Civil Procedure Outline Fall 2024 PDF

**PERSONAL JURISDICTION** Types of PJ: 1. In Personam, 2. In Rem, 3. Quasi in Rem, or 4. Consent To have the authority to hear and decide a case before it, a civil court MUST have: 1. SMJ over the particular type of case being heard; AND 2. **[PJ over the defendant; AND]** 3. Venue in the pr...

**PERSONAL JURISDICTION** Types of PJ: 1. In Personam, 2. In Rem, 3. Quasi in Rem, or 4. Consent To have the authority to hear and decide a case before it, a civil court MUST have: 1. SMJ over the particular type of case being heard; AND 2. **[PJ over the defendant; AND]** 3. Venue in the proper judicial district PERSONAL JURISDICTION is the court's power to exercise its authority over the parties.\ (1) Does the court have statutory authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant?\ (2) Does the exercise of PJ comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth (federal) and/or Fourteenth (state) Amendments to the U.S. Constitution? **[In Personam]**: power over D's person - Statutory Authority: State's long-arm statute - Constitutional Authority: emanates from 5A/14A DPC - [General]: Essentially at home in forum - [Specific]: Minimum contacts - Purp. Avail + Arise/Relate - SOMETIMES, fairness can be independent grounds for denying PJ [***Traditional Basis for In Personam***:] - D served with process while present in forum State (General) - D's agent served with process while present in forum - D is domiciled in forum - D consents to PJ (express, implied) [Consent/Presence:] Tag Jurisdiction - ***[Natural persons]***: PJ by tagging them in the forum state if historically permitted, which is based on D's **[voluntary presence]** and **D's [availment of significant benefits of the forum]** - **[Corporate Agent served in Forum: CANNOT USE TAG JX]** - Unincorp's Transient Agent in Forum: at least specific PJ, if not general by tagging - **FORCED CONSENT = purposeful availment (*Penn. Fire*)** **[In Rem/Quasi in Rem]**: Power over D's property - *In Rem*: suit about who owns the property - *Quasi in Rem*: D's land used as a judicial predicate for PJ - Court must seize property at outset of case - **Attachment Statute**: can seize property the D owns or claims to own at outset of case - **Constitutional Authority:** International Shoe **VOCAB, RULES, CASES** ***Personal Jurisdiction*:** is the court's power to exercise its authority over parties. ***Statutory Authority***: depends on the state's long-arm statute, which presumably is roughly coextensive with the Constitution. ***Constitutional Authority***: emanates from the 5A/14A DPC, which requires federal/state courts to have PJ over parties to hear and decide a case. ***Traditional Bases for In Personam Jurisdiction***: (1) When D is served with process while present in the forum, (2) when D's agent is served with process while present in the forum, (3) when D is domiciled in the forum, or (4) when D consents to PJ. ***Tag Jurisdiction***: way for the court to constitutionally assert **[General Jurisdiction]** over D who visits the forum state and is properly served. - Natural Persons: PJ by tagging them in forum state if historically permitted, which is based on D's voluntary presence and availment of significant benefits of the forum - Corp's Transient Agent: cannot be tagged for PJ - Unincorporated Transient Agent: tagging gives at least Specific Jurisdiction, if not General Jurisdiction. ***General Jurisdiction***: requires the defendant be essentially at home within the forum state. - Natural Persons: essentially at home where domiciled. - Corporations: essentially at home at least where incorporated and have their PPB. - PPB: Nerve Center: where officers direct, control, and coordinate corp. activities (*Hertz*) ***Specific Jurisdiction***: requires the defendant have minimum contacts with the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (TNFPSJ). Minimum Contacts require that: 1. D **[purposely avail]** itself of the forum state 2. **[Claims arise out of D's contacts with the forum state]**. ***Fairness***: exercising PJ may also need to be fair. Fairness may require considering: 1. Convenience of the plaintiff (P), (2) burden on the D, (3) the forum state's interest in resolving dispute, (4) the interstate judicial interest in efficiency, and (5) the state's interest in furthering fundamental social policies. ***Stream of Commerce***: no definitive law---argue all ways (Brennan, Ginsburg v. O'Connor, Kennedy) [In *Asahi*:] unclear whether a court has PJ over D's that place a product into the stream of commerce and expect it to be used in forum state. - Brennan (4): contact if component is put into the stream and could be reasonably anticipated it would end up in forum state - O'Cononr (4): need Brennan's reasonable anticipation AND show that D had an intent to serve the forum After *J. McIntyre*, it seems likely that courts will require something more than D's expectation that product be used in forum state: - Kennedy's Plurality (4): purposeful availment if product is placed in stream and D intended its use in forum - Breyer's Concurrence (2): weigh addl. factors like state-specific design/advertising, or regular flow of business into forum - Ginsburg's Dissent (3): would weigh other factors like fairness **[PJ ESSAY WRITING:]** Personal Jurisdiction is the court's ability to exercise power over parties. Statutory authority for PJ comes from State's long-arm statute, which presumably is roughly coextensive with the Constitution. Constitutional authority for PJ emanates from the 14A DP Clause, which requires state courts to have PJ over parties, whether general or specific. I. [GENERAL JURISDICTION] General Jurisdiction requires D to be "essentially at home" in the forum state. *Daimler*. Natural persons are essentially at home at least where they are domiciled or reside. Natural persons can change their domicile if they change their residence and have the requisite intent to remain in the new State. *Mas*. Corporations are essentially at home at least in the states in which they are incorporated (*Daimler*) and where they have their PPB. PPB is the nerve center from which high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities. *Hertz*. (IF TAGGED): General jurisdiction is proper over Ds residing voluntarily in the forum state when served because such "tag jurisdiction" was historically permitted (Scalia) or because transient Ds avail themselves of significant benefits of the state and should expect to be haled into court there (Brennan). *Burnham*. (TAG JX DOES NOT APPLY TO ENTITIES!!)\*\* II. [SPECIFIC JURISDICTION] Specific jurisdiction requires that D have "minimum contacts" with the forum state such that suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." *Int'l Shoe*. Minimum contacts requires that: 1. D purposefully avail itself of the forum state (*Hanson, World-Wide*) 2. And that the claims arise out of or relate to D's in-forum contacts (*Bristol-Myers, Ford*) Exercising PJ may also need to be fair (*Asahi*), although more recent cases have not required fairness beyond minimum contacts. ***[Five Fairness Factors]***: Fairness may require considering (1) the burdens on D, (2) forum state's interest, (3) P's interest in convenience, (4) the interstate judicial system's interest in efficient resolution, and (5) the states' interest in furthering fundamental social policies. *Ford; World-Wide*. +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | In-forum effect: *Calder*: | Contractual Relations: *Burger | | | King*: | | 1. Intentional Conduct | | | | 1. Reached into forum state | | 2. Expressly aimed at forum | | | state | 2. Forum selection clause | | | | | 3. With D's knowledge effects | 3. Flow of money/products | | felt by P in forum | | | | 4. Continuing obligations | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ Stream of Commerce (*J Mac*): **Plurality**: manifesting intent that product be used in forum state = Purp. Avail; **Concurrence**: intent + state-specific design/ads + regular flow of biz into forum = Purp. Avail; **Dissent**: Fairness, wahhh ***[Walden]***: P's contacts with the forum are irrelevant -- we only care about that D. [Steps for Essay: ] ***STEP 1:*** Does a traditional basis apply? Talk about split of authority in Burnham and discuss both. ***STEP 2: Int'l Shoe***: 1. Is there a relevant contact with the D and forum? a. [Purposeful availment:] the contact must result from D reaching out to forum, cannot be act of 3^rd^ party i. D uses the roads in forum, makes money from forum, causes effect in forum b. [Foreseeability:] foreseeable that D can be sued in forum, not that the product will enter the forum 2. Does the P's claim arise out of or relate to the D's contact w the forum? c. Little contact = harm of P must have been caused by D's contact w forum d. Lots of Contact = all have to show P's claim relates to D's contact w forum ***STEP 3:*** IF THERE IS RELATEDNESS: Whether jurisdiction is fair and reasonable? (only applies to specific) e. Convenience on P f. Forum state's interest g. P's interest h. Judicial system's interest in efficiency i. Shared substantive policies of the States ***STEP 4: CONCLUSIONS*** j. GENERAL JURISDICTION: this should be clear cut. No one essentially at home? Not a natural person? Only basis is corporation's agent served w/ process in forum state? --**[ABSOLUTELY]** NO GJ k. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION: this is less clear cut. Yes to minimum contacts, but claims don't arise from or relate to in-forum contacts by D? **[LIKELY]** NO PJ **SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION** SMJ: court's ability to hear a specific type of case **[4 Ways to Get Into Federal Court: (1) Diversity of Citizenship; (2) Federal Question; (3) Removal; (4) Venue]** **[State Courts:]** courts of **GENERAL SMJ** -- they can generally hear any type of case, unless Congress has passed a statute giving SMJ to federal courts on certain types of cases. **[Federal Courts:]** courts of **LIMITED SMJ** -- they can only hear cases on issues prescribed by the Constitution or Congress (statutes) -- refuse to hear domestic relations and probate **[Concurrent SMJ]**: When both state and federal courts can hear an issue -- plaintiff decides where to file suit **[SMJ Analysis]**: 1. Must be a basis in Article III of U.S. Constitution 2. Must be a Congressional grant of jurisdiction (statutory) a. Congress not required to grant SMJ to full constitutional limit (ex.---amount in controversy requirement) **[Burden of Invoking SMJ]**: 1. Parties cannot confer SMJ on a federal court by agreement or consent. 2. SMJ is a defense that cannot be waived. Any party or the court itself can raise SMJ issue at any time, even after the court enters judgment. 3. **[Plaintiff]** must properly plead that federal SMJ exists **1. DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP** ***[Constitutional Authority: Article III, § 2]***: provides Congress authority to let federal courts hear controversies between citizens of different states (diversity) and between citizens of a State and citizens of foreign states (alienage) ***[Statutory Authority: 28 USC 1332(a):]*** invokes constitutional authority and lets federal courts hear cases between citizens of different states and between citizens of a State and citizens of a foreign state if **[complete]** diversity exists and the **[amount in controversy]** exceeds \$75,000. **[*Mas v. Perry*:]** for natural persons, their domicile is their "true, fixed, permanent home and principal establishment" **[*Hertz*:]** a corporation's PPB is their nerve center, where officers direct, control, and coordinate corporate activities ***[Belleville]***: Partnerships are citizens where their partners/members are citizens (LLCs operate the same) **[DIVERSITY:]** **Complete Diversity Rule:** no diversity if any P is of the same citizenship as any D -- **28 U.S.C. 1332(a)** **US Citizens**: citizens of the state in which they are domiciled; ONLY HAVE 1 DOMICILE, unless you (1) move residence elsewhere, and (2) intend to remain there. - Factors that support the conclusion of intent to remain include: - Buying a home, joining a civic/religious organization, register to vote, taking a job in new residence **Foreign Citizens**: citizens of their country. If **[LPR]**: cannot be domiciled in same State as parties on opposite side **28 USC § 1332(e):** Territories, D.C., and Puerto Rico are treated like States for SMJ **28 USC § 1332(c)(1)**: Corporations are citizens of States where they are INCORPORATED and the one State where they have their PPB\ PPB = Nerve Center: where the high level officers direct, control, and coordinate corp. activities (*Hertz*)\ Unincorporated/LLC/Partnerships: citizens of States where partners/members are citizens **28 USC § 1332(c)(2):** courts look to citizenship of minor/decedent/incompetent and NOT the citizenship of their representative. **28 USC § 1359:** No SMJ when it has been improperly or collusively made/joined to invoke SMJ.\ [\*\*\*\*Does NOT apply to a single litigant changing his/her domicile to create diversity\*\*\*\*] **[AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY (AiC): Must Exceed \$75k]** **Aggregation:** can aggregate multiple claims to get AiC over \$75k\ [One P v. One D]: can aggregate P's claims even if unrelated\ [If multiple parties on either side, then cannot aggregate] **Joint Claims (joint tortfeasors/joint liability)**: use the total value of the claim; number of parties is irrelevant **[ALIENAGE -- 28 USC 1332(a)(2-4)]** ***[Alienage JX is ONLY proper when action is between]***: Citizens of a State citizens of a FOREIGN STATE \-- Ex.---G(TX) W(Japan) Citizens of different States, in which citizens of a FOREIGN STATE are additional parties\ Ex.---G(TX) F(GA) & W(Japan) FOREIGN STATE as P v. citizens of a State or of different States (Ex.---France v. G(TX) & F(GA) ***[Alienage JX IS NOT proper when LPR is a citizen of the same state as other side of V]***: G(TX) H(Mex.) but H is an LPR domiciled in TX -- this makes H's citizenship of TX \*\*\*\*\***[DO NOT ASSUME SOMEONE IS AN LPR UNLESS YOU ARE TOLD SO!\*\*\*\*\*\*\*]** **\*\*\*\*A case does not require diversity for a FC to hear the issue -- under FQJX, as long as you meet Constitutional and Statutory requirements, you can get a case into FC.\*\*\*\*\*** **Constitutional Authority: Article III § 2:** provides Congress authority to let federal courts hear cases arising under federal law (Federal Question Jurisdiction) **Statutory Authority: 28 USC § 1331:** invokes Constitutional authority and lets federal courts hear cases with a claim arising under federal law **Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule:** requires that P's complaint must include **[a reference]** to a federal question or issue. **[Key Question: Is a federal law the source of Plaintiff's relief?]**\ - Ex. -- G sues W because W put a USB into G's laptop. The USB contained a virus that stole \$300k from G's BofA account. G's complaint states that W "violated federal laws prohibiting harm from computer viruses," but did not expressly name the CFAA (federal law). **[G's right to relief "arises under" the CFAA. Therefore, the court will consider this a well-pleaded complaint, even though G did not name the CFAA. G's right to relief exists under the CFAA.]** - Well-Pleaded Complaint: court will consider whether the complaint raised a federal issue **[if it would have been well-pleaded]**, even if it was not originally. - Ex.---G's case above. It would have been well-pleaded if G named the CFAA and explicitly established a right to relief under the CFAA. ***Grable* Test:** when state law is mixed with federal law, federal question jurisdiction is proper if the federal issue is: 1. Necessity (state law claim raises a federal issue claim) 2. Actually Disputed (federal issue is actually being contested in court) 3. Substantial factor issue (federal issue was important, and the FC had a strong interest in hearing issue) 4. Capable of resolution in Fed. Court w/o disturbing the Congressionally approved balance of labor between State and Fed. Courts 3.) Supplemental Jurisdiction (§ 1367) **\*Does not get a case into Federal Court -- It gets non-SMJ claims into a case in Federal Court.** ***Supplemental Jurisdiction:* [claim shares a common nucleus of operative fact w/ the claim that got the case into federal court (*Gibbs*)]** Common nucleus of operative fact = even broader than same transaction or occurrence ***28 USC § 1367(a):*** Giveth/Grants SMJ If there is SMJ over one claim, any other claim arising from the same common nucleus of operative fact also has SMJ. - If P files multiple claims and only 1 exceeds 75k, the other claims can have SMJ if they are transactionally related - Single P can add the claims up to exceed 75k as long as they are transactionally related. - Multiple Ps cannot add their claims up to exceed 75k; one must exceed & then transactionally related claims can be brought [ONLY Applies in Diversity of Citizenship Cases:] ***28 USC § 1376(b):*** Taketh away SMJ [only] over certain claims by the PLAINTIFFS, ***NOT*** by the D. - Over claims by Ps against persons joined under Rule 14, 19, 20 or 24 \[*impleader, proper Ps/Ds, necessary/required, intervention*\] - Over claims by Rule 19 Plaintiffs \[*necessary/required*\] - Over claims by Rule 24 Intervener Plaintiffs \[*intervention*\] ***28 USC § 1367(c):*** in deciding whether to exercise SJ, the court must *consider* convenience, judicial economy, and fairness to parties. District courts may decline to exercise SJ over a claim under § 1367(a) if -- 1. The claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law 2. The claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction 3. The district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction 4. Or for other compelling reasons (such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness to parties) 4.) Removal and Remand **[REMOVAL]:** State Court to Federal Court \[\*Does *NOT* require permission\*\] ***28 USC § 1441*:** allows D to remove a case from state to federal court **if the case could have been brought originally in federal court, and D can only remove to the federal district court that embraces the state court where the case was filed.** ***28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2):*** If SMJ is based on **§1332** (**DIVERSITY),** **D cannot remove if they are a citizen of the forum state in which the action lies.** ***28 USC § 1446(b):*** D must remove within 30 days of service of process. All Ds who have been served w/ process must join in the removal. The 30 days starts over with each newly served D. ***28 USC § 1446(c)(1):*** If SMJ is based on §1332, case may not be removed more than one year after the commencement of the action. **[28 USC 1390(c):]** 28 USC 1391 does not govern venue in removal actions. **[REMAND]:** P can never remove; If P thinks removal was improper, then P will move to remand the case back to state court ***28 U.S.C. § 1447(c):*** Motions to remand based on lack of SMJ can be filed at any time before final judgement, but **[motions to remand based on defects other than lack of SMJ must be made within 30 days of filing a removal notice]**. **MIDTERM WRITING (SMJ)** **[MODEL ANSWER FOR SMJ:]** Subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ) is the court's authority over a claim. Art. III, §2 of the Constitution provides Congress authority to let federal courts (FC) hear cases arising under federal law (federal question jurisdiction). 28 USC 1331 invokes that authority and lets FC hear cases arising under federal law. Art. III also provides Congress authority to let FC hear controversies between citizens of different states (diversity jurisdiction) and between citizens of a state and citizens of a foreign state (alienage jurisdiction). 28 USC 1332 invokes that authority and lets FC hear cases if complete diversity of citizenship exists, and the amount in controversy exceeds \$75k. Complete diversity means no P's citizenship is the same as any D's citizenship. US citizens are citizens of state where domiciled, which is where they reside and intend to remain, changeable only upon residing in another state and intending to stay there. *Mas*. Under 28 USC 1332(c)(1), corporations are citizens of the states where they are incorporated and have their PPB. PPB is the corporation's nerve center, from which high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities. *Hertz*. Unincorporated entities are citizens of states where their partners or members are citizens. **[WHETHER COURT SHOULD GRANT THE 12(b)(1) MOTION?]** *Supplemental Jurisdiction*... OR (see SMJ rules above.) Art. III and 28 USC 1367(a), give FC supplemental jurisdiction (SJ) over claims so related to the claims with original jurisdiction that they arise from a common nucleus of operative facts. 28 USC 1367(c) allows courts to decline to exercise SJ, weighing whether the claim raises novel or complex state law issues or substantially predominates over the claim with original jurisdiction; the court dismissed the claim with original jurisdiction; or other compelling reasons like judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to litigants. However, when original jurisdiction is based on 28 USC 1332, SJ does not extend to claims by Ps against parties joined under FRCP 14, 19, 20 and 24. **[WAS SMJ PROPER]?** *Remand, Removal*... Under Article III, federal courts can hear cases between citizens of different states (diversity jurisdiction) and between citizens of a state and citizens of a foreign state (alienage jurisdiction). 28 USC 1332 invokes that authority, and allows federal courts to hear cases between citizens of different states and between citizens of a state and foreign state if there is complete diversity, and the amount in controversy exceeds \$75k. US citizens are citizens of state where they are domiciled, which is where they reside and intend to remain, changeable only upon residing in another state and intending to stay there. Under 28 USC 1332(c)(1), corporations are citizens of the states where they are incorporated and have their PPB, which is the nerve center where corporation's actions are directed from. Unincorporated entities are citizens of states where their partners are citizens. Under 28 USC 1441, allows D to remove a case from state to federal court if the case could have been brought there originally, and venue is proper in the judicial district embracing where the action was pending. 28 USC 1391 does not govern venue in removal actions. (28 USC 1390c) Under 28 USC 1447(c), motions to remand based on lack of SMJ can be filed at any time before final judgement, and motions to remand based on other defects must be made within 30 days of filing removal notice. \*\*Courts will look at citizenship at time of removal to make sure there was no collusively attempt for SMJ. **[VENUE]** ***VENUE:* Tells us exactly which federal court we sue in** To have the authority to hear and decide a case before it, a civil court **[MUST]** have: 1. SMJ over the particular type of case being heard 2. PJ over the defendant, AND 3. **[VENUE in the proper judicial district]** Basic Rules These rules **[ONLY APPLY]** when the case was originally filed in Federal Court. **[DOES NOT APPLY]** when cases are removed. **[28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1): Residential Venue (VENUE RESIDENCE = Domicile from PJ)]** - **P may lay venue in the district where any D resides. If all Ds reside in the forum state, then we may lay venue in any district where any one of them reside.** **[28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2): Transactional Venue ]** - **P may lay venue where a substantial part of the claim arose**. - Court must decide whether event in a judicial district "gave rise to the claim" **[28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3): Fallback Venue (Catch-All Venue)]** - **P may lay venue where there is PJ over any D.** - ***ONLY* applies when there is no district in the US where all Ds reside, or a substantial part of the claim arose.** ***28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1):*** natural persons reside in the district where they are domiciled. ***28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2):*** an entity resides in all jurisdictions where it would be subject to PJ with respect to the case. Transfer of Venue **[Transfer]**: one Federal District court to another Federal District court (SAME JUDIDICAL SYSTEM) ***Transferor***: the original federal district; must grant the motion to transfer ***Transferee:*** the court to which we transfer the case ***28 U.S.C. § 1404(a):*** Transferor is a ***proper*** venue, but that court may transfer to another district based on convenience of the parties and witnesses & the interest of justice. It would make more sense to litigate at the transferee. D can also transfer to any district (even an improper venue) if all the parties agree, and the court thinks it is a good idea. - [Discretionary]: Courts weigh the Public and Private Factors when determining whether to grant the transfer *Public Factors:* which court ought to be burdened by the case, which state law will apply, etc. *Private Factors:* convenience of witnesses & parties, where the evidence is, etc. ***28 U.S.C. § 1406(a):*** Transferor is an ***improper*** venue, and court may transfer in the interest of justice or court may dismiss. ***Under both Statutes***: Can transfer ONLY when the transferee is a proper venue & has PJ over the D. - Must be true w/o waiver by the D Forum of Non Conveniens ***Forum of Non Conveniens***: where a Court dismisses a case b/c there is another court that makes a lot more sense. Dismiss because the other court that makes more sense is in a different judicial system, and transfer to another judicial system is impossible. - Dismissal allows the P to then go and file in the more center of gravity, convenient court - Other court must be available and adequate (aka you are going to be heard in that court). - Court will look at Public Factors and Private Factors. ***Public Factors:*** (1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion, (2) the "local interest in having localized controversies decided at home", (3) the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action, (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law, and (5) the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty. ***Private Factors:*** (1) relative ease of access to sources of proof, (2) availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses, (3) possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action: and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. ***[Piper:]*** Plane crash in Scotland that killed all Scottish citizens. Plane was owned and operated by Scotland citizens but was manufactured by a PA company. P sued in PA court, and the court held the case should be dismissed under Forum of Non Conveniens to let P sue in Scotland. Essay Template **[MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE]: 12(b)(3)** Under 28 USC 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in judicial district where any D resides if all Ds reside in the state where district is located (residential venue). Under 28 USC 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in judicial district where a substantial part of the claim arose (transactional venue) Under 28 USC 1391(b)(3), if there is no district where the action may lie, venue is proper in judicial district that has PJ over D with respect to the claim (catch-all venue). Analyze PJ now if using 1391(b)(3) (catch-all venue). Under 28 USC 1391(c), a natural person resides in district where they are domiciled, meaning where they intend to permanently remain, an entity resides in all jurisdictions where they would be subject to PJ, and a non-resident in the US may be sued in any judicial district. **[Steps for Analyzing Venue]**: 1. 1391: apply the proper venue statute a. 1391(b)(1): venue is proper in judicial district where any D resides if all Ds reside in the state where district is located. RESIDENTIAL b. 1391(b)(2): venue is proper in judicial district where a substantial part of the claim arose. TRANSACTIONAL c. 1391(b)(3): if no district where action may lie, venue is proper in judicial district that has PJ over D with respect to the claim. FALLBACK/CATCH-ALL -- ANALYZE PJ NOW! 2. Nature of the case: is it Federal Question? Is it a Diversity case? d. Pick relevant venue rules 3. Locate the Defendants 4. Assess Where Events Occurred 5. Check for Multiple Defendants 6. Has Anyone Waived/Agreed to a Specific Venue? 7. Consider Transfer Provisions e. 1446: D required to file notice of removal within 30 days of receipt of complaint f. 1441: D can remove to FC if case could have originally been filed in FC 8. Conclude on Venue **[Forum Non Conveniens Rule]**: Generally, a P's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed, but a court may dismiss for FNC when an alternative forum has jurisdiction, considering public and private interest factors. Private interest factors include (insert). Public interest factors include (insert). NOTICE, SERVICE OF PROCESS & OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD [DPC Requires]: (1) personal jurisdiction, & (2) D be given notice of suit when their life, liberty, or property will potentially be taken. **Determining if opportunity to be heard before a gov. deprived D of its life, liberty, or property, courts will balance**: (1) the private interests affected by the government's action; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of D's life/liberty/property and the probable value of additional process; and (3) the government interests in having to provide additional process. \[usually not an issue\] Notice \[aka serving process\] ***Constitutional Authority***: DPC requires notice to be reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise the party of the suit - Can be constitutional even if D does not get notice - If it becomes clear to P that service was not received, the P might have to try another reasonable way of service ***Notice by Publication/Constructive Notice***: constitutional if under all the circumstances, this is the only way to give notice. - A last resort -- if some other method is available, you have to do that (Ex: cannot identify the person, do not know names) Service of Process ***Service of Process:*** way we give notice to the D in most lawsuits (2 documents) - *[Summons]*: official court notice of suit; shows courts power over D / *[Copy of Complaint]*: shows D the complaints against him - Will inform D on the claim against him, tell D what he has to do, & when he has to do it to avoid default. **[FRCP Rule 4]**: 6 important takeaways - 4(c)(1) Process consists of a summon & a copy of the complaint. - 4(c)(2) Service can be made by any non-party who is at least age 18. - 4(e)(1) Allows you to use methods of service that are permitted under state law (individuals & businesses - Either State's law where service is affected OR State's law where federal court sits - 4(e)(2): Three choices on how to serve process on the D: - \(1) **[Personal Service]**: giving it personally, can be done anywhere - \(2) **[Substituted Service]**: leaving a copy of the summons + complaint at D's dwelling or usual abode & must be given to someone who is of suitable age and discretion who resides there. - \(3) **[By Serving D's agent who is authorized]** by appointment or by the law to receive the process - 4(h)(1) Serving process on a business -- can serve an officer or a managing/general agent - **[Officer]**: corporate secretary - **[Managing/General Agent]**: title does not really matter - someone with sufficient responsibility we would expect to transmit important papers - 4(d) Waiving Formal Service of Process - If P mails D process & two copies of waiver form and D sends them back signed, then do not have to go through formal service of process (D does not waive any defense, only the formal service of process) - If D refuses to mail back the form, D will have to pay for the cost of service - If D waives, D has 60 days from the date mailed to respond rather than the usual 21 days. - 4(k)(1)(a) We can serve process throughout the state in which the federal court sits or serve outside the forum if a state court could do so as well. \[*4(k) and 4(n) satisfy the statutory requirement for PJ over D*\] - 4(m) Service must be within 90 days of filing complaint, or the court - will dismiss the claim. Motions to dismiss & waiver under Rule 12 **[Rule 12:]** response to a complaint with a preliminary motion to dismiss ***Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(i):*** D is required to serve an answer on P within 20 days after being served with the summons and complaint. - Instead of answering within 20-day period, D may choose to make a preliminary Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss ***Rule 12(a)(4)(A):*** if D's 12(b) motion to dismiss is unsuccessful, he then is allowed 10 days after service of court's unfavorable decision on the motion to answer. ***Rule 12(b):*** seven grounds for dismissal of a complaint - Ever defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required - A motion asserting any of these defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed ***Rule 12(g)(1):*** the party may join all motions under Rule 12 into a single motion. **12(b)(1)** -- lack of SMJ **12(b)(2)** -- lack of PJ **12(b)(3)** -- improper venue **12(b)(4)** -- insufficient process **12(b)(5)** -- insufficient service of process **12(b)(6)** -- failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (lack of rule that permits assertion of claim) **12(b)(7)** -- failure to join a party under Rule 19 Joinder **2 Step Analysis:** 1.) What is the joinder rule that allows the joinder of parties or joinder of claims? 2.) Is there SMJ over the claims that are being joined? \- §1367(a): based off federal question and same CNOF? \- §1367(b): if based on Diversity, then does this take away supplemental? **If claim starts with "C"** -- it is a claim against existing parties. **If claim starts with "I"** -- we are joining someone new. **[Same Transaction or Occurrence]** \[T/O\]: essentially means the same set of facts **[Must Arise Out Of A Common Nucleus Of Operative Fact]** \[CNOF\]: if the facts involved in the lawsuit are common to each claim ***Real Party Interest:*** receives the benefits of the interest in dispute; civil action must be brought by RPI & court must allow RPI to join - FRCP Rule 17 ***Capacity to Sue:*** who can sue & follow state rules where individual/corp. is domiciled, & everyone else follows court's state rules - FRCP Rule 17(b) ***Joinder of Claims***: party may join more than one claim against a party - FRCP Rule 18(a) ***Compulsory Counterclaim***: claim against an opposing party that arises out of the same T/O as the claim of the opposing party - FRCP Rule 13(a)(1) -- "use it or lose it" ***Permissive Counterclaim***: claim against an opposing party that does [not] arise out of the same T/O - FRCP Rule 13(b) -- "use whenever" ***Crossclaim***: claim against a co-party where the party that original joined who is on the same side of the claim as the party asserting crossclaim. Must arise out of same T?O - FRCP Rule 13(g) ***Required Joinder of Parties***: requires joinder of multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants - FRCP Rule 19 ***Permissive Joinder of Parties***: allows joinder of multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants - FRCP Rule 20 ***Impleader:*** party defending a claim may bring into the action a 3^rd^ person who may be derivatively liable for all or part of the claim - FRCP Rule 14 ***Intervention of Right***: third person must be allowed to enter the action as a party - ***Permissive Intervention***: third person may be allowed to enter the action as a party - ***Interpleader***: person holding property potentially subject to multiple claimants may require claimants to assert their claims against the property in the same action - Statutory Interpleader of Interpleader RPI, Capacity & Consolidation/Separate Trials ***Rule 17(a)***: Real Party Interest receives the benefits of the interest in dispute - Any civil action must be brought in the name of the **RPI** - Courts must allow the RPI to be joined before dismissing. - For purposes of diversity of citizenship, you look at the RPI's citizenship ***Rule 17(b):*** determines capacity to sue and be sued - If it is an **individual bringing the suit on behalf of their self**, you follow the laws where they are domiciled. - If it is a **corporation**, you follow the laws where they are domiciled. (incorporated) - For everyone else, capacity depends on the law of the state where the court is located. ***Rule 17(c):*** determines who can represent a minor or incompetent person ***Rule 42(a):*** If actions in the [same court] involve any common question of law or fact, a court *may* join for trial any matters at issue, consolidate ***parts*** of actions, or issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. - Puts them on the same track for a period of time, but **cannot** take two actions and combine them into one. ***Rule 42(b):*** Court *may* order ***separate trials*** for one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims or third-party claims for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize. - Separate trials, but still one lawsuit. (one action, one judge, one number for the case) CLAIM JOINDER BY PLAINTIFF ***Rule 18(a):*** P may assert *any* claims she has. - Party asserting a claim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join as many claims as it has against opposing parties. - Once one arrow is draw against a party, you can draw as many as you want - Claims don't have to be transactionally related -- can draw unrelated, alternative, contradictory, or contingent claims After all the claims are asserted in one case, we have to look at whether there is SMJ. If it meets neither, then we will try supplemental jurisdiction. CLAIM JOINDER BY DEFENDANT ***2 Claims:*** Counterclaims and Crossclaims **[CLAIM \#1.] *Counterclaim***: claim against an [opposing party] (someone who has sued you) that is filed with D's answer - Crosses a "v" of the lawsuit that was already drawn - Procedurally, all counterclaims are proper 100% of the time - \(1) *Compulsory* Counterclaim (use it or lose it), and (2) *Permissive* Counterclaim (use whenever) - If court does not have OJ over the ∆, then ∆ does not have any power to raise a compulsory claim - \*The only compulsory claim in the universe is a compulsory counterclaim. - § 1367(a): since compulsory counterclaims must arise out of same T/O, it is a part of the same CNOF. - § 1367(b): since allowed using Rule 13, it does not take away supplemental jurisdiction if basis is diversity. - Therefore, compulsory counterclaims can be carried into federal court by supplemental jurisdiction. - Does not have to arise from the same T/O - § 1367(a): by definition, it does not arise from the same T/O, so it is not part of the same CNOF. - Therefore, permissive counterclaims are **NOT** carried into federal court by supplemental jurisdiction. **[CLAIM \#2.] *Crossclaim***: against a [co-party], and it must arise from the same T/O - Coparty is a party on the same side of the "v" -- crossclaim is either (∆ against another ∆), or (P against another P). - How we get a Co-Party? P joined multiple Ps or multiple Ds under ***Rule 20***. - Once a party is able to plead a crossclaim, the party is then able to add other unrelated claims under ***Rule 18(a).*** (new "v" created) ***Rule 13(g):*** **Crossclaim** against a co-party [must] arise from the same T/O as the underlying case or of a counterclaim. - No such thing as a "compulsory" crossclaim; you [may] assert it whenever (always permissive) - Must state a claim: an assertion that a coparty is entirely liable should be pleaded as a denial, not as a crossclaim - § 1367(a): since crossclaims must arise out of the same T/O, it is part of the same CNOF. - § 1367(b): since allowed using Rule 13, it does not take away supplemental jurisdiction if basis is diversity. - Therefore, crossclaims can be carried into federal court by supplemental jurisdiction. ***Rule 13(h):*** D can join an additional party to a counterclaim or crossclaim, and the addition is governed by Rules 19 and 20. [Rule 19]: Required Absentee: Necessary? Feasible? What to do if not feasible? [Rule 20]: (1) The relief sought arises from the same or series of T/O, & (2) at least one common question of law/fact will arise After you assess the counterclaim/crossclaim, we have to look at whether it has SMJ under federal question or diversity. If it meets neither, then we will try supplemental jurisdiction. *EXAMPLE:* We have a 3-way car crash. P is a citizen of AZ and sues the other 2 drivers. D1 and D2 are citizens of NY. Under ***Rule 20(a)(2),*** P can have multiple Ds because the claims against them arise out of the same T/O and raise at least one common question. Assume every claim in the case is more than \$75K, and it is under state law. The case invoked diversity jurisdiction and is in Federal court. What claims might D2 file in this case? **No. 1**. D2 [should] file a compulsory claim against P. Claim has SMJ bc it exceeds 75k & has complete diversity. PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES \[PROPER PARTIES\] ***Rule 20(a):*** **Permissive Joinder of Parties**: Who [may] be joined - PL not required to join all potential parties - Remember: case (claim) must invoke SMJ ***Rule 20(a)(1):*** Joining Multiple ***Plaintiffs*** ***Rule 20(a)(2):*** Joining Multiple ***Defendants*** - [Same Test]: - \(1) Joint and several liability, or the relief sought arises out of the same T/O or series of T/O, and - \(2) at least one common question of law or fact will arise. **Ex.** P is injured in an accident, and months later, the doctor treating her for the injuries from the accident commits malpractice. *Series of T/O:* P can join driver & doctor permissively as ∆s, even though separated by months. *Common Question*: extent and valuation of P's combined injuries. ***Rule 20(b):*** court [may] order ***separate trials*** to protect party against embarrassment, delay, expense, or other prejudice that arises from including a person against whom the party asserts no claim & who asserts no claim against the party. - Pretty equivalent to rule 42(b) - Separate trials, same lawsuit ***[Motion Rule 21]***: motion for severance if joinder of parties was improper in the first place - Only way to know if joinder was improper Rule 20 - Misjoinder of parties is not grounds for dismissal of action. Rather, court can dismiss a party or sever a claim at any time. - Courts will probably convene in conference with the parties and ask who wants to remain. REQUIRED JOINDER OF PARTIES \[Necessary and Indispensible Parties\] ***How it comes up:*** Case has been filed, the \# of Ps and Ds has been decided, & case is pending. [BUT], in structuring the case, the P left someone out. There is an absentee ("A"; the non-party). Sometimes, court will grab the absentee & force them into the case when they are necessary/required. - **12(b)(7) Motion**: failure to join a party under Rule 19 ***[Rule 19]: Required Joinder of Parties*** [STEP 1]. ***Rule 19(a)(1)*** Is the Absentee Necessary? \[*General Rule*: tortfeasors are not necessary.\] If any of the tests are met, then the court can order joinder of the absentee bc the absentee is necessary. - **Test 1: *Rule 19(a)(1)(a):*** Without the Absentee, the Court cannot accord complete relief among the parties. Focused on efficiency; if we don't bring A into the case, there will be multiple litigations later on - **Test 2: *Rule 19(a)(1)(b)(1):*** A's interest may be harmed in a practical way if she is not joined. Focused on A herself. - **Test 3: *Rule 19(a)(1)(b)(2):*** A's interest may subject the D to multiple or inconsistent obligations. Focused on D; if A is not brought into the case, D may be hurt by multiple or inconsistent obligations. *EXAMPLE:* Allie owns 1000 shares of stock in XYZ, which is worth a lot of money. Grant comes along and claims that him & Allie bought the stock jointly and each paid half. Grant sues XYZ and asks the court for an order cancelling Allie's stock. Allie is the absentee. - **Test 1:** If Allie is not joined, the court cannot accord complete relief. It is her stock & she will sue Grant or XYZ later on. - **Test 2:** Allie's interest may be harmed if she is not brought in. If Grant wins the pending case, Allie's stock would be cancelled. - **Test 3:** If Allie is not brought in, XYZ might be subject to multiple or inconsistent obligations. The court might tell XYZ to cancel the stock and reissue it in joint names. Then, Allie might win against XYZ in a separate litigation, and the court may tell XYZ to cancel the stock and reissue it again. Those are inconsistent obligations. [STEP 2]. ***Rule 19(a)(3)*** Is Joinder of the Absentee feasible? Joinder is feasible if there (1) is PJ over A, and (2) if bringing A in does not destroy complete diversity. - If feasible, then court can order A's joinder. [STEP 3]: ***Rule 19(b)*** What to do when Joinder of Absentee is NOT Feasible? Court must either (1) proceed without A, or (2) dismiss the case. ***Rule 19(b):*** the court must weigh the prejudicial effect of judgement without the absentee, whether it can shape relief to lessen prejudice, whether judgement without the absentee would be adequate, and whether P has an avenue for relief if the case were dismissed ***12(b)(7) Motion:*** If court decides absentee isn't required, they must deny the 12(b)(7) motion. Absentee is then called "indispensable". IMPLEADER ***Impleader:*** where a Defendant party joins [a new person], and the somebody new is called the third-party defendant (TPD) - Claim is either for indemnity or contribution - [Standard:] D impleads the TPD bc he may be liable to D for the P's claim against D - EXAMPLE: P sued D, who is one of two joint tortfeasors. D impleads TPD to deflect half of his liability onto him. ***Rule 14(a)(1):*** impleader may only be used against a nonparty who is or may be liable and must be filed within 14 days of answering. - Court must approve of impleader if done past the 14 days. - Nonparty must have derivative liability (contribution or indemnity); cannot be an alternate defendant - Another party may later move to strike the impleader, so in the end, impleader is always discretionary with the court ***Rule 14(a)(2):*** the TPD can defend the third-party claim, counterclaim against the third-party plaintiff (OG ∆), crossclaim against other TPDs, and defend or assist in defense of the original claim. ***Rule 14(a)(2)(d):*** TPD can assert a ***downward*** sloping claim against the P if it arises out of the same T/O. ***Rule 14(a)(3):*** P can assert an ***upward*** sloping claim against the TPD if it arises out of the same T/O. ***Rule 14(a)(4):*** any party can move to strike the impleader, to sever it, or to try it separately - Courts will decide whether efficiency outweighs any possible prejudice to a party of trial in a single action ***Rule 14(a)(5):*** TPD can use Rule 14 to implead a nonparty who is or may be liable to him for all or part of any claim against him - TPD would then become the "third-party defendant and fourth-party plaintiff," and the above portions of Rule 14 apply. - § 1367(a): since impleader must arise derivatively through the original claim, it is part of the same CNOF. - § 1367(b): since the third-party claim is a claim by the [defendant], it does not take away supplemental because it says SJ does not exist for joinder over claims by ***plaintiffs*** against persons made parties under Rule 14. - When TPD brings in a fourth-party defendant = also not a claim by a plaintiff - When TBD asserts a claim directly against the original P = also not a claim by a plaintiff - Therefore, impleader can carry a claim into federal court under supplemental jurisdiction. [EXCEPTION:] Rule 14(a)(3) - § 1367(a): arises out of the same T/O, so it is a part of the same CNOF. - § 1367(b): it is a claim by the plaintiff, so SJ is taken away when basis is diversity. After analyzing the impleader, you have to assess if the claim has SMJ. INTERVENTION ***Intervention:*** Absentee brings herself into the case under Rule 24 to either assert a claim or defend a claim, either as a P or ∆. - Never required to intervene -- can choose to remain outside a lawsuit & attempt to protect interests in a separate suit. - 2 Kinds of Intervention: Intervention of Right and Permissive Intervention ***Rule 24:*** application to intervene must be timely, and the absentee decides which side of the case to come in on. ***Rule 24(a)(2):*** **Intervention of Right**: A has the right to intervene if A's interest may be harmed if not joined. - \(1) Must be timely (based on court's discretion), - \(2) Must show they have an interest that could be impaired or impeded in a practical manner, and - \(3) Must show that existing parties do not adequately represent A's interest. - If denied, A may still intervene permissively under Rule 24(b)(2) in the discretion of the court. ***Rule 24(b)(2):*** **Permissive Intervention**: A must show that her claim/defense & the pending case have at least one common question. - \(1) Must be timely (based on court's discretion) - \(2) Must show A has a claim or defense that shares a common question of law or fact with the main action. - Courts have discretion whether to allow the intervention. [Supplemental Jurisdiction Analysis]: - § 1367(a): Intervenor's claim/interest could be from the same CNOF. - § 1367(b): if basis is diversity alone, supplemental jurisdiction is taken away over both intervening Ps and Ds. After analyzing the intervention, you have to assess if the A's claim has SMJ. INTERPLEADER Originally, interpleader required the stakeholder to deposit the stake into court & step back to allow the claimants to compete for it. More recently, **Interpleader:** allows the stakeholder also to claim the property. - Provides a joinder device to bring all potential claimants into a single action. - Does not supply PJ over all the claimants. - Interpleader = stakeholder files in federal court **[Statutory Interpleader]**: provides a method of nationwide service on claimants - Multiple adverse claimants do or may claim res - Spread through §§ 1335, 1397, and 2361. [§ 1335: ] - Only minimal diversity is required between two or more claimants to the property. - A minimum jurisdictional amount of \$500 is required. - The stakeholder must pay or place the stake into court. - Venue may be laid in a district where any claimant resides. - Process may be served nationwide - The district court may enjoin claimants from pursuing the property in any other state or federal court. **[Interpleader Under the Rule]**: ***FRCP Rule 22*** Multiple adverse claimants do or may claim res and claimants may expose stakeholder to multiple liability. - P stakeholder must be of citizenship diverse from all defendants/claimants, and stake must exceed \$75k (§ 1332) - Independent basis for SMJ (§§ 1331, 1332, 1367) - Venue must be laid under standard venue rules (§ 1391) - No deposit required - A defendant may seek interpleader by way of a counterclaim. A table with text and numbers Description automatically generated Essay Template **[SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION: ]** Art. III and 28 USC 1367(a), give FC supplemental jurisdiction (SJ) over claims so related to the claims with original jurisdiction that they arise from a common nucleus of operative facts. 28 USC 1367(c) allows courts to decline to exercise SJ, weighing whether the claim raises novel or complex state law issues or substantially predominates over the claim with original jurisdiction; the court dismissed the claim with original jurisdiction; or other compelling reasons like judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to litigants. However, when original jurisdiction is based on 28 USC 1332, SJ does not extend to claims by Ps against parties joined under FRCP 14, 19, 20 and 24. **[COUNTERCLAIMS/CROSS CLAIMS: ]** If multiple arrows drawn, it does not matter which arrow you base supplemental jurisdiction on. Just has to be one from original P. When statutory interpleader, then go through 1335. If rule interpleader, then you are good. Under FRCP Rule 13(a)(1), a compulsory counterclaim must arise from the same T/O as to the plaintiff's claim, and it must be asserted in the pending case. Under FRCP 13(b), a permissive counterclaim may be asserted in the pending case or in a separate case, and the claim does not have to arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original jurisdiction claim. Under FRCP Rule 13(h), a defendant may join an additional party to a counterclaim or crossclaim, and the addition is governed by Rules 19 and 20. **[P JOINING MULTIPLE Ps/Ds: ]** Under FRCP Rule 20(a)(2), P may join multiple Ds where the claims against them arise out of or relate to the same T/O, and involve at least one common question of law or fact. **[IMPLEADER: ]** Under FRCP Rule 14(a)(1), D may implead a nonparty allegedly liable for contribution, but D needs court approval to implead more than 14 days after serving its answer. Under FRCP Rule 14(a)(3), P may assert any claims against an impleaded party arising out of the same T/O as P's claims against D. **[COMPREHENSION CHECKS]** Personal jurisdiction over natural persons can be obtained by tagging them in the forum state, so long as the exercise of jurisdiction would be historically permitted (which is based on D's voluntary presence in the forum state) and D availed itself of significant benefits of the state Tagging a corporation's transient agent in a forum state does not confer personal jurisdiction over the corporation, but tagging an unincorporated entity's transient agent in a forum state confers at least specific jurisdiction over that entity, if not general jurisdiction Federal courts lack SMJ if it was obtained improperly or collusively. Federal courts will not hear domestic relations and probate cases. For diversity and alienage jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed \$75k, and if one plaintiff's amount in controversy does so then the federal court will also have subject matter jurisdiction over any transactionally-related claims (i.e., supplemental jurisdiction). Federal courts will have removal jurisdiction if they would have had original or supplemental jurisdiction had the complaint been filed in federal court to begin with. Removal is automatic, so D does not need to file a motion to remove; they just do so. P's motion to remand back to state court is what the federal courts will grapple with to determine if D's removal was proper. D cannot remove if it is a citizen of the forum state and served. D must remove within 30 days of being served with a pleading. All Ds must agree to remove. The 30-day timeframe to remove begins again whenever a new pleading is filed that makes the claim removable or whenever a new D is served. There is an absolute bar on removal if the basis for original jurisdiction would have been 28 U.S.C. § 1332 more than 1 year after the action has commenced unless P acted in bad faith to prevent removal. D must file a notice of removal with the state court. P may challenge lack of SMJ in federal court at any time, but P may only challenge other defects in removal (e.g., violations of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, and 1447) within 30 days of removal. Grants of motions to remand are not appealable, but denials are appealable (because the federal court has decided that it has SMJ). Generally, original or supplemental jurisdiction must exist at the time of filing and the time of removal for removal jurisdiction to be proper. Venue in federal court is proper where D resides (for natural persons, this is where they are domiciled; for D-entities, this is wherever there is personal jurisdiction over D in this action) or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving ride to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property at issue is situated. If venue is not proper in any judicial district under that test, venue is proper wherever a court has personal jurisdiction over D in this action. For Ds who are not "venue residents" of any state, venue is proper is any judicial district. If an entity-D is subject to personal jurisdiction in a state with more than 1 judicial district (which would make D a resident of every one those districts under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and 1391(c)(2)), treat each district as its own "mini-state." Venue is proper only in the district that would have personal jurisdiction over the entity-D if that district were its own "mini-state" (or, if no such district exists, in the district where the entity-D has the most significant contacts). Residential venue is proper only if all Ds reside in the same state. If venue is proper in the transferor federal court, the court will weigh the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice in deciding whether to transfer. If venue is improper in the transferor federal court, the court will weigh only the interests of justice in deciding whether to transfer. P's forum choice should rarely be disturbed, but a court may dismiss for forum non conveniens if an alternative forum has jurisdiction and: (1) this forum would oppress and vex D out of all proportion to P's convenience, or (2) this forum is inappropriate due to considerations affecting the court's own administrative or legal problems. Transfer is permitted within one system (e.g., federal court to federal court, Texas state court to Texas state court), removal is permitted from state court to federal court, and remand is permitted from federal court to state court. No other mechanisms permit transfer from one system to another (e.g., transfer to foreign courts, Texas state court to Louisiana state court), making forum non conveniens the only option. Courts have jurisdiction to order venue changes even if the court would otherwise lack personal jurisdiction. Forum selection clauses generally will be upheld unless they are not the product of overreaching or unconscionable behavior. A federal court sitting in diversity or alienage applies the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it sits to determine which state's substantive law to apply. After transferring from a federal court that has personal jurisdiction over D and where venue was proper, the transferee court will apply the choice-of-law rules of the transferor court's state. After transferring from a federal court where personal jurisdiction was lacking and/or venue was improper, the transferee court will apply the choice-of-law rules of the transferee court's state. That substantive law would be less favorable if the court dismisses for forum non conveniens is ordinarily not given significant weight. Constitutionally, P's attempt to notify D must be reasonably calculated to reach D and allow D an opportunity to respond to P's claims. Natural persons may be served pursuant to the law of the state where the federal court sits, via personal delivery, by leaving process at D's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there, or via delivery to an authorized agent. Organizations may be served pursuant to the law of the state where the federal court sits, by delivering process to an officer or managing or general agent of D, or by mailing process to D's statutorily-provided agent designated by law to receive process. When determining whether D had a sufficient opportunity to be heard before a government deprived D of its life, liberty, or property, courts will balance: (1) the private interests affected by the government's action; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of D's life/liberty/property and the probable value of additional process; and (3) the government interests in having to provide additional process. Serving process in a federal action means delivering the summons and a copy of the operative pleading (e.g., the complaint). Service must be within 90 days of filing the complaint of the court will dismiss the claim. Anyone 18 years or older other than a party may serve process. Serving a summons on D pursuant to FRCP 4(k) or 4(n) satisfies the statutory requirement for personal jurisdiction over D. Actions must be prosecuted by the real party in interest, not someone else who is merely interested in representing P. Courts must allow for the real party in interest to be joined before dismissing. P and D must have the capacity to sue and be sued, respectively. For individuals, capacity depends on the law of the individual's state of domicile. For corporations, capacity depends on the law of the state where the corporation is incorporated. For everyone else, capacity depends on the law of the state where the court is located. Parties may join as many claims as it has against an opposing party, even unrelated, alternative, contradictory, or contigent claims. Constitutionally, a federal court is permitted to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a state-law claim if it derives from a common nucleus of operative fact as a claim over which the court has subject matter jurisdiction (typically federal question jurisdiction). It deciding whether to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction, the court must consider judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties. Statutorily, a federal court is permitted to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a state-law claim that is so related to claims with original jurisdiction that they form the same case or controversy (which is interpreted to mean "common nucleus of operative fact"). If the basis for subject matter jurisdiction in federal court is diversity or alienage, the federal court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims by Ps against parties joined under FRCPs 14, 19, 20 or 24 if doing so would destroy complete diversity. Federal courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim raising novel or complex issues of state law, if the claim with supplemental jurisdiction substantially predominates over the claim(s) with original jurisdiction, the court has dismissed all claims with original jurisdiction, or for other compelling reasons (such as judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to litigants). Persons may be joined as Ps who: (1) assert any right to relief arising out of same transaction or occurrence, and (2) any question of law or fact common to all Ps will arise in the action. Persons may be joined as Ds who: (1) have any right to relief asserted against them arising out of same transaction or occurrence, and (2) and any question of law or fact common to all Ds will arise in the action. Misjoinder of parties is not grounds for dismissing an action. Rather, a court can dismiss a party or sever a claim. If actions involve any common question of law or fact, a court may join for trial any matters at issue, consolidate actions (e.g., for discovery), or issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Courts may issue protective orders (e.g., order for separate trials) to protect a party against embarrassment, delay, expense, or other prejudice that arises from including a person against whom the party asserts no claim and who asserts no claim against the party. For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, a court may order separate trials of separate issues, claims, cross-claims, counter-claims, or third-party claims. Federal courts need subject matter jurisdiction over every claim. Subject only to the exceptions below, a pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that, at the time of service, the pleader has against the opposing party if the claim: (A) arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim, and (B) doesn't require adding a party over whom court has no jurisdiction. Failure to do so waives the claimant's right to bring that claim in any future action. Exceptions: (A) when the action was commenced, the claim was the subject of another pending action; or (B) the court lacks personal jurisdiction and the pleader does not assert any counterclaim. Pleadings may state any counterclaim that is not compulsory. This is called a permissive counterclaim. Pleadings may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a co-party if the claim arises out of same transaction or occurrence as the original action or a counterclaim, or the claim relates to property that is the subject matter of the original action. Additional persons can be added to a counterclaim or a crossclaim subject to Rules 19 and 20. D may serve a third party (T) who it alleges is liable for part of the claim, but D needs the court's approval to do so more than 14 days after serving its original answer. This is called an impleader claim and it is used for indemnity or contribution. The impleaded T may file defenses, counterclaims against D, and any claims against P arising out of same transaction or occurrence as the original P v. D claim. P may assert against T any claim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original P v. D claim. T is not a co-defendant, so if there is no claim between P and T, then same citizenship for P and T doesn't destroy complete diversity. Impleader and downsloping 14(a) claims likely invoke supplemental jurisdiction, but upsloping 14(a) claims do not because 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) prohibits supplemental jurisdiction in certain claims by P. If an absentee is not required, the absentee need not be joined. Yet, if the absentee is required, then the court must ask whether joining the absentee would be feasible. If joining the absentee would be feasible, then the absentee must be joined. However, if it would be infeasible to join a required absentee, then the court must decide whether to proceed without the absentee or dismiss the action. In making that call, the court must weigh the prejudicial effect of judgment without the absentee, whether it can shape relief to lessen prejudice, whether judgment without the absentee would be adequate, and whether P has an avenue for relief if the case were dismissed. An absentee is required if courts cannot accord relief without her, dispensing of the action may practically impair her interests, or her absence leaves a party subject to a substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations. It is feasible to join an absentee unless the court would lack personal jurisdiction over the absentee or subject matter jurisdiction to hear one or more of the claims in the revised action, or if venue is improper for the revised action, or if the absentee is immune from suit in this court. Court must allow intervenors: (A) who are given the unconditional right to intervene by federal statute, or (B) who claim an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and disposing of the action may practically impair or impede their ability to protect the interest unless a existing party adequately represents that interest. Court may allow intervenors who: (A) are given the conditional right to intervene by federal statute, or (B) have a claim or defense that shares a common question of law or fact with the main action. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper over a res of \$500 or more if two or more adverse claimants of minimally diverse citizenship claim it. In this case (called statutory interpleader), the stakeholder must deposit the res or surety with the court, venue is proper in any judicial district where one or more of the claimants reside, and the court may restrain claimants from further actions in federal or state courts. Alternatively, subject matter jurisdiction is proper under diversity or alienage jurisdiction if there is complete diversity between stakeholder and claimants, an amount in controversy exceeding \$75k, and two or more claimants might expose the stakeholder to multiple liability. In this case, venue is proper only pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Courts need personal jurisdiction over interpleaded claimants. Nationwide service of process is sufficient for statutory interpleader, but rule interpleader contains no provision for service of process so the stakeholder must serve the claimants pursuant to FRCP 4. Interpleader is not a bill of peace; it is a means of resolving competing claims to a tangible res.