Personal Jurisdiction Attack Outline PDF

**Personal Jurisdiction** - Courts ability to exercise control over someone or something? - Core concept is fairness for chord 2 exercise jurisdiction over defendant **Types:** 1. In rem: Property is the subject 2. In personam: In personam: 1. Domicile: defendant maintains...

**Personal Jurisdiction** - Courts ability to exercise control over someone or something? - Core concept is fairness for chord 2 exercise jurisdiction over defendant **Types:** 1. In rem: Property is the subject 2. In personam: In personam: 1. Domicile: defendant maintains permanent home in the forum state 2. Tag (Burnham v. Superior ct) 3. consent if you show up and don\'t object or agree to do business in the state a. Mallory v. Norfolk Southern b. Burger King 4. Long Arm Statute (statutory requirements) c. If nothing else satisfies, the long arm statute will allow jurisdiction over defendant Unlimited Limited Follow constitutional requirements: must satisfy due process by: 1. Minimum contacts with the forum state (Int. shoe - doing business in state is continuous and systematic) a. Factors: i. defendants level of purposeful availment - did defendant take advantage of privileges and benefits enjoyed by the forum state residents; not accidentally - ex: using state courts or resources or doing business in state - stream of commerce plus: (alternative way of showing systematic and continuous contacts/ when selling something to state): - placing item into the stream of commerce is usually not enough to satisfy; needs to be more targeted - Ford Motor - targeted in state newspaper - McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro - WW Volkswagen - foreseeability of the car being in the state is not enough ii. Foreseeability - Defendant must know or reasonably anticipate that he may be held accountable in the forum state - stream of commerce lite: (alternative way of showing systematic and continuous contacts) - released into commerce and is reasonably foreseeable that it would end up there 2. Relatedness b. the nature and quality of defendants contacts with the forum state must be sufficiently related to plaintiffs claim - level of relatedness tells us general or specific: 3. Fairness - must not offend traditional notions of Fair play and substantial justice - exercise of personal jurisdiction must be fair - factors: (asahi case - not reasonable for personal jurisdiction) - 1\. Inconvenience to defendant: - would it severely disadvantaged defendant? - 2\. Plaintiffs interest: - plaintiffs interest in obtaining convenient and fair relief - cost of litigating in defendants domicile and difficulty of travel to - 3\. Forum state interest: - whether the forum has interest in providing redress for its residents or an interest in the outcome of the case - 4\. Judicial efficiency: - ease of litigating in forum state - ex: consider location of witnesses, evidence, ETC 4. notice - defendant must be reasonably notified of the pending lawsuit - requirement: - notice must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise defendant of pendency of action - Methods of notice: - traditional methods of service will satisfy due process - Ex: personal service, registered mail, delivery to an appointed agent - if plaintiff knows and gets feedback that notice was not received by the defendant, then plaintiff cannot proceed and must try a reasonable, inexpensive alternative Waiving PJ: - Defendant may waive personal jurisdiction even if they would not be subject to it under the analysis - may also waive by failing to raise it as an issue or appearing in court Defenses to PJ: - defendant may raise a lack of personal jurisdiction - can challenge personal jurisdiction in an answer or first response to pleading - motion under 12(b)(2) **Subject matter jurisdiction:** - Courts ability to exercise authority over a claim - federal courts are limited - state courts = anywhere there is personal jurisdiction [Types of subject matter jurisdiction:] - 1\. Federal question jurisdiction - 2\. Diversity jurisdiction - 3\. Supplemental jurisdiction - 4\. Removal jurisdiction **1. Federal question jurisdiction (1331)** - If a claim arises under the constitution, us treaty, or federal law, the court has federal question jurisdiction (a type of subject matter jurisdiction) - plaintiffs claim must clearly raise a claim arising under federal authority - 1\. Plaintiffs claim must be well pleaded - does it raise a federal question? - Mottley case: Cannot arise out of a predicted defense or counterclaim - 2\. Is it the right kind of federal issue? - Substantial federal issue or - federal cause of action (by statute) Court can exercise jurisdiction if plaintiffs claim originates in federal law or requires resolution of a major issue of federal law - Franchise tax v. construction laborers vacation trust -- - Court can exercise jurisdiction if plaintiffs claim originates in federal law or requires resolution of a major issue of federal law - [1. is it necessary?] - Can the claim move forward without this or can it be answered without it? - [2. Is it actually disputed?] - If it is necessary, probably disputed - [3. is it substantial?] - Governments interest and a larger impact - [4. Federal-state balancing test] - would this cause an influx of litigation? - Would the court have to relitigate the issue over and over? **2.Diversity jurisdiction (1332)** - Gives federal courts authority over citizens of different states, even when claims do not arise under federal law - must have complete diversity: 3. **Supplemental jurisdiction:** - Allows parties to attach a claim over which court does not have subject matter jurisdiction (lacks either diversity or federal question jurisdiction) - only allowed for additional claims added - subject matter jurisdiction must exist in the original claim - may arise with cross claims, counterclaims, joinder, and intervention of other parties requirement: must have common nucleus of operative fact with original claim - same transaction or occurrence court can deny if: - original claim is dismissed early - supplemental claim raises new state law issues - supplemental claim predominates over original claim 4. **Removal jurisdiction:** - moving a case filed in state court to federal court - defendant can remove a case to federal court if: - 1\. It could have been filed in federal court originally - there was subject matter jurisdiction - either federal question or diversity - 2\. If there are multiple defendants, almost agree to removal - 3\. defendant is not in their home state - if removal is improper, federal court can remand case back to state court Challenging Subject matter jurisdiction: - can be done anytime by filing rule 12 B motion - either party or the court can SUA sponte **Erie Doctrine** - Arise primarily in diversity cases - in diversity cases, federal courts mostly apply state substantive law and federal procedural law - but, when a federal law substantially conflicts with state law, the court should apply federal law - procedural law: the rules by which a case will be heard - substantive law: how the facts of the case will be interpreted always governed by state substantive: - elements of a claim or defense - statute of limitations - Conflict or choice of law - tolling Sol always governed by federal substantive: - federal questions - case where the government is a party - international relations, Admiralty, maritime claims **analysis: do you apply state or federal substantive law?** - If there is a conflict between federal and state laws, we use guided (fed Q on point) - If federal and state laws don\'t directly conflict, we use unguided - 1\. Is there a federal question on point? Yes; guided Erie track **Venue** - Determining federal judicial districts in which plaintiff may bring suit (1391) - more than one quart can be right - main factor is convenience venue is proper: - 1\. In any district where defendant resides - if all defendants are from the same state - 2\. In any district where a substantial part of the claim arose - where it occurred - 3\. If not one or two, then any venue where plaintiff is subject to personal jurisdiction - piper aircraft Co V rayno - can\'t just show it would be better for plaintiff in this court; Sent back to Scotland because of private interest and cost how do we know which venue is proper within the state? (corp) - Two interpretations: - corporation is a resident of all districts in the state - corporation is a resident only in the districts where they have their corporate address Venue Transfer: - can occur if transferee district is one that could have heard claim originally - proper personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, venue - convenience: - public factors: that law applies, which community to burden with jury service, judicial efficiency, ETC - private factors: witnesses, evidence, where the claim arose - the law of the original court will still apply unless venue was improper forum non conveniens: - if there is a more appropriate court system to hear the case; Outside the country may be - allows court to dismiss or decline to exercise jurisdiction SUMMARY OF JURISDICTION: - 1\. Personal jurisdiction - statutory authorization: look for a long arm statute that authorizes personal jurisdiction over the parties - constitutional test: does establishment of personal jurisdiction over party satisfy requirements? - A. Minimum contacts purposeful availment and foreseeability - B. Relatedness: whether jurisdiction will be general or specific - C. Fairness factors: inconvenience to defendant, plaintiffs interest, states interest, judicial efficiency - D. Notice - 2\. Subject matter jurisdiction - federal question jurisdiction - diversity jurisdiction: complete diversity, amount and diversity - eerie issues - supplemental jurisdiction/claims - removal jurisdiction - 3\. Is venue proper? Transfer issues? **Service of Process:** - Rule 4 - Service of process is the delivery of summons and complaint to the defendant - satisfies notice requirement - requirement: notice must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise defendant of the pendency of action and informed defendant the opportunity to be heard - Mullane: constructive versus actual notice - 1\. When chosen procedure is unreliable in the circumstances - 2\. There is some relatively efficient and inexpensive alternative - 3\. If the government gets feedback, they should take extra steps (Jones) - EX: Green (Posting not reasonable here) - Bennett V. circus colin actual knowledge insufficient; Sent to defendants old lawyer - midcontinent V. Harris: proper notice not actual notice required Sniadach: - 1\. Is there a deprivation of life, liberty, or property? - Lassiter case: Parental rights is not deprivation of physical liberty - 2\. Is it by the state or government? - 3\. Is there adequate process? - Matthew\'s balancing test (risk of error): - A. States interest - B. Plaintiffs interest - C. Likelihood of erroneous decision because of absence **Pleadings:** Complaint: initial pleading - must contain: - 1\. Grounds upon jurisdiction over parties and claim - 2\. Statement of the claim - rule 8: just need a simple statement - enough to put the other party on notice for what they are being sued for - Cases that raise standard/ are exceptions: - Twombly - Iqbal - did not nudge from conceivable to plausible - 1\. Is there a legal claim upon which plaintiff can recover? - 2\. Taking out all the conclusory statements, can the facts of the case still hold? - 3\. Looking at the facts, is the claim plausible? - Does this cross the threshold of plausibility? - Is there a reasonable alternative explanation? - If it doesn\'t do this, raise 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss - must occur during initial pleading or case goes through - Swanson V. Citibank - rule 9: state circumstances with particularity with fraud - 3\. Description of relief sought - money damages or injunction **Answer:** - defendants response states defenses to each claim asserted - either admits or denies - defendant can raise counterclaims - if compulsory, must raise or it is dismissed - if permissive, can add or not Defenses: - defendant can raise defenses in answer - must raise defenses or they are waived - rule 12: - used for many reasons; Often to attack jurisdiction or argue plaintiff fails to state a claim Adding/ editing: - may amend once; After, must ask court permission - after the statute of limitations is up, can add if it\'s the same transaction or occurrence - if adding new defendant, can add if it\'s the same transaction or occurrence Rule 11: sanctions: punishing people who bring frivolous claims - 1\. Failing is not for improper purpose - such as harassment, delay, increasing litigation costs - 2\. Warranted by law - 3\. Facts and denials have evidentiary purpose 11b: undertake a reasonable inquiry to determine whether there was enough information to litigate Zielinski v. Philadelphia piers - wrong defendant named in complaint, but the right defendant had reason to know, so they had to go through with the suit Ingraham v. United States - can\'t bring up unexpected defenses; must be in the pleading Kraemer v. Grant county - attorneys conduct in filing was not sanctionable; the discovery is necessary to complain, it is allowed King v. Whitmer - allegations were not well grounded in fact; Sanctionable action Chambers v. NIBCO - power to sanction for parties bad faith conduct that abuses the judicial process **Joinder** - Joining two or more parties or legal issues in a suit - 1\. Is there a joiner rule that allows me to add the claim or party? - 2\. Even if a rule says you can, is there jurisdiction over the party or claim? Claim joinder: rule 13 - A party asserting or defending a claim may bring additional parties: - counter claim: a claim filed by defendant against plaintiff - two types: - compulsory: arise from the same transaction or occurrence - must include it or it is waived; Cannot bring it later - Martino V. McDonald\'s - didn\'t raise compulsory claims - Permissive: does not arise from the same transaction or occurrence; Not required but can bring this in - cross claim: claim filed by a party against Co party; Defendant 1 sues defendant 2 - Must arise from the same transaction or occurrence, but don\'t lose the right to bring it later if it is not right now Permissive joinder: - allows plaintiffs to join another plaintiff or defendant if - 1\. Same transaction or occurrence and - question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs or defendants - additional party is not required to join compulsory joinder: - absent party may be joined if they are deemed necessary or indispensable - necessary and indispensable parties if: - 1\. Can you get complete relief without them? - Would another suit follow this if the party is not added? - 2\. Absentee has a legal interest that may be harmed - would this create inconsistent obligations for a party? - 3\. Is it possible to bring them in? - Subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction - if not, then you can proceed without them or dismiss and do it in another jurisdiction - temple V. Synthes Corp Impleader: - Allows defendant to bring third party who may be liable to defendant for plaintiffs claim - defendant is trying to pass off judgment onto 3rd party defendant - third party defendant did something wrong to make defendant gets sued - defendant can implead when there is derivative liability - must be a legal theory that makes them automatically liable; Can\'t just blame the third party - look at substantive law to determine derivative liability - Scott case - requirements: must have personal jurisdiction over third party defendant - once the third party defendant is joined, they can add claims to as long as there is jurisdiction Intervention: - third party may seek to join suit as plaintiff or defendant - 1\. If the party has an interest that would be harmed if not joined and no existing party adequately represents their interest - 2\. Statute gives unconditional right to intervene - 3\. Has the claim or defense that shares common question of law with underlying action - must establish subject matter jurisdiction; Cannot use supplemental Interpleader: rule 22 - personal jurisdiction required Rule 42: - quirk in order separate trials if it becomes too confusing **Discovery** - Process where parties seek an exchange information - rule 26 - involves devices like depositions, requests for production, interrogatories, conferences, requests for admission - mandatory disclosures under rule 26 A - 1\. Sources of discoverable information - 2\. Damages - 3\. Identify experts scope: material is discoverable if: - 1\. Non privileged - attorney-client privilege: communication between attorney and client done in private; Providing legal advice - never discoverable; always protected - work product (rule 26b3) - prepared in anticipation of the litigation by the client or attorney or agent - 1\. In aid of: knowing there is a lawsuit - 2\. Because of colon\'s reasonable prospect of litigation - 3\. Real possibility: as long as the work is done - protected unless other parties shows: - 1\. Substantial need for material - 2\. Material not available through other means - Hickman V. Taylor: other party had access to witness and could have gotten information themselves; Work product - upjohn V. United States: corporation; Work product - 2\. Relevant to claim or defense - is it relevant to the case? - Blank V. Sullivan: doesn\'t have to be used in court; If it\'s reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence - 3\. Proportional to the needs of the case - factors: - amount in controversy and resources used - importance of issues - whether the burden or expense of discovery outweighs the benefit - Rivera V. NIBCO: rule 26 C: protective order: if disclosure of information to the public will result in harm, protective order can limit the scope of discovery - protective orders allowed unless absolutely necessary to the case **Motion for SJ** - Asks court to enter judgment against the opposing party on the basis that there is no genuine dispute as to the material facts and movement is entitled two summary judgment - rule 56: facts are viewed in light most favorable to non moving party - happens after discovery and before trial - is there an actual dispute of facts: Yes, then trial no, then summary judgment - the party that moves for summary judgment bears the burden of production - then the opposing party must show there is something that is disputed and they triable issue exists [initial burden of proof: defendant moves for summary judgment] - point to evidence to show plaintiff does not have enough evidence in the record to have a reasonable jury on his side - celotex: defendant did not have to provide evidence, only a lack of evidence supporting defendant - evidence weighed in favor of plaintiff unless there is actual evidence to contradict - Scott V. Harris: video evidence of car chase [plaintiff moves for summary judgment:] - burden of production: - evidence must be so strong that they will win at trial; No reasonable jury could find for defendant No, trial - Adickes case: plaintiff moves for summary judgment and fails to meet burden - Matushita: plaintiff must come forward with actual facts of conspiracy **Jury Trial** - 7th amendment provides this right - rule 38 - Galloway: plaintiff did not meet burden so directed verdict doesn\'t violate constitutional rights - legal claim: seeking damages - jury - equitable claim: seeking injunction - judge - can be both: - beacon theaters: equitable before legal example - normally, legal must come first to preserve right to jury trial - 1\. Is this claim analogous to those historical of common law? - 2\. More than \$25? Removing jurors: rule 47 - removing for specific reason - preemptory challenge: removing for no real reason - Edmondson: cannot be on the basis of race or sex jury instructions: rule 51 - Galick: special verdict **Judgment as a matter of law** - Judge taking case from jury and rendering a decision - no way to find for the other side: rule 50 - when can you move for judgment as a matter of law: - as soon as the other side had the opportunity to be heard - after making first statements or at the end of all evidence Galloway: judgment as a matter of law because no reasonable jury could find for the party renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law: - there is judgment for one side and Jerry did not make the correct decision - can only be filed if judgment as a matter of law was filed originally before the judgment - weisgram V. Marley Co: moved twice motion for a new trial: - serious errors occurred in trial - Sanders case: entitled to new trial if it prejudices litigant Remitter: trims jury verdict instead of new trial - consistent with 7th amendment Additur: increases inadequate verdict instead of new trial - not consistent with 7th amendment because it goes beyond what is authorized by a jury **Preclusion** - Claim preclusion: - prevents a party that had the opportunity to litigate a claim from relitigating the same claim types: 1. merged: one in first lawsuit 2. Barred: lost in second lawsuit Test: - 1\. Valid and final on the merits of the claim - with prejudice - no consent judgments unless Martino TV McDonald\'s: looked at facts of the case so it was final - Federated department stores the moisty: even if judgment is wrong, it is on the merits - 2\. Same parties - 3\. Same claim - is it arising from the same occurrence or transaction - then it can only be litigated once - McConnell V. Travelers: splitting the claim - issue preclusion: - prevents parties from relitigating issues of law or fact that have been actually litigated and determined - 1\. Must be valid and final on the merits - 2\. Same issue - 3\. Actually has to be litigated - Allen V. Mccurry - 4\. Full and fair opportunity to hear issue - person actually had to be a party in the litigation unless - Montana V. United States: governments direct interest in litigating and controlling so they were essentially a party - 5\. Essential to final judgment - Exception: change in law may allow relitigation