Civ Pro Outline (2) PDF

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION What is Subject Matter Jurisdiction? ➔ Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) is _power of the court___ given the nature (or subject matter) of the dispute. When a court is said to have SMJ, they are also sometimes said to have _original jurisdiction___ over...

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION What is Subject Matter Jurisdiction? ➔ Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) is _power of the court___ given the nature (or subject matter) of the dispute. When a court is said to have SMJ, they are also sometimes said to have _original jurisdiction___ over that particular case. ➔ Note: Every court must have SMJ before they can hear a case, but in the context of ‘Civil Procedure’, we are typically talking about the power of a federal__court__ to hear a particular case or dispute. SO, here we are talking about WHY a particular case is being heard in federal court as opposed to state court. SMJ in State Court v. Federal Court State Courts Federal Courts ➔ Broad subject matter jurisdiction, ➔ Very narrow subject matter can usually hear any kind of case jurisdiction ➔ Subject matter jurisdiction except for ➔ In contrast to state courts, federal very specific exceptions courts can only hear cases that statute allows (Article III) So, we know that almost all cases can be heard by the state courts… What we are concerned with in Civil Procedure is whether the case can also be heard by a federal court. If this is the case, the state and federal court are said to have __concurrent jurisdiction__. BIG QUESTION: What cases do federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over? Article III section 2 of the Constitution outlines 9 instances where a federal court has original subject matter jurisdiction. However, we are only focusing on two! 1. (28usc 1331) federal question jurisdiction 2. Diversity jurisdiction 28usc 1333 DIVERSITY JURISDICTION What is diversity jurisdiction? Controversies between diff citizen between diff states with an amount of controversy req with 75k Where does the authority to hear cases with diversity come from? ➔ 28 U.S.C §1332: the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions [when two requirements are met]:  1. 2. First Requirement: Amount in Controversy To meet this threshold, there needs to be at least __1__ plaintiff suing for an amount greater than $75,000 against a _single___ defendant. Rule: The amount P is suing for is based on _good faith ___ and __reasonableness__. Here, the amount they sued for was grossly _unreasonable___ given their allegations, so the amount in controversy is not satisfied. o Diefenthal v. C.A.B.- Ps bought plane tickets and requested seats in smoking section, which was granted. After boarding the plane, Ps were told they would need to sit in non-smoking section. Ps sued alleging the flight attendant humiliated them. Ps complaint was missing any allegations of specific physical or emotional damages in support of their damages claims. But, Remember: Aggregate Principal! ➔ The claims in the complaint can be _aggregated___ to see whether they get over $75,000. If the claims of __how many plaintiffs__ adds up to more than 75K against a single defendant, the requirement is satisfied. Example: Is the amount in controversy satisfied? Yes that is satisfied Second Requirement: Diversity What is meant by diversity? Citizens from different states How do we know what state someone is a citizen of? This is done by the domicile test Rule: A person is a citizen of the state that they are _domicile___ in. Gordon v. Steele (AKA the Legally Blonde case)- P is bringing a malpractice claim against doctors in PA district court. The doctor’s (Ds) are citizens of PA. Plaintiff lived in PA, but has moved to ID for school. The Ds move to dismiss the case for lack of SMJ because there is no diversity jurisdiction. - This case also gives us a test for domicile: domicile equals residency and intent to remain indefinitely in other words, look for the most recent time that the two following things coincided: 1. Last place they were a resident of 2. There intent to remain there Rule: In determining intent to remain, consider the _totality (7 factors in powerpoint)___, including: where they pay taxes, where they own real property, where they are registered to vote, their drivers license, local organization memberships, where they work, and location of bank funds). - Molokotos-Liederman v. Molokotos- P brought an action in federal court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. There was a question about whether the P was domiciled in D.C. or Switzerland. If she was domiciled in Switzerland there would have been no diversity jurisdiction to bring this claim in federal court. The court held that she was still domiciled in DC because they were convinced that she never intended to remain indefinitely in Switzerland. Remember, we also need COMPLETE DIVERSITY - Complete diversity means that none of the _plaintiffs___ can be citizens of the same state as any of the __defendants__ Other Things to Note: You can only have __1__ domicile at a time. Until you get a new one, you are still domiciled in the old one. Citizenship is measured from when the complaint is filed (the day the suit was filed) Now, what about Corporations? Unlike individual persons, corporations can potentially be a domiciled or a citizen of _2 states___. A corporation is a citizen of the state __incorporated__ AND the state where their _headquartered_(nerve center)__. Examples: Starbucks is incorporated in Washington and also has its headquarters in Washington, so Starbucks is only a citizen of Washington. Walmart is incorporated in Delaware, but has its principal place of business in Arkansas, so Walmart is a citizen of both Delaware and Arkansas. Note: If the business is unincorporated, look to _where the citizenship of all its members are___. HYPOS How to Approach a question? I - Issue What is the call of the question? What issue are you being asked to decide? Re-state the issue as though the person reading it has never read the question. R - Rule What is the law surrounding this issue? (i.e if it is a SMJ question, you would want to state what SMJ is and what needs to be shown to prove it). A - Analysis Apply the law/rule you just started to your particular set of facts. C - Conclusion ANSWER THE CALL OF THE QUESTION 1. Is there diversity jurisdiction in the following cases? 1. Stephanie (NY) sues Amanda (NJ) in the SDNY for $70,000 for personal injuries suffered in a car accident and $15,000 for damages to her car in the same accident. I- Is there diversity jurisdiction in the following cases? R- diversity jurisdiction is when plaintiff and defendants are from two diff states and there is amount of controversy of at least 75k A- There is diversity jurisdiction because the amount of controversy is over the 75k threshold. C- There is diversity jurisdiction 2. Stephanie (NY) sues Amanda (NJ) in the SDNY for $60,000 for damages suffered in an accident. In the same action, Dean Anderson (NJ), who was a passenger in Stephanie’s car, sues Amanda for $25,000.  I- Is there diversity jurisdiction in the following cases? R- diversity jurisdiction is when plaintiff and defendants are from two diff states and there is amount of controversy of at least 75k A- There is not diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff and defendant are from the same state. C- There is not diversity jurisdiction. 2. Morgan (NJ) collides with Henry (NY) as she is speeding to Pace to make it to Sales on time. Henry suffers a broken arm and experiences severe anxiety after the accident. Henry gets a job at an estates firm in NJ after graduation. After moving to NJ, Henry files an action against Morgan in NJ Federal Court asserting a claim for negligence in the amount of $80,000. Morgan moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. What Result? I- Is there diversity jurisdiction in the following cases? R- diversity jurisdiction A- diversity is determined when the complaint is filed C- There is not diversity jurisdiction 3. Sophie, a citizen of Massachusetts, accepts a wonderful new job in Miami, Florida and decides to move to Ft. Lauderdale. While driving down to Florida, she gets into a car accident in Georgia with Mikaila, a citizen of Florida. While stuck in the hospital in Georgia, Sophie sues Mikaila in Florida federal court for $100,000. Mikaila moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that Sophie should be treated as a citizen of Florida. Will Mikaila succeed? I- will M succeed on a motion to dismiss. R- diversity jurisdiction is when plaintiff and defendants are from two diff states and there is amount of controversy of at least 75k A- M Is still a domicile of MA, she is in the process of moving C- There is diversity jurisdiction, and there is no motion to dismiss 4. Alissa has lived in Massachusetts her entire life and has a home there. In 2005, she bought a vacation home in Miami Beach that she stays in during the summers but otherwise still lives in Massachusetts. Can she sue Debbie (a Florida citizen) in federal court on a state-law negligence claim? I- Can she sue Debbie (a Florida citizen) in federal court on a state-law negligence claim? R- diversity jurisdiction is when plaintiff and defendants are from two diff states and there is amount of controversy of at least 75k  A- can bring it in federal court because of the different domiciles C- 5. Madison (citizen of Florida) gets into a bar fight in Miami with Julia (citizen or subject of France). Madison files suit against Julia in the Southern District of Florida for $100,000. Is there subject-matter jurisdiction? There is diversity jurisdiction 6. Peter (citizen of Arkansas) enters into a contract with Mall-Mart, Inc. a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Arkansas. May Peter sue Mall-Mart in federal court for breach of contract? SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION CON’T Remember BIG QUESTION: What cases do federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over? Article III section 2 of the Constitution outlines 9 instances where a federal court has original subject matter jurisdiction. However, we are only focusing on two! 1. Diversity jurisdiction 2. Federal question jurisdiction FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION What is Federal Question Jurisdiction? Is the power of the fed court to hear cases related to fed law Where does this authority come from? - Art. III § 2 says that federal courts can hear cases “arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.” SO, this gives Congress the authority to create Federal Question Jurisdiction. - THEN, Congress acted on that authority and passed __1331__ which enabled Federal Question Jurisdiction for lower federal courts. So, there is ONE requirement to satisfy federal question jurisdiction: 1. The initial complaint must arise under federal law What do we mean by ‘federal law’? - when congress is passing legislation this is fed law How do we know if a claim is arising under federal law?  · First thing to note is that Art. III § 2 is much broader than § 1331. The Constitution created the ceiling and Congress narrowed it with § 1331. Under § 1331, the federal aspect of a case must be in the ___plaintiffs_ case to bring the case in federal court. · This case gives us the “__well pleaded complaint rule__,” which holds that a claim arises under federal law when the federal issue in the case appears on the face of the complaint itself. (if you look at the complaint, at least one claim has to be a federal law claim). o Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Motley: Ps were given free passes for a train after injury in a train collision by D. After they agreed to this, Congress passed a law stating “no free transportation” & the train no longer gave Ps passes. P’s brought suit against D’s in federal court looking for specific performance of their agreement. On appeal, the court held that Ps’ claim was a contract issue and not a federal question. In this case, federal law is only in the complaint because the Plaintiff anticipates that the railroad will raise a defense based on federal law. That is not enough for FQJ. Federal Question Jurisdiction How To 1. Look at each of the _claims___ that the plaintiff is alleging. (is it a breach of contract? A tort? Negligence? Discrimination? Copyright law?) 2. Apply the well-pleaded complaint rule ○ Ask: is the federal issue on the face of the complaint ○ Another way to think about it is to apply the Justice Holmes Test: Look at the law that “__creates the cause of action__.” If it is a federal law, you have FQJ. If not, you don’t. 3. If it failed the well-pleaded complaint rule, you don’t have Federal Question Jurisdiction! ○ One exception is laid out in the Grable Test: if a P brings a state law claim that necessarily raises a federal issue that is actually disputed, substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any federal/state lines, then a federal court can hear the case. 4. If it passes, there is Federal Question Jurisdiction and the case can be heard in federal court. Another Important Note: A counterclaim or a defense raised by the defendant _cannot___ be a basis for federal question jurisdiction. (a counterclaim is when the defendant brings an action against the plaintiff after the plaintiff has brought an action against them). Declaratory Judgment Actions and Federal Question Jurisdiction Declaratory judgments allow a party who is likely to be sued for a dispute to bring suit itself to determine its rights and liabilities. It asks the court to “declare” the rights of the parties. “This allows a party to know, prior to taking an action that may violate the other party’s rights, whether it will do so.” Essentially bringing a hypothetical to the court and asking if it would violate any laws Rule: for a federal court to have SMJ over a declaratory judgment action you look to whether the case would arise under federal law __if the plaintiff actually sued___  REMOVAL What is ‘Removal’? The act of the defendant sued in state court refiling the case in federal court instead When can this happen? Under 28 usc 1441a removal is allowed if the plaintiff brought the case originally in federal court but brought it in state court instead Why do we allow removal? So the defendant hasthe same right to pick the venue as the plaintiff does Rule: A matter can be removed from state to federal court if the federal court had _original___ jurisdiction over it in the first place. There must be either federal question or diversity jurisdiction! o Avitts v. Amoco: P filed suit in Texas state district court against Amoco Production Co. and other oil companies (Defendants) to recover money damages for property damage caused by Defendants’ oil and gas operations. Plaintiffs’ complaint stated that the damages caused by Defendants were “in violation of not only State law but also Federal law.” Ds removed the to federal court in the Southern District of Texas. Although Plaintiffs’ complaint referenced federal law, Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action under federal law by not specifying which federal laws Defendants had violated. Thus, removal was not proper. Wrinkles to Removal 1. In diversity cases, there can’t be any removal if there’s any defendant in the case who is a citizen of the state in which the case is filed. WHY? (KNOW THIS) IF THERE IS A IN STATE DEFENDANT, THERE IS NO RISK OF PREJUDICE, THE WHOLE POINT OF IT (1441B?) 2. No such thing as reverse removal (bringing to state court after suing in federal court) 3. Defendant has __30__ days to remove after receiving complaint. ○ Exception: if a case wasn’t org. removable, but then becomes removable. → Ex: if complaint amended, a party dismissed, etc. 4. Removal cannot be based on a counterclaim. PERSONAL JURISDICTION Subject Matter Jurisdiction v. Personal Jurisdiction Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction  · Refers to __to the power of a court to hear · Refers to __a courts power over the a case__ defendant__ · Limiting principle on a court's power. · Limiting principle on a court's power. · Stems from concerns about · Stems from concerns about _fairness___ _federalism___ (think separation of powers). to individual defendants. Some Definitions to Keep in Mind: 1. Forum: the “forum” is the state in which Plaintiff is seeking to sue in 2. In personam: Jurisdiction over a person. Power of the court to enter a money judgment against a defendant. The judgment can be seizing or liquidating D’s assets. 3. In rem: Jurisdiction over property within the state. Power of the court to act with regard to property w/in its borders. The judgment affects the interests of persons in the property. The judgment doesn’t create an obligation on D to pay P money. 4. Long-arm statute: a statute that gives state courts permission to reach beyond its territorial borders to take in non-resident Defendants in particular situations Like SMJ, Personal Jurisdiction is a limiting principle. So, where does it come from? The Constitution’s Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that courts can only exercise PJ over a defendant when it is _fair___ to do so... otherwise we would be depriving those defendants of a certain liberty. Each state also has a _long arm statute___ that specifies how much personal jurisdiction it can exercise over out-of-state parties. EARLY APPROACH TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION Pennoyer v. Neff Yes.. this case is terrible and confusing. BUT, it is important to provide historical context to why the law is the way that it is today. Lawsuit 1: Mitchell v. Neff Lawsuit 2: Neff v. Pennoyer Lawsuit 3: Pennoyer v. Neff (appeal of Lawsuit 2)  - N asks M to - N went back to land; P Issue: did the OR state court have represent him to tried to kick him off; N personal jurisdiction over Neff in acquire land wouldn’t leave land lawsuit 1? - N didn’t pay legal - N sued P saying the P - Court identifies two types of fees didn’t have good title to PJ (In personam & in rem) - M brings suit the land. - In order for the court to have - M posted notice in - N has the burden to in personam jurisdiction over N, newspaper (this was establish that the Case1 the D must have been served OK in the forum at the judgment was invalid with the complaint within the state. time) - Court says lawsuit 1 - In order for the court to have - N does not respond judgment was invalid b/c in rem they needed to attach the - Default judgment N wasn’t served w/ property to lawsuit 1, which they for M process (notice in the didn’t. If it had been attached - Ct. seized the land, newspaper was not enough there could be a judgment against M bought it according to the S.C.) the property b/c, the law - M sells land to P presumes that property is always in the possession of the owner who therefore knows what happens to the property. - Court ruled for Neff. NOTES ABOUT PENNOYER: - Pennoyer was partially overruled; this means it is in part still good law! - It is no longer “necessary” for a D to be served in the forum state, but it is sufficient. MODERN APPROACH TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION International Shoe v. Washington Rule: This case established the _minimum contacts___ for personal jurisdiction. The court holds that there is personal jurisdiction over a defendant who has minimum contacts in the forum such that comport w/ traditional notions of fair play & substantial justice  o International Shoe v. Washington: Defendant was an out of state company that employed salesmen within the state of Washington. The state of Washington sued Defendant to recover unpaid unemployment taxes and served Defendant by mail and by serving one of its salesmen within the state. Defendant appeared specially, moving to set aside the order that service upon the salesperson was proper service. Defendant also argued that it did not “do business” in the state, that there was no agent upon which service could be made, and that Defendant did not furnish employment within the meaning of the statute. How do we measure minimum contacts? International Shoe identifies two factors: 1. Defendants level of contacts within the forum 2. If the claim arises out of these contacts International Shoe also identifies two types of jurisdiction: 1. Specific Jurisdiction: If the contacts are _single/isolated___ and the claim is arising out of those contacts, the court has specific personal jurisdiction over the particular defendant. 2. General Jurisdiction: if a party’s contacts are “__substantial__” and “__continuous__” that they are said to be “at home” in the particular forum, the court has general personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Always mention general jurisdiction even if it is a specific jurisdiction question. HYPOS How to Approach a question? I - Issue What is the call of the question? What issue are you being asked to decide? Re-state the issue as though the person reading it has never read the question. R - Rule What is the law surrounding this issue? (i.e if it is a SMJ question, you would want to state what SMJ is and what needs to be shown to prove it). A - Analysis Apply the law/rule you just started to your particular set of facts. C - Conclusion ANSWER THE CALL OF THE QUESTION 1. Morgan is in need of money to pay for her cat obsession and stress induced shopping addiction. On top of law school, she decides to take a job at Starbucks, so she can make extra money. Morgan is a very hard worker and quickly gets promoted to manager. After working overtime for several months, Morgan realizes that she isn’t getting paid any differently for those overtime hours. Morgan goes home and complains to her cat, Mila, about how unfair this is. After Mila calmed Morgan down, she called Sophie, a fellow law student, to complain about her job. Sophie is a very studious law student and tells Morgan that Starbucks is violating the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires an employer to compensate for overtime. Under the statute, Morgan is entitled to time-and-a-half for all overtime hours. Infuriated, Morgan brings a claim against Starbucks in SDNY for violation of the act. a. Is this case properly in federal court? Yes because it is a complaint under federal law. Thus, there is a federal question of jurisdiction. b. What if Starbucks raises the argument that Morgan as a manager does not fit within the definition of “employee” in the Federal Fair Labor Standard Act and is thus not entitled to overtime pay. When filing its answer, Starbucks moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Fair labor Standard Act does not apply to Morgan. Should the court grant Starbucks’ motion? No, because there is still a federal question because it is up to the court to decide. Plaintiff's complaint still arises from federal law. 2. Henry, the financial real estate manager at XYZ company, is fired. He concludes that he was fired simply because the company wanted a younger person in his job and brings suit against XYZ under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a federal statute that bars discharge or other discrimination in employment based on age. The statute expressly creates a right for employees to sue for damages for acts of age discrimination. XYZ admits that the ADEA governs its employees, and that Zachary, who is 60, is protected under the statute. They defend on the ground that they fired him for incompetence, not based on his age. Is this case properly brought in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331? Yes, this is within the scope of federal jurisdiction. 3. Suppose that Amanda, from New Jersey, sues Stephanie, from Michigan, in Michigan state court on a state breach of contract claim. May Amanda remove the case to federal court? No, the plaintiff brought it to court. 4. Suppose that Amanda, from New Jersey, sues Stephanie, from Michigan, in Michigan state court on a state breach of contract claim. May Stephanie remove the case to federal court? No, Stephanie cant remove since the case is in her home state  5. Julia is traumatized from the Contracts exam. Utterly traumatized. She feels that this was a personal attack and decides to bring a cause of action against Dean Anderson for a state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress ($80,000). Julia is a resident of New York and Dean Anderson moved to Connecticut prior to Julia filing the complaint. Julia brings this action in the SDNY. 1. Will the SDNY have subject matter jurisdiction over this claim? Yes because there is diversity jurisdiction. 2. Will the court have personal jurisdiction over Dean Anderson? Yes because it arose out of his contacts as an incident in NY 3. If Julia chose to file this action in NY State court, would Dean Anderson be able to remove it to federal court? Yes because he is a ct citizen and not ny so he can be removed to federal court so there is diversity jurisdiction For any court to hear any case it is subject and persona matter jurisdictions 6. Jo is sick of the stress of law school and decides to take a well-deserved weekend off. She is an incredibly studious student, so it’s been a while since she had a really good time, but she is from Manhattan, so he knows how it’s done. She heads to Vegas for two nights. On night two, it got a little crazy… She was playing blackjack and got distracted by Sam walking by. He looked like an actual god. Flustered, she decided to follow him. In a rush, she grabbed the wrong chips from the table. Alissa, whose chips she grabbed, was having a ~ rough ~ night. Alissa punched Jo, and a fight ensued until they were both removed from the premises. Jo heads home the next day less relaxed then when she came. She makes it through Evidence on Monday only to come home and find out that Alissa has brought a state law claim against her for assault in the amount of $100,000 in Nevada Federal Court. Jo excelled in Civ Pro, but the stress of this suit has her unsure. She calls her brilliant friend Mikaila for legal advice because she knows everything. She asks Mikaila whether there is subject matter jurisdiction over this case and personal jurisdiction over her. How is Mikaila likely to answer both of these questions? Assume Alissa is a Nevada resident. Subject matter jurisdiction- there is subject matter and diversity jurisdiction because the amount is met and they are each from diff state Personal jurisdiction, there is not general jurisdiction because jo is not at home in nevada. She has minimum contacts and the complaint rose out of those contacts, so there is specific jurisdiction ​PERSONAL JURISDICTION CONTINUED Recap: · What is Personal Jurisdiction? - The power of a court to exercise jurisdiction over D · How does Personal Jurisdiction differ from SMJ? - the power of a court over a case TWO TYPES OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION  1. Specific 2. General SPECIFIC JURISDICTION Three Elements of Specific Jurisdiction (Overview; We will go into each element in depth) 1. The defendant has __ _contacts_______ with the forum (“minimum contacts” Int. Shoe); (today) 2. The claim __ _arises____ out of those contacts; (next week) 3. The exercise of personal jurisdiction would ___reason_______. (Today) ELEMENT ONE: What kind of contact is sufficient to satisfy the requirement??? The cases below help flush this out. Rule: one single isolated contact can be enough to find personal jurisdiction. o McGee v. Int’l Life: o Lawsuit 1: In 1944, Lowell Franklin, a resident of California, purchased a life insurance policy form Defendant, International Life Insurance. After purchase, D then mailed a reinsurance certificate to Franklin in California offering to insure him. Franklin accepted the offer and paid premiums by mail from his California home to Defendant’s office in Texas until his death in 1950. When the beneficiary, Plaintiff McGee, notified Defendant of Franklin’s death, they refused to pay. The Insured never had any office or agent in California. McGee, the beneficiary of Franklin’s life insurance policy brought suit in California against Int. Life in California state court and McGee was awarded a judgment. o Lawsuit 2: D refused to pay, so P went to TX and filed an action to enforce the judgment. TX thinks CA never had PJ in lawsuit one, so they refuse to enforce it. o Case you read: P appeals and The S. Ct. agrees to hear the case. The question they are deciding is whether it was constitutional for CA to exercise jurisdiction over P in the first lawsuit. S. Ct. says YES. The court finds that the action was based on a contract which had substantial connection with the state. Rule: purposeful availment is key to establishing minimum contact for personal jurisdiction o Hanson v. Denckla: Plaintiff had established a trust in Delaware and later moved to Florida where she died. Following her death, a family fight arose over whether Florida or Delaware courts  had jurisdiction over the trust assets. The issue turned on whether Florida could acquire jurisdiction over the Delaware trustee. Rule: In order to establish specific personal jurisdiction, the D must have purposeful _contacts___ with the forum state. Mere _forseeability___ is NOT enough for contact to be purposeful. The D’s conduct must be such that they could reasonably anticipate being hailed into court in that particular forum. o World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodsen: The Robinson’s purchased an Audi automobile from Seaway Volkswagen, Inc. in New York State in 1976. The following year they left New York to move to Arizona. While they were driving through Oklahoma, another car struck them, causing a fire which burned Kay Robinson and two of her children. The Robinsons brought a products liability suit in Oklahoma claiming that their injuries resulted from defective design and placement for the Audi’s gas tank and fuel system. The Robinsons joined as defendants the auto manufacturer, Audi, its importer, Volkswagen of America, Inc., its regional distributor, World Wide Volkswagen Corporation, and its retail dealer, Seaway. The court found that World Wide was incorporated and had its business office in New York. It distributed Vehicles, under Contract with Volkswagen, to retail dealers in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. There was no evidence that either World-Wide or Seaway did any business in Oklahoma, shipped or sold any products in that state, had an agent to receive process there, or advertised in Oklahoma. World-Wide made a special appearance for the purpose of opposing jurisdiction in Oklahoma. Purposeful Availment Tips and Wrinkles · ASK: Did the defendant purposefully direct contact to the forum state. · A single contact is usually enough → continuous contacts are even better. · What if you sell a product to someone in one state, and that person tells you he is planning to bring it to a different state? · NO · What if you think you’re engaging in activity in one state, but you’re confused about the borders and are actually in a different state? YES · ELEMENT THREE: Is exercising PJ over the Defendant fair and reasonable??? Reasonableness Factors (from World-Wide Volkswagen) Consider: 1. Burden on the _ defendant_______; 2. __ _forums state_______ Interest in Adjudicating the Dispute; 3. Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining ____convenient and effective_ _______ relief; 4. Interstate judicial systems interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; judicial economy—where the evidence is, the witnesses are 5. The shared interest of the states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Why do the states care about this case? Any overarching differences between the policies of different states? (i.e. federalism) Contracts as Contacts Rule: When analyzing whether a contract will give rise to personal jurisdiction consider: 1)location of the negotiation 2) provisions of the contract itself 3) contact of defendant with the forum of negotiations in post contract activities 4) and when the contract was signed o Burger King v. Rudzewics: Ds entered into a contract w/ BK in Florida where they negotiated the deal. The Contract has a choice of law provision (stating that Florida law will cover the contract). The two men were granted a franchise, and MacShara attended a management course on how to run a Burger King in Miami. Rudzewicz purchased $165,000 in restaurant equipment from Burger King corporate division in Miami. BK ends up suing for breach of K on contract royalties in Florida. Ds claimed that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over them. FL also has a long-arm statute that allows jurisdiction over the D’s. The court has to decide if it is also constitutional to exercise jurisdiction. · A few things come out of this case. · Court says that there is PJ because through the contract, the D established a significant relationship with Florida. · Additionally, the court finds that the last requirement in the PJ analysis (reasonableness) is more like a plus factor. NOTES on Choice of Law Provisions and Forum Selection Clauses: 1. Choice of law: provisions within the contract that indicate __ _which state law will govern the contract_____ · Influences the personal jurisdiction analysis but do not completely control it.  2. Forum selection: provisions within the contract stating __which state _ ___ a contractual dispute will be adjudicated is Crucial to PJ Analysis, but still go through the entire analysis. · This can completely control the PJ analysis, as long as the chosen state was reasonably connected to the parties or transaction. Stream of Commerce Problem A “Stream of Commerce” problem is one where the defendant’s product flowed through the stream of commerce (i.e., through another seller/manufacture) into a new state, where it was purchased. The big question is whether there are minimum contacts anywhere the product ends up? Question: Does CA have PJ over Asahi? · In this case, the court splits on the 1st requirement of personal jurisdiction (whether or not Asahi has minimum contacts with the state). But, they ultimately didn’t need to decide it because they ALL agreed that this case failed the last requirement of reasonableness. Asahi’s Split on Requirement #1 Are there minimum contacts??? Four Votes for YES Four votes for NO One vote that says it’s not necessary to decide, but probably yes. · __reasonable · __mere · It depends on anticipation__ is awareness__ that a the facts. What enough! By putting the product may end up in should you consider, goods into the stream, the forum is not according to him? the D must reasonably sufficient to establish anticipate that it could minimum contacts · Look at the end up in the forum. volume, value, and · Reasonable character of what’s · J. O’Connor anticipation AND being sold. opinion targeted___ are necessary to establish · “A regular minimum contacts. course of dealing that results in deliveries of · Targeting over 100,000 units language means annually over a clearer evidence that period of several D intended to serve years” probably the market in the counts. forum state. Targeting can be satisfied · J. Stevens designing a product opinion for the market in a particular state, advertising in the forum, or providing regular advice to customers in the forum, ect. · J. Brennan opinion  HYPOS Hypo 1: Patricia, an elderly widow with minimal income, lives in Georgia. Her daughter is getting married in California. Patricia has been feverishly saving for two years (thank god it was a long engagement) to be able to fly out for the wedding. When she arrives in California, she rents a car to drive to the wedding, but on the way back to the airport she runs into an Amazon Prime truck. She flies back to Georgia absolutely broke. Amazon is an international company worth ~billions~... Amazon sues Patricia for damages on the truck in California. Does the court have personal jurisdiction over Patricia? It meets the minimum contact req and rises out of the contacts, it is a burden on the def so it is unreasonable Hypo 2: Accu-Cut makes mowers in France that it sells to Moline Distributors in Illinois, which resells a few mowers to a Colorado hardware store. Accu-Cut advertises these mowers in Illinois. Stanley buys one of them, is injured in Colorado, and sues Accu-Cut for his injury in Illinois. Does Illinois court have personal jurisdiction over Accu-Cut? Yes they had purposeful contacts in IL which results to them having PJ, selling this to distributor in IL PERSONAL JURISDICTION CONTINUED  SPECIFIC JURISDICTION Three Elements of Specific Jurisdiction 1. The defendant has purposeful contacts with the forum (“minimum contacts” Int. Shoe); (last week) 2. The claim arises out of those contacts (today) 3. The exercise of personal jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable. (last week) ELEMENT TWO: How do we know when a claim is arising out of contacts???? Sometimes it’s really obvious when a claim is arising out of contacts, but other times it isn’t as clear. The Ford case you guys read has really firmed this principle up, but prior to Ford courts used a variety of approaches. Common Approaches That Courts Used to Take BUT-FOR TEST: A claim arises out of the contacts if the claim would not have arisen but for____ D’s contacts with the forum “if it wasn’t for x event then y would not have happened” EVIDENCE TEST: Does some of the _evidence___ for the claim arise out of D’s contacts? Then… We get Ford v. Montana Rule: __but for__ causation is NOT required to satisfy the ‘arise out of” requirement. It is enough that the claim __arises__ to the contacts. Thus, if the connection between D’s purposeful availment of the state and the ultimate claim is strong enough, the “arising out of” requirement is met. o Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court: 2 Defendants bring an action against Ford for a defective vehicle. One D sued in Minnesota, the other in Montana. Both Ds are alleging injuries based on accidents that occurred in their respective states. Neither D bought the vehicle in the state they were suing, nor did Ford design or manufacture those particular vehicles in either state. SO, the big question is whether there is PJ for Ford to be sued in both these states. Both the trial court and appeals courts ruled against Ford. SCOTUS then granted Cert. The only element that Ford is challenging is the second requirement of specific Personal Jurisdiction. Ford argues that the claim does not arise out of its contacts with the state because the vehicles had been manufactured and sold outside the forum states. Here, Ford has purposefully availed itself to these states continuously and these claims can now be seen as related to those contacts.  Does a Claim Arise out of or Relate to the Contacts? 1. What are the Ds contacts with the forum state? 2. How are those contacts connected with the claim that is being brought? (but-for causation) 3. If it still isn’t clear, think about: Whether D’s contacts are _continous_ Whether D is purposefully _targeting ___ or __serving__ the market in the forum state Are D’s contacts of such a character that they could __reasonably anticpate__ being hailed into court there? This list isn’t extensive… Just logically think about how closely connected the contacts are with the claim. TIP: When this second requirement isn’t clear, don’t think about the steps of the analysis as completely separate requirements. They are interconnected. “ARISING OUT OF” AND MULTIPLE CLAIMS If the plaintiff has several claims against the D, each and every claim must _arise out of___ of D’s contacts with the forum state for there to be PJ over it. THE INTERNET AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION The Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly addressed what counts as “minimum contacts” when you interact through the internet. Zippo Test: if defendant conducts activities through an _interactive___ website (e.g., sells goods through a website to customers in different states), then the defendant is subject to PJ in those states. Note: Zippo dealt with activity, not social media, so it might be useful depending on the details of the fact pattern. Rule: Merely _posting___ on the internet negative comments about the plaintiff and knowing they are from the forum state is insufficient to create minimum contacts. o Burdick v. Superior Court: Ps (California residents) sues D (an Illinois Resident) in California. They bring a claim for defamation and other torts based on a post made by D on his Facebook page while he was in Illinois. The court finds that there is no specific personal jurisdiction over the D.  When it comes to the internet, there is a much stronger argument that personal jurisdiction exists when the D’s internet activity has __direct connection__ with the forum state, or _targets__ the forum state. How to Approach an Internet Question 1. What was D’s _internet activity___? (was it a website? Who did the website serve? Did it advertise?) ○ If dealing with activity, you might want to apply Zippo. ○ If the case is dealing with social media, Burdick is a better tool for analysis. 2. Either way, it comes down to whether the D intentionally directed electronic activity____ into the forum state? ○ What are the arguments that their internet activity was directed at the forum state? ○ What are the arguments that it wasn’t intentionally directed? 3. ARGUE BOTH WAYS!!! GENERAL JURISDICTION ONE REQUIREMENT: 1. There is general jurisdiction if the D is _at home___ in the forum state (continuous contacts) Why? – if you are “at home” in the forum state there is no risk of prejudice What does it mean to be “at home”? For a Corporation: Where they are _incorporated___ and where they are _headquatered___. For an Individual: where they are __domiciled__ OTHER WAYS TO ESTABLISH PERSONAL JURISDICTION 1. Consent: if the D has _agreed__ to Personal Jurisdiction in the forum state, they have consented and it is proper. ○ Affirmatively agree to it ○ Agree through conduct (filing an answer or counterclaim, not raising any defenses against it) ○ Forum selection clause 2. Waiver: If the D _fails__ to raise the PJ argument at the proper time, they will be seen as having waived their right to do so and PJ is proper. ○ NOTE: SMJ CANNOT BE WAIVED!!!!  LONG-ARM STATUTES Up until this point, the analysis we have done has been whether is it CONSTITUTIONAL to exercise jurisdiction over a particular defendant. BUT, just because it would be constitutional to do so, doesn’t always mean that a state will exercise PJ over a D. TWO TESTS FOR A STATE TO EXERCISE PJ 1. Does the long-arm statute allow for jurisdiction? 2. Is it constitutional? What is a Long-Arm Statute? A statute that sets out the guidelines for when a state can exercise PJ over a defendant. The statute can go up to the limits of the constitution or be much narrower. Rule: The first step in a personal jurisdiction analysis is to see whether the __long arm statute__ authorizes jurisdiction. o Bensusan Rest. Corp. v. King: Plaintiff, the owner of the “Blue Note” club in New York, brought suit against Defendant, the owner of “The Blue Note” club in Missouri, for trademark infringement after Defendant’s website, which was established in Missouri, referenced Plaintiff’s club. PERSONAL JURISDICTION FLOWCHART We are going to walk through this together. STREAM OF COMMERCE PROBLEM Stream of commerce problem PLEADINGS Types of Pleadings (FRCP 7(a))  1. Complaint 2. Answer 3. Reply INTRO TO COMPLAINTS Pleadings by the Plaintiff. What is a Complaint? ➔ A complaint is pleading by the plaintiff (or 3rd party plaintiff) that alleges a claim and gives the D fair _notice___ of what the plaintiff’s underlying _claim___ is. ➔ Filing a complaint is the __first__ step in commencing a civil action. ➔ After a complaint is filed, a __summons__ will be served to each party giving them notice of the action against them. REQUIREMENTS OF A WELL-PLEADED COMPLAINT FRCP 8 FRCP 8. General Rules of Pleading So, FRCP 8(a) outlines 3 requirements of a (a) Claim for relief. A pleading that well-pleaded complaint. states a claim for relief must (1) Must state _Why___ the federal contain: court has jurisdiction over the (1) Brief statement of jurisdiction case; (2) Short and plain statement of the (2) Enough _facts/information___ to claim give D fair notice of what the (3) Demand for relief _claims___ against them are; (we will flush this out more). (3) Some request to the court to grant you a specific __relief__ FRCP 8(a)(1) & 8(a)(2) are pretty straight forward. Most of what we are concerned with is what the language in 8(a)(2) means! Why is 8(a)(2) Important? It outlines exactly the kind of information/material that must be in a complaint for it to be valid. If the complaint doesn’t satisfy the requirements of 8(a)(2), it can be dismissed for _failure to state a claim___ under FRCP 12(b)(6). ➔ So, keep in mind that 8(a)(2) and 12(b)(6) go hand-in-hand. “Short and plain statement of the claim upon which relief can be granted” Historical Context that Shaped this Rule Rule: Twombly formulated 8(a)(2) to mean that the complaint must include enough facts to“__state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face___” o Twombly v. Bell Atlantic: This was an antitrust complaint. The P alleged that the local phone companies had all agreed not to compete and this was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. To support this claim, the Ps pointed to the fact that none of the phone companies were competing. D moved to dismiss under 12(b)(6) arguing that there were not enough facts to support the conspiracy that they were not competing. The court agreed that the fact that they weren’t currently competing was not enough facts to support a claim that they made an agreement not to compete Prima facie —you are giving them just enough that it is plausible to prove each element ❖ After Twombly, everyone was a little confused about this standard… does it apply generally or only to antitrust cases? Right after Twombly, the court rules on Erickson v. Pardus Rule: Specific facts are __not required__. The statement need only give the D _fair notice__ of what the claim is and the __grounds__ upon which it rests. o Erickson v. Pardus: Erickson was an inmate undergoing a treatment program for hepatitis C. The treatment would take a year to complete with weekly self-injections by use of a syringe. Soon after the inmate began his treatment, one of the syringes disappeared. The prison officials assumed he was doing drugs and stopped his treatment. The prison's protocol mandated a one-year waiting period and six months of drug education class before treatment would start again. There would be an 18-month delay before he would be able to restart treatment. The complaint stated that the decision to remove petitioner from his prescribed medication was endangering his life, and that the medication was withheld "shortly after" the one-year program started, that he was still in need of treatment, and that the officials were refusing to provide treatment. The case was dismissed by the trial court holding that the allegations of the inmate were conclusory. They appeal. Erickson is alleging 8th amendment “cruel and unusual punishment.” SCOTUS says that this does satisfy 8(a)(2). SO, now everyone is extra confused because Erickson and Twombly have different results… In comes Iqbal. Rule from Iqbal: look at the Complaint in Three Steps to Determine if it is Well-Pleaded: 1. First, take note of the _elements__ a plaintiff must plead; 2. Identify pleadings (statements), that because they are not more than _conclusions___ are not entitled to an assumption of truth; 3. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they _plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief___ o Ashcroft v. Iqbal: P was a Muslim citizen who was arrested after 9/11. He was found to be a “high-interest detainee” and subjected to very harsh conditions. Iqbal files a complaint (similar to Erickson) alleging that gov’t official violated his constitutional rights. He is claiming discrimination based on his race, religion, and national origin. Alleging violation of 1st and 5th amendment. D filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To have a valid claim, Iqbal’s complaint must include sufficient allegations that the Ds acted for the purpose of discriminating. Iqbal In English 1. ASK: What is the P’s claim and what are the elements they must prove to establish those claims? 2. Ignore conclusions of __law__ and support conclusions of __fact__ (ignore statements that merely restate the elements of a cause of action) ○ Example of a conclusory statement: Maria’s contact was harmful ○ Example of a factual statement: Kate threw a bottle at Maria’s head and her head started bleeding 3. After you ignore all the conclusory statements, look at what is remaining (assuming they are true) ASK: I. Is there is enough information and facts to put the D on __notice__ of the claim being brought against him?; AND II. Do the facts that are remaining __plausibly__ give rise to an entitlement for relief? Rule: To satisfy 8(a)(2), a claim must state an entitlement to relief, which requires TWO things: 1. The claim must be _legally___ sufficient (must be a valid cause of action in that jurisdiction); AND 2. The claim must be __factually__ sufficient (must state enough facts - this is the Iqbal test!!). Rule: To be factually sufficient, a claim needs to (1) _state enough facts to put a defendant on notice of the claim against them___ (2) and _state enough facts to show that is plausible that a plaintiff can prove each element of their cause of action___ o Fiorito v. Ramos Kelly: P went to a basketball tournament and got into a fight with Ds. P tried to bring criminal charges, but fails. P thinks the criminal charges didn’t stick because of the Ds influence. P brings a claim for IIED. IS IQBAL ALWAYS THE TEST? ~ Fraud Claims Rule: When a P is alleging a claim of fraud in their complaint, they need to meet a __higher__standard than 8 (a)(2). Look to _Rule 9B___ o Swanson v. Citibank: Ps bring an action against the bank in connection with them being denied a loan. P believes that she was denied for discriminatory reasons. She files an action for violation of the Fair Housing Act and Fraud. FHA Claim: The court finds that the P alleged enough facts to satisfy the Iqbal test on the FHA claim. After ignoring conclusory statements, there were enough facts left that make is plausible that the P could prove each element of her cause of action. Fraud Claim: The Majority did not think the Fraud claim met the standard because Fraud claims need to meet a high standard than 8(a)(2). RULE 9(b) Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind. In What is required by 9(b)? alleging fraud or mistake, a party must 1. A false statement was made by the state with particularity the circumstances defendant constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, 2. What was false about the statement intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a 3. Allege detrimental by the plaintiff person's mind may be alleged generally. Remember: if a defendant feels that the claim does not meet the standard of 8(a)(2) or 9(b), they will bring a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the claim. HYPO This action is being brought in the SDNY. SOPHIE BACAS V.  REBECCA PARLANTE JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, on the grounds that Sophie is a resident of Connecticut and Rebecca is a resident of NY. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Battery) 2. Sophie and Rebecca are both law students at Pace. 3. On September 9, 2023, Sophie and Rebecca were studying together in Sophie’s apartment. 4. Rebecca was harmful and offensive to Sophie and her housemates. 5. Rebecca’s conduct was intentional. 6. Rebecca committed a battery. 7. Rebecca has a very serious caffeine problem and Sophie tries to monitor this like the good friend that she is. 8. Sophie noticed that Rebecca had been drinking energy drinks for the past 9 hours of studying and was getting so dehydrated that she was making googly eyes at Sophie’s housemate, Oliver. 9. Sophie waited until Rebecca went to the bathroom, then swapped her red bull for Rebecca’sSwell bottle. 10. Rebecca came back furious. She demanded that Sophie give her back the overpriced energy drink. 11. When Sophie refused, Rebecca picked up the Swell bottle and launched it directly at Gabrielle’s head. 12. The Swell bottle struck Sophie’s head causing her to bleed and become dizzy. Sophiesuffered a concussion. 13. Sophie is also severely traumatized from the abuse that she is having trouble sleeping. 14. Sophie demands judgment against Rebecca and relief in the amount of 75K. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SOPHIE BACAS prays for judgment against Defendant REBECCA PARLANTE as follows: (1) On the First Cause of Action for Battery, for damages in the amount of $75,000, together with interests and costs; and (2) For such other and additional relief as this Court shall deem just, reasonable and proper. Rebecca moves to dismiss this complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. How should the court rule? o Battery is an act with intent to cause contact, the contact must be harmful and offensive, and the contact has to have occurred. Answer: This will not be dismissed. 4,5,6 are just restating the claim of battery. PLEADINGS CONTINUED PLEADINGS BY THE DEFENDANT There are three things a defendant can do after a complaint has been served: 1. 2. 3. DEFAULT After a complaint has been served a defendant has 21 days to answer or move to dismiss. If the defendant does nothing, then they default · Why do this?? Maybe they didn’t know about the complaint or think the default won’t be enforceable. Doesn’t really matter why they choose to do nothing. What matters is the consequences. FRCP 55 Default; Default Judgment Two Stages of Default: (a) Entering a Default. When a party against 1. Entering a default: at the first stage the whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought clerk enters a default, which means that the has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that defendant has not contested the facts in the failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the complaint, and therefore admits all the facts. clerk must enter the party's default. 2. Then entering a default judgment: This (b) Entering a Default Judgment. means judgment of damages by the clerk (1) By the Clerk… and/or court. (2) By the Court… REMEMBER: Before a default judgment can be entered, the court must confirm there is SMJ, PJ, and that the complaint gives rise to legal liability. RULE 12 MOTION Prior to or instead of filing an answer, a party may file a motion under Rule 12. FRCP 12 (b) How to Present Defenses. Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion: (1) Lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 12(b)(1) (2) Lack of personal jurisdiction; FRCP 12(b)(2) (3) improper venue; (4) insufficient process; (5) insufficient service of process; (6) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 12(b)(6) (7) failure to join a party under Rule 19. A motion asserting any of these defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed. If a pleading sets out a claim for relief that does not require a responsive pleading, an opposing party may assert at trial any defense to that claim. No defense or objection is waived by joining it with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or in a motion. (c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings. (e) Motion for a More Definite Statement. A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the court orders a more definite statement and the order is not obeyed within 14 days after notice of the order or within the time the court sets, the court may strike the pleading or issue any other appropriate order. (f) Motion to Strike. The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court may act: (1) on its own; or (2) on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading. Rule 12 Cheat Sheet  Rule 12(b) lists a set of defenses that a Defendant can raise through motion that basically say: “The case should be dismissed because…” 12(b) = Motion to Dismiss for… (1) Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction ○ If a defendant is filing a 12(b)(1) motion, you have to analyze whether or not there is SMJ to decide whether or not it should be granted. ○ NOT waivable (2) Lack of personal jurisdiction ○ If a defendant is filing a 12(b)(2) motion, you have to analyze whether or not there is PJ over the defendant to decide whether or not it should be granted. ○ Waivable—must be raised in their first submission or they lose the right to raise the defense (6) Failure to State a claim upon which relief can be granted ○ If a defendant is filing a 12(b)(6) motion, you have to analyze whether or not the complaint satisfies the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) to decide whether or not it should be granted. ○ NOT waivable ○ As this is not waivable, the defendant can bring the argument that there is no viable claim at any time. Keep in mind that it might have a different name depending on when it is raised. ★ If raised before discovery it will probably be a 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings ★ If it is raised after discovery, it is more likely going to function as a summary judgment motion. 12 (e) Motion for a More Definite Statement. A defendant files this when they can’t understand the complaint or don’t know how to respond ★ MUST be filed before filing an answer ★ If the court grants this motion, the plaintiff must amend their complaint. 12(f) Motion to Strike If a defendant files this motion, they are asking the court to strike a part of the complaint. The court can do this on its own too. If they grant this motion, the portion of the complaint will be stricken. This case shows us how a court makes a determination on Rule 12 motions. o Matos v. Nextran: P was injured when his truck flipped. P sues D, the truck manufacturer, alleging (1) negligence, (2) breach of the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (3) strict liability, (4) breach of the warranty of merchantability, (5) loss of consortium, and (6) punitive damages. D makes a 12(b) motion on counts 1, 2, 4, and 6. D also makes a motion under 12(f) and 12(e)  - This case is a demonstration of how the court ruless on this, they don’t have to dismiss the entire claim just parts Rule: If a defense is waivable, the defendant needs to raise it in the first filing they make. They cannot “reserve” a right to do it later. o Hunter v. Serv-Tech: P sues D. D files a motion to dismiss for improper service. In this motion, D “reserved” the right to challenge PJ, but they did not challenge it in that motion. P amends his complaint and D moves to dismiss for PJ. ANSWERS Defendant can also respond to a complaint by filing an answer, which responds to each allegation in the complaint. When Must an Answer be Filed? If a Defendant chooses to file an answer and not bring a Rule 12 Motion, the defendant must answer within 21 of being formally served. But, if the defendant DOES bring a Rule 12 motion to dismiss and it gets denied, the defendant has 14 after notice of the court’s decision. What Is Included in an Answer? 1. D’s responses to the allegations contained in the complaint (Rule 8(b)) ○ Defendant has to respond to each allegation and can do so in four ways: 1. Admit the allegation—becomes an undisputed fact in the case 2. Deny the allegation—becomes a disputed fact in the case 3. DKI—deny knowledge or information (most common) 4. Deny, accept, admit—there can be an allegation that has some true and some false info and will admit what is true but deny the wrong parts ○ Additionally, prior to filing the answer, the defendant has to make an inquiry “reasonable under the circumstances” pursuant to 11(b), which basically just means that Defendant has a factual basis for the response he is putting forward. 2. Any affirmative defenses. (Rule 8(c)) ○ Affirmative defenses are reasons given by the defendant for why a plaintiff in a case should not win even if the allegations are true 3. Any 12(b) defenses that the D wants to raise (as long as they haven’t been waived) ○ If the defendant has not FIRST brought a 12(b) motion, they can bring any of the 12(b) defenses because they haven’t waived them yet. 4. Any cross-claims or counterclaims that the D wants to bring. ○ A Cross-Claim is a claim that the defendant has brought against another defendant ○ Counterclaim is a claim that the defendant has brought against plaintiff CARE AND CANDOR IN PLEADINGS Applies to all parties.  FRCP 11(b) Representations to the Court; Sanctions When a party submits a paper to the court, (b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the they are certifying that have done THREE court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether things: by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an 1. Made a reasonable inquiry to attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of confirm evidentiary support for any the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed factual allegations/denials after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: 2. There is a non-frivolous basis for (1) it is not being presented for any improper any legal arguments that are being purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary made. delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; 3. They are not filing papers for an (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal improper purpose. contentions are warranted by existing law or by a ○ Harassment nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, ○ Delay or reversing existing law or for establishing new ○ Needlessly increasing law; litigation costs. (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information. WHAT IS A REASONABLE INQUIRY INTO THE FACTS? Rule: Measuring whether there was a reasonable inquiry into the facts is a negligence standard. Would a reasonably prudent attorney have realized the mistake if they made a reasonable inquiry under these circumstances? o Hays v. Sony Corp.: The two Ps are teachers who had written a word processing manual for students. The school starts using Sony word processors and asks Sony to update the manual. Sony’s updated manual copied the teachers’ text in many places. Sony never got money for the manual or distributed it anywhere else. The teachers then register the manual’s copyright and bring a claim against Sony for violating both federal and state copyright law. D moved to dismiss. Note: The reasonableness of pre-filing inquiry depends on the time available for an investigation. Some factors that affect reasonableness are: The complexity of the factual and legal issues in question The extent to which the lawyer relied on the client for the facts The resources available to the lawyer to conduct an inquiry The extent to which the lawyer was on notice that further inquiry might be appropriate General Principle: Do an investigation reasonable under the circumstances NON-FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENTS R: Maintaining a legal position to a court is only sanction-able when applying a standard of objective reasonablness, it can be said that a reasonable attorney in like circumstances could not have believed his actions to be legally justified o Hunter v. Earthgrains Co.: Hunter represented employees of Earthgrains in a class action lawsuit for employment discrimination. Hunter put forth an argument that the plaintiffs didn’t have to go to arbitration for their claims even though there was a 4th circuit case holding that they did. Court suspended her from practicing for 5 years. Hunter appeals. Court finds that the lower court abused its discretion. Her arguments were not frivolous, and she had a basis for her legal claim. NO IMPROPER PURPOSE Improper purposes are those that are done to delay the process or antagonize the other side. If it seems like someone is doing something with the soul purpose of embarrassing or hurting the other side, it is improper. ○ “papering” the adversary with constant fillings and motions ○ Including scandalous irrelevant allegations to embarrass P ○ Filing a motion that you know you’re going to drop ○ Orchestrating a media event that you’re going to file Even if one of the multiple purposes was improper, as long as there were also proper purposes for the pleading, there shouldn’t be a sanction PROCEDURE FOR SANCTIONS FRCP 11(c)  (c) Sanctions (1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee. (2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion (3) On the Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b). (4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation. A court is never going to be required to impose sanctions. The rule says that it “may” impose sanctions not that it must. FRCP 11(c)(1). 2 basic ways sanctions can get initiated 1. Other side can move for sanctions. 11(c)(2). 2. The court moves for it on its own. 11(c)(1) What Type of Sanctions are Permitted? Sanctions awarded must be limited to what suffices to deter repitition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. One Important Limit on Sanctions Can’t sanction a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2)... WHY? the party has a lawyer—a professional hired to represent them—reasonably relied on the fact that their attorney should know what they’re doing. JOINDER FRCP 18  Joinder of Claims If a party is asserting a claim, counterclaim, (a) In General. A party asserting a claim, crossclaim, or third-party claim they may… counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim Join as many claims as it has against that may join, as independent or alternative claims, as party. many claims as it has against an opposing party. These claims do not need to be related. BUT, there needs to be subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction for each separate claim that is being raised. SO, assuming jurisdiction exists: Rule 18 generally supports the joining of claims because of effieicency and judicial economy LIMITS TO CLAIMS THAT CAN BE JOINED? The court always has the power to sever claims into two different lawsuits or to order separate trials, if they feel that it would make the trial confusing to have certain claims adjudicated together. This power is given to the Court by FRCP 21 and FRCP 42(b). The decision to sever a lawsuit is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. JOINING PARTIES UNDER RULE 20 FRCP 20 Permissive Joinder of Parties 20(a)(1) - Plaintiffs can join as plaintiffs in (a) Persons Who May Join or Be Joined. a lawsuit if TWO requirements are (1) Plaintiffs. Persons may join in one action as satisfied: plaintiffs if: (1) There must be a claim arising (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, out of the same transaction, severally, or in the alternative with respect to occurrence/series of occurrences, and or arising out of the same transaction, (2) There must be at least one occurrence, or series of transactions or common question of law or fact occurrences; and between ALL plaintiffs. (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action. 20(a)(2) Defendants (2) Defendants. Persons—as well as a vessel, (1) There must be a claim arising cargo, or other property subject to admiralty out of the same transaction, process in rem—may be joined in one action as occurrence/series of occurrences, and defendants if: (2) There must be at least one common question between ALL (A) any right to relief is asserted against them plaintiffs. jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same The test for joining Plaintiffs and Defendants is the SAME!  transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. Plaintiffs and Joinder Rule: Plaintiffs can join under Rule 20 if their claims are arising of the same series of occurrences AND there is a common question of law or fact between all plaintiffs. o Hohlbein v. Heritage Mutual: 4 people against D (insurance company); claims include misleading recruiting process by D; Ps claims arise out of different interactions, and have factual dissimilarities but they are a series of occurrences with common question of law or fact. This case is really just an example of Ps joining together under Rule 20. Remember: Once there is proper joinder under Rule 20, any plaintiff can then bring additional unrelated claims against any of the defendants under Rule 18. Defendants and Joinder Three ways a Defendant can join claims to a lawsuit 1. Counterclaim 2. Crossclaim 3. Impleader FRCP 13 - Counterclaims A counterclaim is a claim that the defendant has against plaintiff  (a) Compulsory Counterclaim. When MUST a defendant bring a (1) In General. A pleading must state as a counterclaim? 13(a) counterclaim any claim that—at the time of its 1. A defendant MUST raise a service—the pleader has against an opposing counterclaim when it arises out of the party if the claim: same transaction or occurrence that is (A) arises out of the transaction or the subject matter of the opposing occurrence that is the subject matter of the party’s claim. opposing party's claim; and - For efficiency, want to take care of (B) does not require adding another party all the claims that have to due with over whom the court cannot acquire the issue, dont want to deal w it jurisdiction. (2) Exceptions. The pleader need not state the latee claim if: If it is considered a compulsory (A) when the action was commenced, the counterclaim, and it is not brought, the claim was the subject of another pending claim is waived action; or - Compulsory means you HAVE TO (B) the opposing party sued on its claim by bring it attachment or other process that did not establish personal jurisdiction over the When MAY a defendant bring a pleader on that claim, and the pleader does counterclaim? (permissive) 13(b) not assert any counterclaim under this rule. 1. A defendant can bring any claim it (b) Permissive Counterclaim. A pleading may state has against the plaintiff when it is not as a counterclaim against an opposing party any claim arising out of the same transaction or that is not compulsory. occurrence that is the subject of the opposing party’s claim Rule: If a party fails to bring a compulsory counterclaim at the appropriate time, they cannot bring it in a separate suit because they waived the ability to bring it by failing to in the first suit. o King v. Blanton: P v. D suit for damages after car accident, settlement; second suit D v. P for damages in the same accident. This is NOT allowed. Why? preclusion problems. Note: SMJ and PJ will never be an issue with a compulsory counterclaim SMJ will be enabled through supplemental jurisdiction and PJ will always be there b/c P already submitted to the jurisdiction of the forum by filing complaint there. -  FRCP 13 - Crossclaims A crossclaim is a claim that the defendant has against a co-defendant (g) Crossclaim Against a Coparty. A pleading So, a defendant CAN bring a crossclaim as long may state as a crossclaim any claim by one as it arises out of the same transaction or party against a coparty if the claim arises out of occurrence. the transaction or occurrence that is the subject Crossclaims are never compulsory matter of the original action or of a Rule 18 applies to crossclaims counterclaim, or if the claim relates to any Defendant can join other parties to property that is the subject matter of the original a crossclaim if Rule 20 is satisfied. action. The crossclaim may include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the crossclaimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the crossclaimant. (h) Joining Additional Parties. Rules 19 and 20 govern the addition of a person as a party to a counterclaim or crossclaim First: Let’s say that D1 brings a claim against D2. What is this called? - Cross claim Second: D2 wants to bring a claim against D1 now. Can they do this? When must they do this? What is it called? - Yes they can do this and its called a counterclaim, and they are required IF it is complusory Third: Now, because D1 has brought a valid crossclaim against D2, can D1 join other claims against D2? - Yes and D1 can bring claims under rule 18 Lastly, Remember Rule 13(h): After a D makes an appropriate crossclaim or counterclaim, they can join a new party to that claim as long as Rule 20 is satisfied.  IMPLEADER Impleader is when a defendant brings in a non-party that becomes a third-party defendant. Defendant is bringing in this new party under the theory of indemnification/derivative liability. Essentially, the defendant is saying: “If I am liable to the plaintiff for XYZ, then the TPP liable to me for reimbursement.” Indemnification- even if im found guilty this party is liable and should reimburse me Don’t let the image confuse you. Other parties can bring claims against the TPP too, and they often do. FRCP 14 Third-Party Practice (a) When a Defending Party May Bring in a Third Party. (1) Timing of the Summons and Complaint. A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it. But the third-party plaintiff must, by motion, obtain the court's leave if it files the third-party complaint more than 14 days after serving its original answer. (2) Third-Party Defendant's Claims and Defenses. The person served with the summons and third-party complaint—the “third-party defendant”: (A) must assert any defense against the third-party plaintiff's claim under Rule 12; (B) must assert any counterclaim against the third-party plaintiff under Rule 13a, and may assert any counterclaim against the third-party plaintiff under Rule 13(b) or any crossclaim against another third-party defendant under Rule 13(g); (C) may assert against the plaintiff any defense that the third-party plaintiff has to the plaintiff's claim; and (D) may also assert against the plaintiff any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim against the third-party plaintiff. (3) Plaintiff's Claims Against a Third-Party Defendant. The plaintiff may assert against the third-party defendant any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim against the third-party plaintiff. The third-party defendant must then assert any defense under Rule 12 and any counterclaim under Rule 13(a), and may assert any counterclaim under Rule 13(b) or any crossclaim under Rule 13(g). (4) Motion to Strike, Sever, or Try Separately. Any party may move to strike the third-party claim, to sever it, or to try it separately. (5) Third-Party Defendant's Claim Against a Nonparty. A third-party defendant may proceed under this rule against a nonparty who is or may be liable to the third-party defendant for all or part of any claim against it. (6) Third-Party Complaint In Rem. If it is within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, a third-party complaint may be in rem. In that event, a reference in this rule to the “summons”  includes the warrant of arrest, and a reference to the defendant or third-party plaintiff includes, when appropriate, a person who asserts a right under Supplemental Rule C(6)(a)(i) in the property arrested. (b) When a Plaintiff May Bring in a Third Party. When a claim is asserted against a plaintiff, the plaintiff may bring in a third party if this rule would allow a defendant to do so. Defendants Can Implead a New Party When: The Defendant alleges that the third-party defendant (the new party being added) is liable to the Defendant for the Defendant’s liability to the Plaintiff There must be a theory for why, if the D is liable to the plaintiff, this other party has to reimburse the defendant. Cannot allege that the 3rd Party D is liable instead of the D/3rd PP. - Its not about “im bringing him in cause hes guilty not me.” Its more like “if I a, found liable, he should reimburse me bc he is liable to me” ○ Examples include: guarantors on leases, subrogation (insurance company is sued to pay out on policy and can then go after the bad actor itself), contribution on a tort claim Procedural Impacts of Impleader: 1. D impleads new party by serving a S&C 2. The 3rd Party D can then bring counterclaims against the 3rd party P. 3. The 3rd Part D can ALSO bring claims against the original P that arise out of the same transaction! 4. If there are two third-party Ds, they can also bring crossclaims against each other. 5. The original P CAN bring claims directly against the 3rd party D as long as they arise out of the same transaction that is the subject matter of the original suit (Rule 14(3)) 6. If the org. P brings claims against the third-party D the TPD MUST bring any counterclaims that arise out of the same transaction SO, in theory you could have a case that looks like this: