Civ Pro (FRCP) Notes PDF

-Civ Pro FRCP Notes- FRCP = Federal Rules of Civil Procedure = applies to federal courts Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts Jurisdiction.................................................................................................................................. 5 Key Definitions.................................................................................................................5 Venue...................................................................................................................................... 5 Personal Jurisdiction............................................................................................................ 7 Challenging Personal Jurisdiction.................................................................................8 Power Theory (Traditional) (From: Pennoyer v. Neff (1877))....................................... 9 In personam Jurisdiction (presence/served; domicile; consent)..............................11 In rem Jurisdiction(attachment of land).......................................................................11 Quasi in rem Jurisdiction (not much of a thing anymore)(attachment of movable property)......................................................................................................................... 11 Specific Jurisdiction......................................................................................................12 PJ Analysis...............................................................................................................13 Long-Arm Statutes (statutory requirement).................................................... 14 Purposeful Availment........................................................................................ 17 Nexus.................................................................................................................. 17 Reasonableness.................................................................................................18 Products Liability Purposeful Availment......................................................... 19 Contracts Purposeful Availment...................................................................... 20 Intentional Torts Purposeful Availment........................................................... 20 *E-Commerce......................................................................................................21 All-Purpose Jurisdiction............................................................................................... 22 Forum Selection Clauses........................................................................................ 24 Subject Matter Jurisdiction.................................................................................................25 Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction................................................................. 25 Federal Question Jurisdiction (category of federal subject matter jurisdiction)...................................................................................................27 Diversity Jurisdiction...................................................................................28 Supplemental Jurisdiction (pendent jurisdiction)...................................................... 33 Pendent Claim Jurisdiction.....................................................................................34 Pendent Party Jurisdiction..................................................................................... 34 Ancillary Jurisdiction.............................................................................................. 34 Removal.......................................................................................................................... 36 I. Scope of Rules; Form of Action............................................................................................ 40 Rule 1. Scope and Purpose...................................................................................................40 Due Process......................................................................................................................... 40 -1- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- Sources of Authority........................................................................................................... 41 What is the Rule of Law?.................................................................................................... 41 Due Process Values.............................................................................................................41 Due Process Rights.............................................................................................................42 Right to Be Heard...........................................................................................................42 Right to Counsel............................................................................................................ 42 Are Bright Line Rules or Standards Better?............................................................... 43 Goldberg Balancing Test...............................................................................................43 Eldridge Three-Factor Test........................................................................................... 43 Trial Timeline........................................................................................................................ 44 II. Commencing an Action; Service of Process, Pleadings, Motions, and Orders.............. 45 Rule 3. Commencing an Action............................................................................................. 45 Rule 4. Summons.................................................................................................................. 46 III. Pleadings and Motions.........................................................................................................48 OVERVIEW OF PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS:....................................................................48 Rule 7. Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers............................................54 Rule 8. General Rules of Pleading........................................................................................ 56 Rule 9. Pleading Special Matters...........................................................................................58 Rule 10. Form of Pleadings................................................................................................... 59 Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions............................................................................................................................... 59 Rule 12. Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing................................60 Rule 13. Counterclaim and Crossclaim................................................................................. 65 Issue Preclusion vs. Claim Preclusion.............................................................................. 67 Claim Preclusion/Res Judicata.......................................................................................... 69 Issue Preclusion/Collateral Estoppel...................................................................................1 Nonmutual Issue Preclusion/Nonmutual Collateral Estoppel:.................................... 1 Cross-Jurisdictional Preclusion...........................................................................................1 Rule 14. Third-Party Practice................................................................................................1 Rule 15. Amended and Supplemental Pleadings.................................................................... 1 Rule 16. Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management.......................................................1 IV. Parties......................................................................................................................................1 Plaintiff Joinder: Initial Structure of a Lawsuit................................................................... 1 Defensive Joinder (Joinder by Ds).......................................................................................1 Rule 18. Joinder of Claims.......................................................................................................1 Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties.......................................................................................1 Rule 20. Permissive Joinder of Parties....................................................................................1 Interaction of Rule 20 and Rule 18:................................................................................ 1 Rule 21. Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties........................................................................ 1 Rule 23. Class Actions.............................................................................................................1 -2- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- 28 U.S.C. § 1407 → Multidistrict Litigation (MDLs):......................................................1 Rule 24. Intervention................................................................................................................1 V. Disclosures and Discovery.....................................................................................................1 Discovery................................................................................................................................1 Discovery: Work-Product and Privilege.............................................................................. 1 Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery......................................1 Rule 29. Stipulations About Discovery Procedure................................................................... 1 Rule 30/31 Depositions by Oral/Written Examination.............................................................. 1 Rule 32. Using Depositions in Court Proceedings...................................................................1 Rule 33. Interrogatories to Parties........................................................................................... 1 Rule 34. Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes..........................................................1 Rule 35. Physical and Mental Examinations............................................................................1 Rule 36. Requests for Admission............................................................................................ 1 Rule 37. Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions......................1 VI. Trials........................................................................................................................................ 1 Mediation................................................................................................................................ 1 Arbitration.............................................................................................................................. 1 Rule 38.................................................................................................................................... 1 Rule 41. Dismissal of Actions.................................................................................................. 1 Rule 42. Consolidation; Separate Trials.................................................................................. 1 Rule 45. Subpoena.................................................................................................................. 1 Rule 49. Special Verdict; General Verdict and Questions........................................................1 Rule 50. Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling....................................................................................................................1 Rule 51. Instructions to the Jury; Objections; Preserving a Claim of Error..............................1 Rule 52. Findings and Conclusions by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings.................... 1 VII. Judgment............................................................................................................................... 1 Rule 54. Judgment; Costs....................................................................................................... 1 Rule 55. Default; Default Judgment.........................................................................................1 Motions Summary Table..................................................................................................1 Rule 56. Summary Judgment.................................................................................................. 1 Summary Judgement Explained [Tutor].............................................................................. 1 Summ. Judg. Analysis.....................................................................................................1 Rule 59. New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment............................................................ 1 Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order...............................................................................1 Rule 61. Harmless Error.......................................................................................................... 1 VIII. Provisional and Final Remedies......................................................................................... 1 Relief....................................................................................................................................... 1 Basic Remedial Principle................................................................................................ 1 Pre-Judgement Remedies...............................................................................................1 -3- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- Rule 64: “Securing the Judgment”.......................................................................... 1 Equitable Relief......................................................................................................................1 Temporary Restraining Order................................................................................... 1 Types of TROs...................................................................................................... 1 Preliminary Injunction............................................................................................... 1 Permanent Injunction...................................................................................................... 1 Consent Decrees..............................................................................................................1 Legal/Monetary Relief............................................................................................................1 Damages........................................................................................................................... 1 Nominal damages...................................................................................................... 1 Compensatory damages........................................................................................... 1 Punitive damages...................................................................................................... 1 Costs................................................................................................................................. 1 Attorney’s Fees................................................................................................................ 1 Rules........................................................................................................................... 1 Models.........................................................................................................................1 Hourly Billing (Traditional).................................................................................. 1 Contingency Fees (Alternative).......................................................................... 1 Are Costs and Attorney’s Fees Recoverable?........................................................ 1 English Rule vs. American Rule......................................................................... 1 Lodestar Method.................................................................................................. 1 Other Costs are Recoverable....................................................................................1 Rule 64. Seizing a Person or Property.................................................................................... 1 Rule 65. Injunctions and Restraining Orders........................................................................... 1 Rule 70. Enforcing a Judgment for a Specific Act................................................................... 1 -4- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- Jurisdiction In order for a court to entertain an action and enter a constitutionally valid and enforceable judgement, that court must have adjudicatory power consisting of: (1) Personal jurisdiction over the defendant AND (2) Subject matter jurisdiction over the case (3) Adequate notice aprising the defendant of the action (by service of process or otherwise) is a third requirement NOTE: Proper venue is not a requisite for a constitutionally valid judgement (unlike the 3 above requirements)(GET TEXTBOOK PAGE) 3 areas where defendants can be sued: PJ, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and venue Key Definitions Personal Jurisdiction: allocates judicial power among the states Subject-matter Jurisdiction: allocates power between the federal and state court systems. Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction (constitutional and statutory provisions restrict their adjudicatory authority to certain types of cases), mainly on diversity cases and federal question cases. ○ Diversity cases = disputes between citizens of different states ○ Federal question (AKA federal claim) cases = disputes arising under federal law EX: patent, antitrust, and civil rights actions State courts have general subject matter jurisdiction--they can hear and decide most categories of cases. ○ This includes those that can be heard in federal court over which there is concurrent jurisdiction Venue: the appropriate judicial district in which the case may be filed within the federal system Within the federal system, venue determines the appropriate judicial district(s) in which the case may be filed. Full Faith and Credit Clause: “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” Article IV, § 1. “Judicial proceedings of any court…shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States” 28 U.S. Code § 738 Venue Venue Statute: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) Venue in General.—A civil action may be brought in— -5- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) A judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. Venue based on individual residence - Requirements: 1. All defendants reside in the same state 2. Defendant resides in the judicial district where the case is filed 28 U.S. Code § 1391 (c): Residency of corporations and unincorporated associations (c) Residency.—For all venue purposes— (1) a natural person, including an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, shall be deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled; (2) an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued in its common name under applicable law, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question and, if a plaintiff, only in the judicial district in which it maintains its principal place of business; and (d) Residency of Corporations in States With Multiple Districts.— [I]n a State which has more ___than one judicial district and in which a defendant that is a corporation is subject to personal ___jurisdiction at the time an action is commenced, such corporation shall be deemed to reside ___in any district in that State within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to ___personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate State, and, if there is no such district, the ___corporation shall be deemed to reside in the district within which it has the most significant ___contacts. Venue based on acts or omissions giving rise to claim 1391(b)(2): Venue is proper in the judicial district in which “a substantial part of the events or ___omissions giving rise of the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the ___subject of the action is situated.” Products liability: includes both district of manufacture and district where product caused injury 28 U.S. Code § 1404 - Change of venue (a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented. -6- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- (b) Upon motion, consent or stipulation of all parties, any action, suit or proceeding of a civil nature or any motion or hearing thereof, may be transferred, in the discretion of the court, from the division in which pending to any other division in the same district. Personal Jurisdiction Why is personal jurisdiction important for access to justice? Because: limiting jurisdiction makes it harder (less convenient, laws less favorable) for plaintiffs trying to have their day in court. (use this in EXAM!) 10 thousand foot view: Personal jurisdiction determines if a court has adjudicatory power over a particular party Personal Jurisdiction protects the defendant from having to defend a lawsuit in a faraway forum that would be fundamentally unfair ○ Derives from the constitutional guarantee that “no state shall deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process” 14A Judicial proceeding must be conducted by fair procedures A court must have personal jurisdiction over a defendant to have -7- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- valid judgment over the defendant Personal Jurisdiction Will exist in a state where a defendant is considered at home Without personal jurisdiction, a court will not have the power to adjudicate a plaintiff's action against a defendant ○ A defendant can move to dismiss a plaintiff’s case for lack of personal jurisdiction under 12(b)(2) Once the court has decided that there is a statutory basis for personal jurisdiction, it must then determine whether exercising jurisdiction would comply with the Constitution (due process) Two Common Types of In Personam Jurisdiction → A person or corporation can be subject to both specific and general jurisdiction ○ Specific Jurisdiction Exists when the plaintiff’s claim arises out of a defendant's purposeful contact in the form → applies when a defendant’s actions in a state are connected to the lawsuit The court is authorized to adjudicate a dispute that arises out of conduct in the forum state, not disputes unrelated to the forum conduct A single contact may be sufficient to give rise to specific jurisdiction as long as that contact in the state gave rise to the claim (nexus requirement) Usually applies in the contact of when an out of state corporation has in state business activities that gave rise to an injury ○ General Jurisdiction When the defendant’s contacts with the forum state are SO extensive that they’re basically home Looking for continuous and systematic contacts Very broad; allows a court to adjudicate any dispute at all against the defendant once general jurisdiction is established Challenging Personal Jurisdiction By motion: a least favored defense. If you don’t assert it right away, it’s waived. Personal Jurisdiction challenge must be raised in the INITIAL pleading ○ Disfavored defenses must be raised at hte first opportunity in a motion or answer within 21 days under Rule 12(h)(1) → or 60 days if they waived service of process ○ A court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant if plaintiff satisfies the requirements for general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction, or it has a traditional property basis of jurisdiction Personal jurisdiction: Least favored defense (12(b)(2)) 12(h)(1) When Some Are Waived. A party waives any defense listed in Rule 12(b)(2)-(5) by: 12(h)(1)(A): omitting it from a motion in the circumstances described in Rule 12(g)(2); OR -8- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- 12(h)(1)(B): failing to either: 12(h)(1)(B)(i): make it by motion under this rule; OR 12(h)(1)(B)(ii): include it in a responsive pleading or in an amendment allowed by Rule 15(a)(1) as a matter of course. Collateral attack: jurisdiction and preclusion acting together! A challenge on the validity of a prior judgment through a new case in a new forum (state) rather than by a direct appeal or affirmative defense. Examples include: o Claims that a prior judgment was invalid after the opposing party cites it for strategic advantage in a new case. o (a very strategic usage would be): Party A defaults in Case 1 in the "rendering court;" in case 2, in the "enforcing court" Party B seeks to enforce the decision from Case 1, but Party A says that Case 1 violated due process and thus is not preclusive--if Party A succeeds in this argument, then it allows relitigation on what otherwise might be precluded. ▪ Party A files action under due process clause... Common grounds for a collateral attack include a lack of personal jurisdiction, a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and a failure of due process in the first case. It is "collateral" because in it's in a different case/proceeding; it's an "attack" because the party isn't asserting an affirmative defense. Full faith and credit obligations between states to affirm each other's judgments only applies if the original judgment was valid o Due process violations invalidate original judgment Power Theory (Traditional) (From: Pennoyer v. Neff (1877)) Power Theory analysis is based on the physical presence of the defendant or their property o “No tribunal can extend its process beyond that territory so as to subject beyond that territory so as to subject either persons or property to its either persons or property to its decisions.” (Pennoyer) No person subject to jurisdiction of court unless that person: o Appears in the court, o Is found in the state, o is a resident, OR o Has property in the state equal to the amount that has been attached Based on geographic ideas of sovereignty -9- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- It gave rise to in personam jurisdiction, in rem, quasi in rem… This was unworkable and rigid: o Under Pennoyer, if a person (the defendant) wasn’t physically present in a state, a court in that state couldn’t directly assert jurisdiction over them. However, if the defendant had any property in the state—no matter how small or trivial—the court could assert what’s called "quasi in rem" jurisdiction. This allowed the court to essentially “attach” the property as a way of exerting control over the defendant. o So, in extreme cases, people tried to use even the smallest, least valuable property—like clothing or “underwear”—that happened to be in the state as a basis for asserting jurisdiction. By seizing such trivial items, plaintiffs could start a lawsuit and seek judgments, but only up to the value of that property. So if the “attached” property (e.g., underwear) was worth $5, that was the maximum judgment they could enforce. ▪ One reason for doing this: By securing even a minor judgment in a specific court, plaintiffs sometimes aimed to establish the case in a jurisdiction they believed would be more favorable to their side. Once they had a foothold, they might try to argue for broader jurisdiction, seeking to expand the claim. o Legal fictions were made up to fill the gaps: if you drive on the road of a state, you have consented to the laws of the state by the act of driving o The kind of absurd extensions of jurisdiction in order to fit into the limited power theory of jurisdiction undercut the justification for these limitations. This set up the court to rethink personal jurisdiction in International Shoe o As the interstate economy expanded, the power theory was too limiting to resolve disputes between multi state actors. Its applicability over non-resident defendants was replaced by the Minimum Contacts Analysis after International Shoe Co v. State of Washington (1945). Power theory has been largely “patched over” by minimum contacts, etc., but there are places where it’s still showing through: as in tag jurisdiction (Burnham), general jurisdiction. What traditional jurisdiction looks like today: Every state has a personal jurisdiction over persons within its territory o That means if the defendant is present in the forum state when served with process, then he will be subject to personal jurisdiction o It does not matter whether the defendant is a resident or not o Nor does it matter how long the defendant has been or intended to be in the state when he was served with process. See Burnham Power over the person or their property o The power theory is a way of understanding the traditional theories of personal jurisdiction that depend on the exercise of a state’s power over a person ACTUALLY in the state ▪ Or when someone consents via waiver to the submission of the power of -10- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- the state In personam Jurisdiction (prescense/served; domicile; consent) Is the power of a court to enter a money judgment against the defendant; the judgement may, if necessary, be satisfied by eseizing and liquidating the defendant’s assets. An in personam judgment is said to follow the defendant, meaning that it must be given “full faith and credit” and enforced by any state in which the defendant or his assets are found. The court in Burnham v. Superior Court of California (1990) affirmed that in-personam jurisdiction in the form of tag jurisdiction persists Scalia: tag jurisdiction is consistent with due process requirement in the Minimum Contacts Analysis “because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that defines the due process standard of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” NOTE: If a plaintiff cannot get a court to exercise in personam jurisdiction over a defendant, they still might exercise personal jurisdiction on a theory of in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction Both in rem and quasi in rem allow a court to exercise personal jurisdiction on the basis of the defendant’s PROPERTY in the forum state In rem Jurisdiction (attachment of land) Is the power of a court to act with regard to property (such as real estate) within its borders (e.g. action to determine title). - Unlike an in personam judgement, it does not create an obligation on the defendant’s part to pay money to the plaintiff. - Typically involve actions against property, such as condemnation, confiscation, forfeiture, distribution of an estate, or eminent domain - In rem jurisdiction is constitutional so long as the property is located within the state and was not brought there by fraud or trick - The property itself is in controversy - Replaced with minimum contacts?? Unclear. See Shaffer v. Heitner (1977). Quasi in rem Jurisdiction (not much of a thing anymore)(attachment of movable property) Is based on the presence of the defendant’s property (either real or personal) within the forum state, permitting the court to enter a judgment for an amount of money not to exceed the value of the property, and which may be satisfied from a forced sale of the property. Is a hybrid of the other two forms of adjudicatory power Unlike rem jurisdiction, the claim for relief in a quasi in rem action is unrelated to the property, which merely serves as the basis for jurisdiction. ○ The named property has be within the court’s jurisdiction, even if the court does not have in personam jurisdiction -11- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- ○ But unlike in rem, quasi in rem only ajduciates the right ot he named property as between the parties and the to the suit Excellent way to go about structuring my Specific Jurisdiction analysis Specific Jurisdiction Specific jurisdiction = Exercising jurisdiction over a plaintiff not physically present in the state. Must be about a claim/transaction that arose from (has an nexus with) the state. Minimum Contacts Theory (Modern Doctrine) Pennoyer v. Neff resulted in traditional conception of jurisdiction that required the physical presence of the defendant or his property within the adjudicating state. Since, this has proved too confining when trying to offer judicial forum to residents who had claims against nonresidents. Big shift in personal jurisdiction doctrine! Starts to overturn power theory. Introduced by International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945) and modified/interpreted further by later cases. o Example: McGee v. International Life (1957) (California life insurance contract case—contract establishes minimum contact) International Shoe’s Version of Minimum Contacts Test does not apply if defendant is present in the state o Under International Shoe, the question is not -- was the defendant located in Washington State? -12- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- Specific personal jurisdiction may be established by minimum contacts of a defendant with the state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. o Note: do not confuse International Shoe Standard with general personal jurisdiction! Just applies to specific jurisdiction. o Have to get personal jurisdiction over every claim (relevancy), have to satisfy joinder and personal jurisdiction over every claim. The shift from power to "minimum contacts" redefines meaning of "presence" -- not physical location, about relationship of defendant with the state. o A shift in understanding in the relationship between the government and the individual!! From government controlling geography to government creating benefits/obligations. Policy Rationale behind International Shoe: When a corporation or party exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws but also accepts the obligation of liability related to those activities within the state International Shoe uses the word reasonable, but it evolves a very specific meaning, especially in Asahi PJ Analysis Note: Minimum contact analysis focuses on the time when the defendant acted, not the time of the lawsuit FULL SPECIFIC PERSONAL JURISDICTION TEST under MINIMUM CONTACTS: A test to answer: Does asserting personal jurisdiction satisfy due process? -13- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- 1. Is there a forum selection clause? 2. Do the defendant’s activities satisfy the long arm statute? 3. Has the defendant engaged in conduct directed at the forum state (purposeful availment)? (WWV) 4. Does the dispute arise out of or relate to that conduct (nexus) (Bristol Myers Squibb, Ford) 5. Is the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable, based on the reasonableness factors stated in WWV and applied in Asahi? a. Burden on defendant b. Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief c. Interest of forum state in adjudicating the lawsuit d. Interstate judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of controversies e. Interest of states in furthering substantive social policies (e.g. accountability for malfunctioning products, product liability) Tips for Personal Jurisdiction Analysis The substantive law (nature of the claim) is important because the activities by which the defendant has purposefully availed itself must be related to the claim itself. After figuring out purposeful availment ask: is personal jurisdiction reasonable? Do an initial eyeball to figure out which component of PJ analysis will be dispositive. Is it minimum contacts? Reasonableness? And then spend most of the time in the exam answer/brief arguing that point. o E.g. if reasonableness is straightforward, as it most often is, list it as a factor (as you have to satisfy the analysis) but don't spend much time discussing it. On an exam: decide up front which element is dispositive and focus your time on that. -14- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- Long-Arm Statutes (statutory requirement) McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. - High water mark of specific jurisdiction The first step in personal jurisdiction analysis process! Check the state’s long arm statute. Some long-arm statutes require a business in the state to register and submit to jurisdiction. Does that satisfy consent and/or constitute general jurisdiction? Does that basis for jurisdiction satisfy due process (given that consent is coerced, kind of)? Unclear—analyze in light of forum selection clause (consent) or other due process analysis. o In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad (2022), SCOTUS upheld a Pennsylvania law allowing companies to be sued there if they register to do business in the state, even if the lawsuit has no direct connection to Pennsylvania ▪ This ruling reconciles the 1917 Pennsylvania Fire precedent, which allowed jurisdiction based on registration, with the 1945 International Shoe decision, which established jurisdiction based on a corporation’s activities within a state. The Court emphasized that Pennsylvania Fire permits jurisdiction through consent, while International Shoe applies when no such consent exists, creating parallel paths for asserting jurisdiction. o See: Forum Selection Clause Rule 4(k) governs -15- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- A court must be authorized by appropriate legislation to assert jurisdiction in order for minimum contacts analysis to be used → the legislature of each state grants the power to its courts to exercise personal jurisdiction, through jurisdictional statutes o A long arm statute is a state law allowing the state’s court’s to exercise jurisdiction over out of state or nonresident defendants For the court to exercise jurisdiction, plaintiff’s claim must arise from an act enumerated in the state’s long arm jurisdiction statute Plaintiff’s claim must arise from the activity of the defendant that fits within an enumerated category in the statute o Must evaluate whether the application of the statute reaches beyond constitutional constraints → due process o If there’s no dispute with the long-arm statute or the long-arm statute is only so far as due process then you don’t have to spend much time on the time long-arm statute ▪ Otherwise, you have to make sure each element complies with a section of the enumerated statute → lists specific types of contact with the forum state that triggers personal jurisdiction ▪ Courts are free to grant their courts the power to exercise personal jurisdiction to the limits of the due process clause → grants the courts full scope of personal jurisdiction not inconsistent with the Constitution of the state or the US (will address constitutional requirements later) If there’s no long arm statute there’s no personal jurisdiction If there’s a long arm statute, you look to what type of jurisdiction applies Federal court jurisdiction over state claims is constrained by FRCP 4(k)(1)(A), which incorporates local state long-arm statutes not constrained by the Constitution this means that a federal district court and a state court have the same specific personal jurisdiction over state claims pursuant to the state long-arm statute The exceptions in FRCP 4(k)(1)(B)-(C) and 4(k)(2) expand the federal court’s personal jurisdiction beyond what the state long-arm statute would allow in certain specific situations ○ “Bulge Rule” in 4(k)(1)(B) → allows federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over parties joined under certain rules if they are served within 100 miles of the courthouse, even if they are outside the state. ○ 4(k)(1)(C) → provides for nationwide service when authorized by a federal statute. EX: an interpleader action under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 would implicate this provision Son Language: Allows for federal personal jurisdiction if a federal statute specifically authorizes it. ○ 4(k)(2) → extends federal power to its outermost constitutional; limitis in federal question cases (28 U.S.C. § 1331) that meet certain requirements -16- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- Son language: Known as the "federal long-arm statute," this applies in cases involving federal claims where the defendant has sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole but not with any particular state. 3 elements are required for the exercise of jurisdiction under 4(k)(2): (1) The claim must arise under federal law; (2) The defendant must be beyond the jurisdictional reach of any state court; AND (3) The exercise of jurisdiction must not violate the defendant’s rights under the Constitution, meaning that even though defendant’s contacts are so scattered that no one state has jurisdiction, there are sufficient aggregate contacts with the United States as a whole to satisfy the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause (a) NOTE: Although SCOTUS has not weighed in, the Circuit Courts have held that the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires the same minimum-contacts analysis as under the 14th A (See Lewis v. MutondI) FRCP Rule 4(k) Territorial Limits of Effective Service: (1) In General. Serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant: (A) who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located; (B) who is a party joined under Rule 14 or 19 and is served within a judicial district of the United States and not more than 100 miles from where the summons was issued; or (C) when authorized by a federal statute. (2) Federal Claim Outside State-Court Jurisdiction. For a claim that arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if: (A) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction; and (B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws. Other Background on Long-Arm Statutes History: enacted following International Shoe Some statutes just say "we authorize personal jurisdiction to an extent consistent with due process." -- very common! When a long arm statute appears to conflict with due process, and not extend jurisdiction to the limits of due process, courts rely on constitutional avoidance, interpret the statute so that it aligns with due process--the two analyses, then (1.- is personal jurisdiction okay by the long arm statute, 2 - is personal jurisdiction okay by due process) are basically one. (e.g. in Oklahoma) -17- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- Purposeful Availment Defendant must purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws, to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction (Hanson v. Denckla). o In Hanson v. Denckla (1958), the court denied that a Florida state court had jurisdiction over a trust set up in Delaware by the grantor’s “unilateral activity” of moving to Florida because, when creating the trust, she did not purposefully avail herself of the laws of Florida. After all, the trust was in Delaware! Foreseeability that a product might find its way into the forum state is not enough to demonstrate "purposeful availment." (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.) Additional conduct of the defendant may indicate an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum State. Asahi (1987). Examples from Asahi below: o Design the product for the market o Advertise in the forum State o Establish channels for providing regular advice to customers there o Market the product through a distributor who agrees to serve as the sales agent in the forum State Nexus Claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s in-state activities. Bristol Myers Squibb v. Superior Court. Plaintiff can’t be the only link between the defendant and the forum o There must be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum state. o In Bristol Myers Squibb v. Superior Court (2017), the CA state court has no personal jurisdiction over nonresidents because their cause of action arose out of out-of-state activities--the drug was prescribed to, purchased by, consumed by them in other states. ▪ In Bristol Myers Squibb, too many of the class action claims had nothing to do with California. Product wasn’t purchased in California, injury wasn’t incurred in California. NOTE: Doesn’t necessarily apply to federal court! Consider policy for/against application in federal court. o In Walden, the underlying controversy occurred in Georgia, not Nevada. The plaintiff’s domicile was the only connection to Nevada. Bristol Myers Squibb and Ford Motor Co. coexist, even though BMS cuts against nexus and Ford Motor Co. cuts in favor of it A “nexus” of connection is sufficient to establish “arise out of” or “relate to.” In Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021), Ford did substantial business in the forum states; their business could have influenced the plaintiff’s decision to buy the vehicle. Ford’s systematic service of the Montana and Minnesota market established a strong relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. o Even though Ford’s advertising in Montana did not directly cause the accident, that was enough to show a nexus. -18- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- o Proof of causation--i.e., proof that the plaintiff ’s claim came about because of the defendant’s in-state conduct--is not always required. Reasonableness It must be reasonable to for a defendant to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction. Reasonableness factors include: 1. The burden on the defendant, the primary concern 2. The forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute 3. The plaintiff's interests in obtaining convenient and effective relief, at least when that interest is not adequately protected by the plaintiff’s power to choose the forum 4. The interstate judicial system's interest in efficient resolution of controversies 5. The shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies Above factors were laid out in World-Wide Volkswagen, applied in Asahi. Cases: - Justice Brennan drew a different conclusion from the reasonableness test in WW Volkswagen (1980). - The plurality opinion in Asahi (1987) found it unreasonable for a California court to assert jurisdiction over an indemnification dispute between a Taiwanese manufacturer and a Japanese assembler. Products Liability Purposeful Availment For products liability: Foreseeability that a product will arrive in another state in the “stream of commerce” is not enough—there must be an expectation (note: showing intent would help prove!) o Rationale: don’t want to make a local CA tire manufacturer defend blowout in PA, for example o In World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980), Volkswagen and Audi were subject to jurisdiction of Oklahoma because they had dealerships and advertised in the state, but the local distributor, Seaway, was not. Even though Seaway benefited financially from the plaintiff’s purchase and use of the vehicle, the isolated occurrence of the plaintiff’s unilateral activity does not establish minimum contacts. o In Asahi Metal Industry Co. Ltd., v. Superior Court (1987), the plurality opinion found no purposeful availment by Asahi of the state’s market. The court examined assets/employees in the state; targeted advertisement or special design; employing/controlling distributors in the state; channels for providing regular advice to customers. o In J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. V. Nicastro (2011), the Court found no activities of the UK company in NJ beyond the sale of a single machine. A company needs to target a specific state to submit to its jurisdiction – generally targeting the U.S. is not enough. -19- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- ▪ “At no time did petitioner engage in any activities in New Jersey that reveal an intent to invoke or benefit from the protection of its laws.” o Doctrinal Disagreement! [Summary of Differences: Kennedy in Nicastro and O’Connor in Asahi Pluralities: Emphasize defendant’s intent to target the forum state and limit personal jurisdiction based on fairness to defendants, setting a high bar for jurisdiction VERSUS Breyer’s Narrow View in Nicastro: Advocates a cautious approach, seeing isolated incidents as insufficient for jurisdiction without expanding the broader standard VERSUS Ginsburg Dissent and Breyer’s View in Asahi: Favor a lower threshold for establishing jurisdiction, allowing the “stream of commerce” theory to hold companies accountable if their products foreseeably reach the forum state.] ▪ Kennedy Plurality in Nicastro: key question is: “do the defendant's activities manifest an intention to submit to the power of a sovereign?” High bar for personal jurisdiction to be satisfied. (policy grounds/result: makes it harder to bring product liability cases) ▪ O’Connor Plurality in Asahi: reasonableness factors, objective intent evaluation of purposeful availment. ▪ Policy grounds: fairness to defendants, judicial efficiency? o VS. ▪ Breyer Concurrence in Nicastro (narrowest grounds for understanding the case—important): this case can be resolved without raising the bar for PJ. A single isolated sale is insufficient to constitute submitting to jurisdiction. ▪ Ginsburg Dissent in Nicastro: reasonableness standard should be applied; it is reasonable for McIntyre to have to defend. ▪ Breyer Concurrence in Asahi: “Placing a product into stream of commerce with awareness of destination is enough” ▪ Policy grounds: expanding jurisdiction to allow cases to be brought. Minimum Contacts NOT satisfied by: o Unilateral activity by plaintiff bringing the product into the state. o Indirect income from use of product in the state—or even marginal revenues from a distributor, for example Contracts Purposeful Availment Contract alone insufficient to establish minimum contacts Terms of contract may reveal minimum contacts (e.g. forum selection clause Prior negotiations or continuing relationships and obligations may establish minimum contacts. Burger King (1985). o Burger King “sliding scale:” a strong showing of reasonableness could push the Court in favor of purposeful availment or vice versa Easy to confuse Carnival Cruise Lines (1991) here! But Carnival Cruise Lines was a personal injury suit that hinged on a forum selection clause, NOT a contract claim. -20- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- Intentional Torts Purposeful Availment Intentional torts (Intentional wrongful act causing harm) include: o Battery o Assault o False imprisonment o Intentional infliction of emotional distress o Fraud o Defamation o Invasion of privacy o Trespass o Conversion Libel: in Calder v. Jones (1984), CA court has jurisdiction because California is the “focal point” of both the story and the harm suffered. o Reputational injury would not have occurred but for publication and circulation in California. o The defendants expressly aimed intentional, allegedly tortious statement at California (knew large circulation would have impact) In Walden v. Fiore (2014), Nevada does NOT have personal jurisdiction because the Georgia cops’ conduct had nothing to do with Nevada; just because they knew of the plaintiff’s ties to Nevada doesn’t mean their conduct was related to Nevada. o Test for Intentional Torts that arose out of Walden v. Fiore: Has defendant’s conduct connected him to forum state in a meaningful way? ▪ Mere injury to the forum resident is not sufficient ▪ Personal knowledge of plaintiff’s strong forum connections is not enough. ▪ Exercise of jurisdiction must be based on intentional conduct by the defendant that creates the necessary contacts with the forum. The defendant’s conduct has to connect to the forum state, not just to the plaintiff who lives there. ▪ None of the petitioner’s challenged conduct had anything to do with Nevada. -21- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- Note: What about PJ in Class Actions and MDLs? In Class Actions: PJ questions resolved through adequate representation inquiries. In MDL - PJ questions resolved because, although the proceedings are consolidated, final judgment is reserved for the original jurisdictions. *E-Commerce This analysis can be applied to any type of claims above… Zippo Sliding Scale: “the likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet.” ALS Cyberspace Test cited in Rao: a state may exercise jurisdiction over an absent defendant when that person 1) directs electronic activity into the state 2) with the manifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the state, and 3) that activity creates, in a person within the state, a potential cause of action cognizable in the state’s courts. The law in this area is tricky and not really up to date with how the internet works. In Rao v. Era Alaska Airlines (2014), Court concludes that: Defendant must "deliberately direct its activities into the state" to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction. -22- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- All-Purpose Jurisdiction (i.e. General Jurisdiction) General jurisdiction = power over all claims against a corporation, whether related to activities within the forum state or not. A corporation can be sued for any reason if it is at home in the state. Domicile Jurisdiction = individual version of general jurisdiction. Time frame for determining general jurisdiction is when the case is filed, not when the claim arose!! Jurisdiction by Individual’s Domicile: domiciled state or tag jurisdiction or consent Domicile = "true fixed home and principal establishment" with intent to remain indefinitely o Once established, domicile is presumed to continue unless there is evidence that it has changed. Test: (1) residence in new domicile and (2) intent to remain there indefinitely. o FOR EXAM: By the totality of the circumstances, their domicile is in …. ▪ Indicators of objective intent for purposes of domicile test include: driver’s license, receipt of mail, payment of taxes, location of property, bank records, voting registration. Subjective statement of intent can also support! o See: Ceglia v. Zuckerberg (2011), in which Zuckerberg removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction: he lives in California, not New York (where Ceglia lives). Proved intent with multiple indicators. BUT physical presence alone for purpose of serving summons/complaint can be enough! “Tag jurisdiction” (Burnham v. Superior Court of California (1990)) o Tag jurisdiction = You have to accept personal jurisdiction in a state if you were merely physically present in a state and served there, no matter how brief the visit was. General Jurisdiction (Corporation): “at home forums” include: State of incorporation OR Principal place of business – “Nerve Center” (Hertz v. Friend) o Supreme Court adopts Nerve Center Test (rejecting “center of gravity” test) in Hertz Co. v. Friend, 2010. o More important where the "brains" (executives, high level officers, direct control) are than where the majority of business is o E.g. Burger King -- center of gravity all over the country, but HQ in Florida = that is where it has jurisdiction o The place where corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities o Rationale: uniformity and administrative simplicity o Company’s activities in a state must be “so continuous and systematic” so as to render them “essentially at home” in the forum state. ▪ See: Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014), where Argentinian residents sued German company (that did have a subsidiary in California) in California -23- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- fed district court over an occurrence that caused injury in Argentina. No jurisdiction because the company’s affiliation was not continuous and systematic enough. o NOTE: After the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler v. Bauman it's more clear that general jurisdiction will almost always be limited to the corporation’s state of incorporation and principal place of business, not necessarily a place where a corporation has a lot of stores or employees For unincorporated associations (e.g. law partnerships) are citizens of the states of all of their members. Exceptional cases: company's activities in a state are so substantial and of such a nature to render the corporation "at home in the state" (but we haven't really seen any example of this exception in practice. Court has not addressed what these exceptional cases might be since it articulated the “at home” test) Tag Jurisdiction? Jurisdiction by Property (i.e. is power theory in rem jurisdiction still a thing?) The holding of Shaffer v. Heitner (1977) (Delaware stock quasi in rem jurisdiction case) can be read either broadly or narrowly. - NARROW reading: owning intangible moveable property does not satisfy quasi in rem basis for personal jurisdiction. Basically the same as in personam. - As applied in this case: Delaware doesn’t have quasi in rem jurisdiction over someone’s “intangible movable property” – that is, stock – such that it can make judgmenets up to the value of that stock - This holding only continues to chip away at Power Theory. - BROAD reading: International Shoe minimum contacts line replaces power theory for all assertions of state-court jurisdiction, including in rem and quasi in rem. - This holding would get rid of power theory almost altogether. Jurisdiction by Consent: A defendant can voluntarily appear in court and thereby submit to jurisdiction. Forum Selection! See below. “Consent by Registration” o In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad (2022), SCOTUS ruled that a corporation's consent to jurisdiction through business registration in a state is valid, allowing lawsuits even when the case has no direct connection to that state. A defendant may also waive his challenge to personal jurisdiction Waiver occurs where the defendant acts in a way that is inconsistent with his argument that the forum lacks a basis for asserting personal jurisdiction over him o EX: where the defendant conducts discovery or attends and observers proceedings without waiving the objection *If you don’t have jurisdiction in federal court, you do in state court!* -24- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- Forum Selection Clauses Forum Selection Clause = “civil procedure by contracts.” An agreement supersedes personal jurisdiction analysis and replaces it with a contract. A fundamentally fair “forum-selection clause” may exclude states where a plaintiff wants to bring the suit. Carnival Cruise Line, Inc. v. Shute (1991). o Fundamental Fairness Test for forum selection clauses: ▪ Was there a bad faith motive? ▪ Did the agreement result from fraud or overreaching? ▪ Did the defendant fail to provide sufficient notice? In cases with a Forum Selection Clause, you need to look at “reasonableness” of the contract. BUT o Reasonableness analysis in contracts is very different from the "specific jurisdiction" analysis context--in the latter, you look at efficiency, convenience, etc. In the former, if it's in the contract, there's a high bar to finding that a contract clause that both parties agreed to is unreasonable. Note: general personal jurisdiction =/= general subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction "general" = jurisdiction over a defendant for any and all claims, no matter where those claims arose from Subject matter jurisdiction "general" = any type of claims, not anything to do with defendants Subject Matter Jurisdiction Subject Matter Jurisdiction = the power of a court to hear a case of a particular type or subject matter. For the purposes of this course, the question is usually: can this case be heard in federal court? Definitions Subject matter jurisdiction = type of claim that can be brought in fed court vs. state court Concurrent Jurisdiction = when either states or federal courts could hear a case (vs. Exclusive Jurisdiction) o State courts can hear federal claims Exclusive Jurisdiction = Usually when, by statute or constitution, a certain type of claim can only be heard by a federal court—e.g. patents, admiralty, copyright General Subject Matter Jurisdiction (subject matter context) = State Courts are courts of general jurisdiction, they can hear claim that isn't prohibited to them (i.e., exclusive to federal courts) o States also have specialized courts with exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters. For example, in New York, the Supreme Court has general jurisdiction and the Family Court has limited jurisdiction over certain matters involving minors. -25- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- Remember! If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action. To do otherwise would be unconstitutional. Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Root of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Constitution Art. 3 authorizes federal courts to hear certain categories of cases, but Congress must invest the courts with jurisdiction a) This was established in Cary v. Curtis (1845) 2) The Judicial Code (28 USC §§ 1331 and 1332) effectuates, narrows, and specifies what cases can be heard by federal courts. Two choices! a) Federal Question: Arising Under Constitution or Federal Laws i) Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule (Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley) b) Diversity + Sufficient Amount in Controversy 3) Everything else is “reserved to the States or the people” by the 10th Amendment – thus, state courts have general jurisdiction 10th A = “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Two requirements must be satisfied for federal subject matter jurisdiction: 1. The Constitution must confer the federal court with subject matter jurisdiction. It must be one of the nine categories identified in Article Ill, Section 2 that the federal district courts can hear. 2. Congress must authorize the federal courts to hear that type of case. It must pass a statute that also provides subject matter jurisdiction. ○ NOTE: Congress does not need to allow subject matter jurisdiction (they may though!) in any of the nine categories. Even when it does allow subject matter jurisdiction, it does not need to do so to the full extent that the Constitution allows. Note: writ of certiori has broader jurisdiction than original jurisdiction--that's why cases that don't seem like diversity or federal question jurisdiction can end up in the SC. U.S. Constitution Article III Section 2 Clause 1: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. -26- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- Note: The federal district courts (i.e. the trial level courts of the federal court systemt) have subject matter jurisdiction to hear 9 different types of cases (identified in Art II, §2 of the Con.) 28 U.S. Code § 1257(a): Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States. EXAM TIP: LOOK FOR A FEDERAL QUESTION FIRST, THEN LOOK TO DIVERSITY JURISDICTION. Federal Question Jurisdiction (category of federal subject matter jurisdiction) Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (28 U.S. Code § 1331). SCOTUS said that as long as there’s a federal law “ingredient” in a case, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear it, at least under the Con. (See Osborn v. Bank of the United States). However, the scope of constitutional authority (Article III) is broader than the statutory authority (28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332). Well Pleaded Complaint Rule: Original complaint must be based on federal law claims to satisfy federal questions subject matter jurisdiction. Can’t be predicted on actual counterclaims (txtbk pg 872), crossclaims, or affirmative defenses. ○ The federal courts dismissed Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley (1908) because the plaintiff only included federal law by alleging that the defendant would assert it as an affirmative defense. -27- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- ○ Exceptions to the Well Pleaded Complaint Rule: when state law claims “implicate significant federal issues” such that interpreting federal law is necessary to resolve the claim Common example: when a common law claim is based on a federal duty Note: there is no amount in controversy requirement for federal question jurisdiction (unlike diversity jurisdiction of $75K) Note: Unless Congress specifies otherwise, any claim over which the federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction can also be filed in state court (i.e., there is concurrent jurisdiction). 28 U.S. Code § 1331: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Why does federal question jurisdiction exist? Three arguments are usually offered for this provision: 1. the federal courts have relative expertise in federal law 2. the framers expected state courts to be hostile to federal rights 3. federal jurisdiction would insulate state courts from the consequences of unpopular decisions. ✔️ Hypos: ✔️ 1. Case brought as an employment discrimination claim, arising under Title VII 2. Case brought as a state tort claim alleging bad faith discharge, for firing her in violation of public policies, because she refused to engage in accounting practices that ❌ violate federal statutory accounting practices for federal contractors. 3. Case brought as a breach of contract claim, and company raises as a defense that company was acting pursuant to a federal statute barring employment of non-citizens ❌ who are undocumented. ❌ 4. Same facts but the case is brought as a declaratory judgment by Bloom and Morgan. 5. Case brought under breach of contract, but her position is funded by the federal government as a fellowship. Diversity Jurisdiction Federal courts also have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is between citizens of different states or citizens of a state and foreign citizens (except when a foreign citizen has permanent residence in the state). Note: there is no basis in the constitution between citizens of foreign countries. There has to be at least one party who is the citizen of the US and a citizen of a state. ○ EX: no diversity jurisdiction here: A Jordanian citizen sues a Greek citizen who has permanent resident immigration status in the US and lives in NY, for $100k under NY law When a US resident has dual citizenship (i.e. german and US citizenship), they are treated as a US resident -28- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- Citizenship is determined at the time the complaint or the amended complaint is filed Why does diversity jurisdiction exist? To encourage national lending! Courts as debt collectors/capital flow providers. "single most important thing" in development of the west and the south, so that creditors could feel confident that they could sue debtors in faraway locations in federal court. Makes it more likely for (northeastern) creditors to feel confident in loaning to debtors developing capital elsewhere. 28 U.S. Code § 1332(a): Complete Diversity Requirement All plaintiffs must be domiciled in a different state from all defendants (See Strawbridge v. Curtiss) Any shared citizenship across the "v." destroys complete diversity. o E.g., if the plaintiffs are from Massachusetts and Florida and the defendants are from RI, Vermont, and MA -- no complete diversity. None of the defendants can be from either FL or MA. o Policy: “state courts might favor, or be perceived as favoring, home state litigants” (Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.) Except for class action, for which statute says that only "minimal diversity" is required to establish federal jurisdiction o Minimal diversity = at least one plaintiff and at least one defendant are citizens of different states. Domicile o Corporation = both the state of incorporation AND the place of business (“nerve center”) (See Hertz Corp. v. Friend) ▪ Diversity jurisdiction is destroyed in either of these states ▪ Is there a difference between principal place of business and being headquartered? - should be the same, but go with the nerve center of a corporation!! (make sure headquarters is actually where the nerve center of a corporation is) If dealing with a multiple choice question and you see headquartered in X state (EX: A NY plaintiff files a $100,000 suit under NY law in the SDNY against a corporation incorporated in DE, doing business in PA, and headquartered in NY.) assume their isn’t diversity jurisdiction. In an essay state the “nerve center argument o Individual Domicile = The place where the person has their “true fixed home and principal establishment” and to which, whenever they are absent, they “have the intention to return (See for example of change in domicile Ceglia v. Zuckerberg) (see also: domicile for purpose of determining all-purpose personal jurisdiction) ▪ Presumption: Once established, domicile is presumed to continue absent evidence it has changed. ▪ Test for change in domicile: -29- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- (1) residence in a new domicile AND (2) the intention to remain their intentionally. o Unincorporated association = citizen of the states of each of its members (See Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.) ▪ Diversity jurisdiction is destroyed in any of these states Note: it doesn’t matter where the state claim arises under (i.e. which state law it is a claim under) for federal court. o EX: On a $100,000 claim arising under AZ state law, a NV plaintiff sues a NY defendant in AZ. Amount in Controversy Requirement More than $75,000 (that is, $75,001 or greater) claimed in good faith o Good faith = Doesn’t matter if less is recovered (See Mas. v. Perry which stated that federal jurisdiction is not lost retroactively b/c a judgement is ultimately entered for less than the jurisdictional minimum)! Only matters what the plaintiff claims in the pleading. Courts will take plaintiffs at their word unless it's really obvious (e.g. by statute) that they can't recover what they want. ▪ If less recovered, then “the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff.” Section 1332(b) ▪ “It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal” (St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.) ▪ Ex: in Hicks v. Leslie Feely Fine Arts, LLC and John Doe, the court ruled that they will not dismiss a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy if it cannot determine with legal certainty that the claimed damages amount to less than the required jurisdictional minimum. Can determine with legal certainty the amount of a non-unique item (i.e. a diamond which has a fair market value) (See Hicks v. Leslie Feely Fine Arts, LLC and John Doe) Aggregation okay…as long as there is an “anchor claim” of >$75,000 from one plaintiff against each defendant. These aggregated claims can be related or not (See FRCP 18) Aggregation to Get to $75,001 May aggregate different claims for different injuries. o May also aggregate different types of damages (punitive, compensatory, attorney’s fees) or unrelated claims o No aggregating damages for the same injury (no double counting) o Injunctive relief is translated into quantitative value. ▪ Different ways to do this, including weighing the value of the right that the plaintiff wants enforced... or the cost to defendant of enforcing ▪ Think situational here, EX: there’s no compliance cost to D for NOT cutting down a tree, but there is value of the tree to the P -30- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- Instances where you can’t aggregate: o Aggregating parties: A plaintiff may not join parties to satisfy amount in controversy requirement (i.e. May not aggregate plaintiffs’ claimed relief) o Plaintiff suing on behalf of a group: Court will divide the amount the plaintiffs claim by the number of persons affected or claiming relief. Only one plaintiff needs to meet the amount in controversy requirement—once that is met, other plaintiffs with related claims may freely join (as long as they don’t destroy complete diversity) o Another form of anchor claim o For exam: In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., the court held that the supplemental jurisdiction statute permits the exercise of diversity jurisdiction even where some plaintiffs fail to satisfy the minimum amount in controversy, as long as (1) at least one of the plaintiff does meet it, (2) complete diversity exists among all parties, and (3) all the claims are part of the same case or controversy. BUT! Each defendant must have a claim against them that exceeds $75,000. o Rule for plaintiffs and defendants is NOT the same!! o On an exam, if joint and several liability isn’t clear, just assume one position and state your assumption EX: "Mickey sues Minnie and Donald, claiming that one or the other or both of them caused the car accident, resulting in 100k of damages" o This is okay too (in a state that allows contribution among joint tortfeasors) because there is a singular amount in controversy between the parties that is >75,000 28 U.S. Code § 1332(b): Except when express provision therefor is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where the plaintiff who files the case originally in the Federal courts is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $75,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of interest and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff Class Actions and “Minimal Diversity” A class action may be filed in or removed to federal court so long as (1) the total amount in controversy for the entire class is at least $5 Million AND (2) the case meets a minimal diversity requirement – at least one P is a citizen of a different state than any D Cases that are exempt from the CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) o The court has held that CAFA’s removal provision does not apply to 3rd-party Ds who are the subject of counterclaims o 28 U.S. Code § 1332(d)(4): A district court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action... o The “local controversy exception” of CAFA (§ 1332 (d)(4)(A)) limits the District Court’s removal jurisdiction in cases where: -31- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- 1. More than two-thirds of the class are citizens of the original forum state 2. At least 1 defendant is a citizen of the forum state 3. Principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or any related conduct of each defendant were incurred in the forum State and 4. No other action filed during the preceding 3-year period asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants OR o “Home state exception” providing that the District Court “shall decline to exercise jurisdiction” when “two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed P classes in the aggregate, and the primary Ds, are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed.” (§ 1332(d)(4)(B)) o Federal courts have discretion to remand cases to state court under factors like: ▪ “Do the claims assert involve matters of national interest" "are the claims state law or federal law" "do the number of citizens in one state outweigh number of citizens outside the state" Class action fairness act was an attempt by congress to cut back on class actions that are large controversies involving people from multiple states. o Class actions rules in state are more favorable than in federal Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act Authorizes federal jurisdiction over mass tort cases arising from a single accident where: 1. At least 75 people killed 2. Minimal diversity is satisfied 3. Defendants resides in different state from where a substantial part of the accident took place 4. Any 2 defendants are from different states or substantial parts of the accident took place in different states UNLESS 1. The substantial majority of plaintiffs are citizens of same state as primary defendants and 2. Claims will be governed primarily by that state’s laws 28 U.S. Code § 1332(d): (2) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which— (a) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant; (b) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a State; or (c) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State and any defendant is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state. -32- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- (3) A district court may, in the interests of justice and looking at the totality of the circumstances, decline to exercise jurisdiction under paragraph (2) over a class action in which greater than one-third but less than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed based on consideration of— (a) whether the claims asserted involve matters of national or interstate interest; (b) whether the claims asserted will be governed by laws of the State in which the action was originally filed or by the laws of other States; (c) whether the class action has been pleaded in a manner that seeks to avoid Federal jurisdiction; (d) whether the action was brought in a forum with a distinct nexus with the class members, the alleged harm, or the defendants; (e) whether the number of citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed in all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is substantially larger than the number of citizens from any other State, and the citizenship of the other members of the proposed class is dispersed among a substantial number of States; and (f) whether, during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class action, 1 or more other class actions asserting the same or similar claims on behalf of the same or other persons have been filed. Supplemental Jurisdiction (pendent jurisdiction) NOTE FOR EXAM: Under any of the joinder rules for federal jurisdiction, I would say does the court have subject matter jurisdiction over this? Answer could be —> federal question, diversity, supplemental. Only need to touch supplemental jurisdiction if the joinder doesn’t fall under federal question or diversity jurisdiction While rule 18 exists, SM jurisdiction is the big wall that blocks you, need a common nucleus of operative facts (Gibbs). SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN EXAM. “While rule 18 allows it, it still must meet the standard under SM matter jurisdiction” Supplemental jurisdiction is one basis for subject matter jurisdiction Supplemental jurisdiction provides a mechanism to get joined claims and parties into federal court in cases where the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over some, but not all, of the claims or parties o Encompasses claims that do not fall within the federal question or diversity categories but are closely connected to such claims already being entertained by the court – 28 U.S.C. §1367 Court must have jurisdiction over each of the claims in a lawsuit, so this rule helps to meet this requirement Shoehorn as many claims as possible into one lawsuit, even if some of the claims don’t have an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction United Mine Workers v. Gibbs o In Gibbs, the Court considered whether a federal court may hear a case involving nondiverse parties and federal and state law claims if the federal and state law -33- -Civ Pro FRCP Notes- claims arise from the same set of facts or circumstances ▪ In the case at bar, the federal claim was brought under the Labor Management Relations Act ▪ The state law claim was a breach of contract claim o The Gibbs Court held that if a plaintiff asserts a proper claim based on federal law, diversity, or some other federal ground, the federal court has the constitutional power to hear state law claims arising out of the “common nucleus of operative facts” ▪ In other words, Article III of the Constitution grants jurisdiction over entire “cases,” not just over particular claims or issues in a case o Importantly, the Court concluded that federal courts have the power to hear all claims that arise from the same nucleus of facts as the jurisdictionally proper claim, but the Court did not require federal courts to entertain related claims o Congress codified Gibbs in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and (c) o In this case, the term “supplemental jurisdiction” had not been coined yet, so the court called it pendent jurisdiction Applying Gibbs: A Two-Step Analysis 1. Does a court have the power to hear the related claim because it is part of the same case? ▪ Does the related claim arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts from the federal claim? 2. Does it make sense for the court to exercise jurisdiction? ▪ In answering this question, the court weighs the following factors: Judicial efficiency Whether state law predominates Whether the federal court would be required to decide sensitive or novel issues of state law Whether hearing the claims together might confuse a jury Whether the federal issue

Civ Pro (FRCP) Notes PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue