue
Moving venue within the federal system
1391(b)(3) - What is Glannon referencing as a fall back provision?
1391 b 3 is used as “fall back” when section 1 and 2 cannot be utilized. (a proper venue cannot be organized)
Means (in respect to B3) it is the if a proper venue is not laid out by section 1 or 2 then you can look at 3
YOU CAN ONLY LOOK AT SECTION 3 IF PROPER VENUE IS NOT FOUND UNDER SECTION 1 OR 2
If you land a proper venue anywhere under section 1 or 2 then never go to section 3
In fact, it will be very rare that you will look at section 3.
Most of the lay work is going to be in B1
Businesses and Venue
Businesses are domiciled in place in which they are:
Where are they citizens?
Nerve center - principal place of business
Where they are incorporated
LLC -
Where ever their employees are?
1391 (c-2)
For venue purposes, all are determined under the same residency analysis
B1 is only useful if all parties reside in the same state
B2
What do we mean “substantial part” - legal weasel words
Need interpretive case law
In an action involving a car accident in the Southern District of New York, by X against Y and Z (two individuals), where Y lives in the Southern District of New York and Z lives in the Eastern District of New York, what would be the available proper venue or venues under 1391(b)(1)?
Either Southern or Eastern District of New York
Bernard falls ill after consuming spinach from Williams Farms and sold by Wholesome Markets. Williams Farms is not a business entity, but is rather the name under which Pete Williams, a California resident, sells his produce. He ships the spinach grown on his farm to retail outlets throughout the United States including Wholesome Markets. Wholesome Markets is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York. It operates grocery stores in each of the 50 states.
Bernard purchased the spinach that made him sick at the Wholesome Markets store in his home neighborhood in Portland, Oregon. Bernard files suit against Williams and Wholesome Markets for state law negligence in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon seeking $100K in damages.
Williams moves to dismiss for improper venue. How should the court rule?
Bernard is suing William in the Federal Court of Oregan
We are told that William is an individual - personally responsible for anything that happens
William is domiciled in California
Wholesome Markets is residing any where they are subject to personal jurisdiction (prob. All 50 states)
B1 would not be applicable to determine if Organ was a proper venue. William does not reside in Organ along with Wholesome Market
B2 would work as there is “substantial events’ Bernard bought the spinach in Organ where it was sold by Wholesome who bought it from William
R section - principal place of business, incorporated, nerve center, headquarters
Bernard falls ill after consuming spinach from Osage Farms (a DE corporation operating in Los Angeles - Central Dist of CA) and sold by Wholesome Markets. Osage ships its spinach to Wholesome Markets, which is still a DE corporation with its principal place of business in NY. It operates grocery stores in each of the 50 states.
Bernard purchased the spinach that made him sick at the Wholesome Markets store in his home neighborhood in Portland, Oregon. Bernard files suit against Osage and Wholesome Markets for state law negligence in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon seeking $100K in damages.
Osage moves to dismiss for improper venue. How should the court rule?
Venue is proper. A substantial part of the events occurred in Oregan.
You can have proper venue in multiple places.
Transfer of Venue
1404(a) and 1406(a)
The moving party has the burden of proof and must show th
1404 transfer :
{arty seeking transfer has burden to demonstrate that transfer is appropriate
Must show:
Action could have originally been bought in transferee district; and
Considerations of convenience and interest of just weigh in favor of transfer.
November 1st, 2023
Venue does not concern with constitutional matters, it deals with what is most suitable and reasonable for the parties so in order for the case to be heard
There can be more than one proper venue laid out by 1391(b) 1 and 2
DO NOT USE B 3 IF a proper venue is found by either 1 or 2
The Plaintiff’s lawyer pays for the litigation
Cost benefit type deal
Both plaintiff and defendants can seek transfer of venue
The party that seeks the transfer has the burden of proof
Conflicts of Laws
State law A v State Law b
Horizontal choice of Law
General Rule ;
The federal court applies the choice of law principles in which the court sits.
Think Federal Court sitting in MS applying MS law principles to find that NY substantive law will apply to the case
In the context of transfer,
If Transfer is made under 1404, where venue is proper,
The law that was going to govern the lawsuit will move with the case.
If the original venue is not proper, and the dismiss of venue is brought under 1406,
Venue within the same
Arbitrary = abusive discretion
When applied, even if you disagree with what they determine, if you admit a reasonable person would have come to that conclusion then you must uphold that decision.