civil procedure i - abramowicz_4.doc

8/20/2019 Civil Procedure i - Abramowicz_4.doc

1/25

Civ Pro Final Outline 12/13/06

1) Personal Jurisdiction

a. Introi. Pennoyer in what state(s) can the ∏ sue the ∆

ii. !nalysis is the sa"e #or state court an$ #e$eral courtiii. %he court that we &o to has to have 'ower over so"ethin&

1. In liti&ation the court is &oin& to issue or$ers in or$er #or the" to in$anyone they ha$ to have the 'ower

2. %he court can only 'ossily have 'ower over the ∆ hersel# 3. O* over the ∆+s 'ro'erty

iv. In 'ersona"1. %he court has 'ower over the ∆ hersel# (not her 'ro'erty)2. !lways etter to have this one3. ,ue 'rocess clause sets the outer oun$ary o# when -uris$iction is allowale i# it+s within the circle then -u$&"ent "i&ht e vali$ ut i# it+s outsi$e

the circle then the -u$&"ent is voi$4. ,ue 'rocess "i&ht not e enou&h it has to also have a statue that &ives it

'ower #re.uently a lon& ar" statute

v. In re" / uasi in re"1. Court has 'ower over the ∆+s 'ro'erty (ut not over the ∆ hersel#)

vi. on& ar" statute1. !nalytically the very #irst ste' is whether there is a statute allowin&

'ersonal -uris$iction2. Can e e'an$e$ to $ue 'rocess circle

vii. hy $oes it "atter where a suit is rou&ht1. o"e court a$vanta&e2. Choice o# law3. 4ur$en o# travel "ay $issua$e ∆ #ro" showin& u'4. 5till have to consi$er venue

viii. uestions to as

1. ,oes a statute allow #or -uris$iction2. %789 ,oes the constitution allow it

b. In 'ersona" -uris$iction court has 'ower over ∆ hersel#

i. :eneral ∆ can e sue$ in the #oru" on a clai" that arose anywhere in the worl$

ii. 5'eci#ic ∆ is ein& sue$ on a clai" that has so"e connection in the #oru"

iii. Constitutional analysis the ,ue Process Circle ; how i& can this e

1. Pennoyer ; 'ower o# the state to have 'ower over 'eo'le an$ the 'ro'ertywithin it+s oun$aries still i"'ortant /c it &ives us9

a. %ra$itional asis o# 'ersonal -uris$ictioni< ∆ is serve$ with 'rocess while in the #oru" &ive &eneral

-uris$iction ('resenceii< ∆+s a&ent was serve$ in the #oru"iii< ∆ is $o"icile$ in the #oru" &ives &eneral -uris$iction

iv< ∆ consents to -uris$iction (you can waive -uris$iction an$consent)

b. ow coul$ you #i&ht this in #e$eral courti< 12 ()(2) "otion to $is"iss #or lac o# -uris$iction over

the 'ersonii< %his can e alone or with other "otions ut it "ust e in the

1st "otion you su"it to the court

1


2/25


iii< Once you su"it any other "otions you+ve waive$ the.uestion o# -uris$iction

iv< !nythin& other than 12() 3 = or > it #or#eits your chance to#ile the" later

v< 5tate rules call this a s'ecial a''earance2. Millikan v. Meyer ∆ is a 'er"anent resi$ent o# ? an$ ∏ sues hi" in

? ut serves hi" outsi$e ?

a. @n$er Pennoyer this $oesn+t wor since service has to e in the stateb. Once we &et to I5 it $oesn+t "atter where the 'erson is serve$

resi$ency or $o"icile in the state woul$ e enou&h3. Hess v. Powloski Court wants to e'an$ it an$ so it e'an$s asis ( is

in a car crash an$ &ets out o# the state e#ore he+s serve$ ut A! has astatute ; non resi$ent "otorist statute ; i# you $rive into the state an$ &etinto a crash you+ve consent to the secretary o# state as your a&ent #or 'rocess in the state)

a. It is consistent with Pennoyer b. %here was service o# 'rocess in the #oru" on the ∆+s a&entc. %he a&ent was a''ointe$ y o'eration o# law

d. 7'an$s consent to IAPI7, consent as a state a&ent #or theservice o# 'rocess

4. International Shoe we no lon&er have tra$itional asis ut we now have

a new $octrinal #or"ulaa. 5hi#t #ro" 'ower to reasonaleness

i< I# court ha$ "a$e "in< contacts aout consent it woul$ havestaye$ aout 'ower

ii< Ain contacts ase$ on 'resence an$ there#ore it eco"es a.uestion ase$ on reasonaleness

b. B5uch "ini"u" contacts with the #oru" that eercise o# -uris$iction$oes not o##en$ o# tra$itional notions o# #air 'lay an$ sustantial

-usticec. It is very #leile an$ a"or'hous (lea$s to an e'ansion o#

-uris$iction)d. It is clear that we can &et in 'ersona" -uris$iction even i# ∆ is not

serve$ in the #oru" service o# 'rocess can reach out o# the state

e. 8o where $oes it say that it overrules Pennoyer in #act the

"ini"u" contacts lan&ua&e ri&ht e#ore it is says that it is the testIF ∆ is 8O% 'resent in the #oru" (i"'lyin& that 'resence is stillsu##icient)

f. It see"s that it has two 'arts o# the test ut you have to satis#y thecontacts test e#ore "ovin& on to #airness

i< Contacts1< One unrelate$ act not enou&h to e sue$

2< One su##iciently relate$ contact "ay e enou&h #ro

s'eci#ic -uris$iction3< 5everal relate$ contacts enou&h #or s'eci#ic

-uris$iction=< 5yste"atic an$ continuous contact yes #or &eneral

-uris$iction

2


3/25


ii< Fairness once we+ve estalishe$ contacts then we want to

start looin& at #airnessg. Court outlines two ty'es o# challen&e$

i< 5ustative ase$ on the "erits o# the case

ii< Proce$ureal ase$ on the 'rocess etween ∏ ∆ an$ court

iii< ,ue Process contains oth 'arts5. McGee (1D>E) ; % Cor'oration sells one G in C! an$ is sue$ in C! #or

reach is there -uris$iction 5C says yesa. ∆ solicite$ the G #ro" C! (it reache$ out)b. ∏+s clai" Barose #ro" ∆+s contact with C! relate$ness

c. C! ha$ an interest in 'rovi$in& #or re"e$y #or its citiHens6. Hanson (1D>) ; no -uris$iction ,oes F over in 'ersonal -uris$iction over

the ,7 an an$ 5C says 8Oa. 4an ha$ no relevant contacts with Fb. 8o contact ecause there is no 'ur'ose#ul avail"entc. In or$er to have a contact the ∆ "ust reach out to the #oru" in so"e

way an$ here the ,7 an $i$ not reach out to F ("s $onner"ove$ to F the an $i$n+t reach out)

7. World Wide Volkswagen ; 8O -uris$ictiona. %he only .uestion was $i$ OG have -uris$iction over the re&ional

$istriutor that O8? $i$ usiness in C% 8? 8J an$ $i$ they have -uris$iction over the retailer that only $i$ usiness in 8? 5C sai$

no 'ersonal -uris$ictionb. ie anson there is no 'ur'ose#ul avail"ent the ∆ $i$n+t reach out

to OG at allc. It is #oreseeale that car &ot to OG ut court sai$ it &ot to OG ase$

on unilateral actiond. It+s #oreseeale the car woul$ &et to OG ut court sai$ it was

relevant ut the .uestion is is it #oreseeale that these ∆ woul$

&et sue$ in OG (not whether or not the car woul$ &et there)8. Calder v Jones

a. ?ou can have a contact with the #oru" even thou&h you $on+t enterthe #oru"

b. I# you cause an e##ect in the #oru" then that is an contact9. eaton v. H!stler sue$ in 8 ecause it was only 'lace with o'en

statute o# li"itations (∏ live$ in C!)a. Court allowe$ $ue to sin&le 'ulication ruleb. ustler sent "a&aHines to 8 an$ new it coul$ e sue$ therec. ,oesn+t even try to loo at ∏+s contacts w/ state

10. !lko Aother sue$ #ather (8?) #or chil$ su''ort in C!

a. Contacts with C! K "arria&e ha''ene$ in C! &ave 'er"ission to$au&hter (ou&ht a one way ticet) $au&hter receive$ e$ucational ene#its o# C!)

b. 8o -uris$iction on C!i< Aarria&e was a #leetin& contact

ii< Per"ission was the unilateral act o# chil$iii< !ny ene#its ∆ &ets are ene#its o# $au&hter not ein& in 8?

not o# $au&hter ein& in F

3


4/25


iv< Overwhel"in& 'ulic 'olicy ar&u"ent in #avor o# notallowin& -uris$iction

c. Ai&ht have een $i##erent i# it was -uris$iction y necessityd. Court only looe$ at #airness to ∆ not overall #airness

11. "!rger ing (1D>) It was rou&ht in F they sue$ two #ranchisees

who were runnin& it u' in AI an$ it was rule$ that F $oes have -uris$iction(choice o# law was F not necessarily F)

a. Court "aes it clear that I5 $oes have two 'arts contacts an$#airness (two se'arate 'ieces)

b. ?ou A@5% have a relevant contact e#ore we even loo at #airnessi< !ll the #airness in the worl$ will not &ive you -uris$iction i#

you $on+t have contactsii< !#ter you &et contacts you still nee$ #airness

c. Fairness the ∆+s ar&ue$ that -uris$iction in F was un#air an$ 5C

re-ecte$ the ar&u"enti< %he ur$en is on the ∆ to show that it+s unconstitutional

ii< 5howin& it+s un#air is not enou&hiii< %he court "a$e it $i##icult

iv< It has to e so &ravely inconvenient that you+re at a severe$isa$vanta&e in the liti&ation

v< *elative wealth o# the 'arties $oes not "atter 12. #sahi (1DE) strea" o# co""erce case ∆ "aes valve in state ! an$

shi's the" to a "anu#acturer in state 4 an$ that "anu#acture 'uts the valvesinto his wi$&ets an$ sells the" in state C , 7 an$ so valves &et to c$e ut ∆ $i$n+t sen$ the" there< ,oes ∆ have relevant contacts in C , 7<

a. I# you &et a strea" o# co""erce on the ea" you nee$ to tal aout"ini"u" contact

b. = -ustices sai$ it is a contact is I 'ut "y 'ro$uct in the strea" an$reasonale antici'ate it will &et to C , 7 4rennan

c. = other -ustices (le$ y O+Connor) say that+s not enou&h say you

nee$ that 'lus the intent or 'ur'ose to serve state C , an$ 7(a$vertisin& custo"er service so"ethin& else)< ithout avail"entit+s unilateral an$ it+s lie L

d. say that re&ar$less o# contacts #airness outwei&hs an$ $e#eats -uris$iction

e. 5tevens woul$n+t tae either si$e13. "!rhna$ (1DD0) (8J ∆ is serve$ with 'rocess in C! #or a C! lawsuit the

clai" on which he+s sue$ has nothin& to $o with his activities in C! so i#there is -uris$iction it has to e &eneral -uris$iction)

a. ,oes service o# 'rocess within the #oru" still &ive you &eneral -uris$iction O* instea$ $o we nee$ to a''ly "ini"u" contacts

b. e $on+t now ecause a&ain the -ustices s'litc. = le$ y scalia say that service in the state $oes &ive &eneral

-uris$iction ecause o# it+s historical 'e$i&ree (we $on+t nee$"ini"u" contacts ecause the tra$itional asis lives y itsel# ;since I5 &ave us a test to use when ∆ is not 'resent when serve$)

d. = le$ y rennen say historical 'e$i&ree is irrelevant an$ it "ust eassesse$ un$er I5 test an$ we nee$ to loo at contacts (it woul$ haveto e &eneral)

=


5/25


e. %here is no law ase$ on this even thou&h everyone in the en$a&rees that there is

f. hat ha''ens i# you weren+t in the state volitionallyi< I# you tric so"eone into #oru" it won+t wor

14. Ireland ∏ has usiness interru'tion insurance #ro" ∆ which ∆ won+t

honor ∏ sues in #e$ court an$ ∆ ass #or an in-unction in 7n&lan$ whichtells the @5 court to sto'

a. In or$er to now i# there are enou&h contacts we nee$ $iscoveryb. ∆ clai"s the court $oesn+t have -uris$iction to run $iscoveryc. ,oes the court have -uris$iction to $eter"ine i# it has -ur

i< Juris$iction is a 'erson ri&ht which can e waive$ eithere'ressly on i"'licitly

ii< 4y not co"'lyin& with $iscovery court has $iscretion to 'enaliHe ∏ an$ chooses to $o that y allowin& $iscovery

iii< ?ou can not waive 5AJ ut you can waive PJ (ecause it+s a 'erson ri&ht unlie 5AJ)

15. Carnival Cr!ise o"an sli's an$ #alls $urin& cruise sues in ! CC

re"oves to F sayin& it was on ticet as a #oru" selection clause

a. Courts hol$s it was en#orceale ecause it wasi< ,one in &oo$ #aith an$ #airly "ain 'lace o# usiness in

F shi's leave #ro" F re$uces con#usion ene#it to 'assen&ers since lower cost o# ticets

ii< 8ot y #rau$iii< !n$ there was notice 'ossily it wasn+t &oo$ enou&h

notice ut ∆ here conce$e$ the 'ointb. 4oth si$es cite 4re"en v< Ma'ata as 'rece$ent

i< %his was a #reely ne&otiate$ #oru" selection clause y two i& cor'orations with e.ual ar&ainin& 'ower

ii< CC use$ it to show #oru" selection clauses were le&al

iii< 5hute use$ to show $issi"ilarities etween i& cor'orationsan$ une.ual oiler'late contracts

16. %est for general &!risdiction

a. ?ou can e sue$ on a clai" arisin& anywhere in the worl$b. %here is &eneral -uris$iction i# the ties are continuous an$ syste"aticc. here cor'oration is incor'orate$ an$ where an in$ivi$ual is

$o"icile$d. Helico'teros elico'ter crash in Peru

i< aives s'eci#ic -uris$iction so court $oesn+t consi$er therelate$ness o# the contacts instea$ loos to continuous an$syste"atic contacts w/ %

ii< 5ince contacts weren+t relate$ to crash an$ since theyweren+t syste"atic an$ continuous not enou&h

iii< Possily woul$ have allowe$ #or it i# there was no other 'lace to &o

iv< First ti"e court clearly $e#ines &eneral instea$ o# s'eci#icv< 4rennen $issents "a-ority has a alancin& test o# the

#actors rennen -ust a$$s the" u'e. Coastal v. Staywell C #iles a $eclaratory -u$&"ent to #i&ht the

'ossiility that 5 will say co'yri&ht in#rin&e"ent

>


6/25


i< e still loo at the $e#en$ant even i# it+s the $eclaratory$e#en$ant

ii< 5tart with looin& #or s'eci#ic -uris$iction looin& -ust #orcontacts relatin& to sales o# certain vi$eo ; $eci$es it+s notrelate$ enou&h #or s'eci#ic

iii< oos #or syste"atic an$ continuous #or &eneral ; #ocuses oninternet store as interactive avail"ent o# ene#its o# state

iv< Court &rants "otion #or $iscovery to $eter"ine i# there is&eneral -uris$iction clear ea"'le o# ur$en on $e#en$ant

to 'rove -uris$ictionv< Miec(kowski Court allowe$ &eneral -uris$iction ase$ on

internet connections in statevi< ))"ean when internet is a virtual store -uris$iction is

"ore a''ro'riate17. *verview

a. Is there a tra$itional asis ,oes one o# the tra$itional asis #orPennoyer a''ly %his "ay e enou&h y itsel# (ut you "ust saythat on the other han$ that even with a tra$itional asis 5OA7

-ustices say you nee$ "in contacts test as well)b. I# there is no tra$itional asis9 %here are two 'ron&s we nee$ to

tal aouti< Contacts there "ust e a relevant contact etween ∆ an$

relevant #oru"1< Pur'ose#ul avail"ent ; the ∆ "ust B*each out to the

#oru" she "ust avail hersel# o# the #oru" in so"eway (can not e an acci$ent or unilateral act o# a thir$ 'erson)

2< Forseeaility ; it "ust e #oreseeale that ∆ woul$&et sue$ in the #oru" (not enou&h i# 'ro$uct &ets

there)ii< Fairness (only i# there are contacts)

1< *elate$ness ; $oes the ∏+s clai" arise #ro" ∆+scontact with the #oru" i# we have this it "ay "aeu' that we only have a s"all a"ount o# contacts withthe #oru" (Ac:ee shows this) (you $on+t nee$relate$ness i# you have &eneral -uris$iction i# you$on+t have &eneral an$ syste"atic then you woul$nee$ #airness)

2< > other #actorsa< Inconvenience ; 4ur&er Gin& ; the answer

co"es when 5u're"e Court says the ∆ has toshow it is so inconvenient it isunconstitutional

< 5tate+s interest ; Ac:eec< ∏+s interest$< e&al syste"+s interest in e##iciencye< Interstate interest in share$ sustantive 'olicy

iv. 5taturory analysis ; on the ea" the #irst .uestion shoul$ e i# there is a statutryallowance #or 'ersonal -uris$iction

6


7/25


1. 7very state has "any statutes that allow #or -uris$iction2. 7very state has so"e statute that is ase$ on i"'lie$ consent (non resi$ent

"otorist statute ; Hess v Powlaski these statutes are #or s'eci#ic

-uris$iction3. 7very state has a lon& ar" statue

a. !llows you to &o a#ter a non resi$entb. %wo ty'es

i< ?ou can &o to the #ull etent o# the Constitutionii< aun$ry list lon& ar" thin&s a ∆ can $o that woul$ allow

#or -uris$iction in that #oru"4. Courts can $isa&ree aout the inter'retation o# these statutes

a. 5o"e courts say that i# you+re ne&li&ent in state ! then you haven+tco""itte$ a tort in state 4

b. Other courts say that i# ∏ is in-ure$ in state 4 then that is enou&h #or a tort in state 4

c. y'osi. ∏ $rives $own to O* #or the $ay an$ uys a cloc in O* an$ taes it ho"e to !

an$ he 'uts it u' on the wall an$ one $ay it reas an$ in-ures the ∏ in !< ∏

wants to sue the cloc "aer ∆ who is an O*< ,oes the ! have -uris$iction over∆

1. ,oes a statute allow -uris$iction here2. %here is no tra$itional asis here #or -uris$iction

a. 8o consente$ not 'resent etc3. 5o you nee$ to loo at the lon& ar" statute9

a. I# it says it allows #or torts9 you can say ∆ $i$n+t $o anythin& inO* an$ so no tort ut since ∏ was in-ure$ in ! an$ so"e courtssay that is a tort an$ there#ore woul$ have -uris$iction

4. Constitutional anaylsis ; $oes it #it in $ue 'rocess circlea. !&ain say there is no tra$itional asis ; so i# we &et hi" it has to e

un$er I5b. First thin& we loo at are contacts $oes ∆ have a relevant contact

with !i< Pur'ose#ul avail"ent ; $i$ ∆ 'ur'ose#ully avail hi"sel# o#

! in so"e way it see"s to e no the ∏ too it into !

an$ so it loos lie L ut it "ay loo start to loo "orelie Ac:ee at a certain 'oint (how close he is to ! i# hea$vertise$ in ! i# it+s on an interstate)< Is it closer toL (where it+s unilateral) or it is closer to Ac:ee (whereit+s reachin& out)<

ii< Forseeaility ; is it #oreseeale that ∆ woul$ &et sue$ in !

have to ar&ue this oth way nowin& the 'ro$uct woul$&et there isn+t enou&h ut

c. Fairness #actorsi< *elate$ness ; here it woul$ e "et N the ∏+s clai" arises

#ro" o-ect (lie Ac:ee only one contact ut #oun$ on asis o# relate$ness)

ii< Five #actors o# consi$eration ; ur$en woul$ e on ∆ toshow it+s unconstitutional (∆ here is not &oin& to e ale to"eet it) $oes ! have an interest here to "ae sure its

E


8/25


citiHens $on+t &et hurt an$ then ∏ has an interest since he+sin-ure$ an$ can+t travel an$ then last two

ii. Physiciatrist 'role" 5"ith lives in F an$ &oes to 8? on vacation where he

sees "ental health has several thera'y sessions in 8? an$ then &oes ho"e to Fin F he calls the ,r< #or a consulation an$ ,r tells hi" to tae too "any 'ills5"ith $ies can #a"ily sue ,r< in F

1. (to ar&ue 8O -uris$iction)

2. ,istin&uishale #ro" Ac:ee since the insurance co"'any solicitate$ the usiness an$ here ,r< never soliciate$ 5"ith

3. 5i"ilar to anson where the court hel$ no -uris$iction where ∆ $i$ notinvoe ene#its an$ 'rotection o# F law

4. %o &o in the other $irection you coul$ say ,r< new 5"ith was a Fresi$ent whereas anson $i$n+t now trustee woul$ "ove to F

d. In re" an$ uasi in re" ; less i"'ortant ut not irrelevant (here the 'ower is over the 'ro'erty lan$ wristwatch car)

i. In re" the $is'ute is over who owns the 'ro'erty (.uasi in re" ty'e I)

ii. uasi in re" (technically .uasi in re" ty'e II) it has nothin& to $o with who

owns it the ∆ owns it

1. Pennoyer v +eff 8e## ha$ le#t real 'ro'erty in O* an$ Pennoyer use$

that to &et -uris$iction even thou&h $is'ute was aout attorney+s #ees an$not aout lan$ (it -ust nee$s to e seiHe$ at the outsi$e)

iii. %wo ste' analysis1. 5tatute ; an attach"ent statute (not a lon& ar") ; the court can seiHe or

attach 'ro'erty in the #oru"2. hat aout the constitutional test

a. Pennoyer sai$ all you nee$e$ to $o is seiHe the 'ro'ertyb. Harris v "alk ; intan&ile 'ro'erty is seiHe$

i< 7'stein attaches $et o# arris who owes 4al who owes7'stein

ii< Court allows #or attach"ent o# intan&ile 'ro'erty #orc. Shaffer v Heitner ; you still "ust asses whether the ∆ has contacts

with the #oru" an$ the analysis is still the "ini"u" contact tests(overrules arris v 4al)

i< For in re" ; when it+s aout who owns the 'ro'erty then it"ay e enou&h

ii< For .uasi in re" there is no .uestion that 'resence o# 'ro'erty alone is not enou&h you+re still &oin& to have to $othe "ini"u" contacts test

2) Notice ,ue Process re.uire$ ∆ e &iven 'ro'er notice an$ a chance to e hear$

a. 5tatutory 5ervice o# Process ,-CP

i. Process consists o# su""on an$ a co'y o# the co"'lain (two 'ieces o# 'a'er)su""ons is an o##icial court &overn"ental notice that you &et #ro" cler o# thecourt

ii. -!le /c0 5ervice o# 'rocess can e "a$e y any non 'arty who is at least 1

years ol$ (very lieral)iii. ow $o we serve an in$ivi$ual

1. 5tart with rule /e0/10 three alternatives which are always oay

a. Personal service ; you han$ it to the 'erson an$ it can e anywherein the state


9/25


b. 5ustitute$ service ; you are servin& a sustitute it+s oay i# it+s at∆ usual ao$e or $wellin& house !8, you "ust serve so"eone Bo#suitale a&e an$ $iscretion who resi$es there (aysitter woul$ notwor)

c. 5erve the ∆+s a&ent ; you can a''oint the a&ent y contract or ylaw

2. /e0 /20 allows us to use any "etho$ #or servin& 'rocess that is allowe$

y state law (even thou&h this is #e$eral court)a. ,e'en$s on the state in which the court is locate$ or the area in

which service is e##ectsb. Fe$ rules say to loo at state laws to $eter"ine what is acce'tale

iv. ow $o we serve a cor'oration /h0 we have to serve an$ o##icer or "ana&in&

or &eneral a&ent o# that cor'oration /e0/20 also a''lies herev. aiver o# service o# 'rocess *ule /d0

1. %his is 8O% service o# 'rocess y "ail it+s a waiver o# service o# 'rocess2. I# ∆ returns it it &ives ∆ an etra =0 $ays to #ile so i# you woul$ rather only

&ive the" 20 $ays then you nee$ to serve in 'erson3. I# she $oes not waiver service then she "ay have to 'ay #or 'ersonal service

o# 'rocess4. ∏ -ust has to show they acte$ in &oo$ #aith to &et it to the ∆

vi. :eo&ra'hic li"its o# service o# 'rocess1. /k0/20/a0 we can serve 'rocess throu&hout the state

a. ! #e$eral court in lower C! can serve 'rocess throu&h the entirestate o# C!

b. ! #e$eral court can only service outsi$e the state i# a state courtcoul$ (we incor'orate the state lon& ar" statute to serve 'rocessoutsi$e the #oru")

2. /k0/20/b0 ul&e rule ut only #or !,,I8: 'arties ut not availale to

serve 'rocess on a re&ional asis3. /k0/20/d0 lon& ar" statutes

4. /k0/10 ,7F!@% rule ; servin& su""ons estalishes 'ersonal

-uris$iction in #e$eral court over a ∆ who is not su-ect to -uris$iction in anycourt o# &eneral -uris$iction o# any state

vii. $ %i"e li"it #or service ; a#ter you+ve #ile$ you &et 120 $ays

b. Constitutional stan$ar$ #or servin& 'rocessi. Pennoyer v. +eff (to$ay+s version)

1. Pulication notice woul$ not have een a$e.uate2. I# P coul$ 'rove that 8 was avoi$in& hi" then the court "ay have allowe$

#or 'ulication service

3. ,i##erences in #acts lea$ to co"'etin& i$eas aout when this is #air ii. M!llane Co"'ilation trust 'ulishe$ in 'a'er -ust the na"es o# the trusts even

thou&h they ha$ 'reviously sent thin&s in the "ail to 'eo'le1. “Notice must be reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to

apprise the ∆ of the suit”

a. !ll o# the rules un$er = are constitutionally su##icient even thou&hthe ∆ "ay never have &otten the notice (since they are all consi$ere$to e reasonaly calculate$)

b. *easonale is &oin& to $i##er with the nature o# the case (ut therewill e a "ini"u" level)

D


10/25


c. *easonaleness is 'art o# &reat alancin& on 5CO%@5i< %aes ∆+s in$ivi$ual interest into account

ii< ∆ can+t 'ut unreasonale ostacles in #ront o# ∏2. 8otice y 'ulication constructive notice

a. !l"ost always in news'a'ers in real s"all 'rintb. !l"ost always invali$ since it will e so rarely reasonaly

calculate$ to reach 'eo'le

3. %here are so"e cases where 'ulication "ay e oay ut it shoul$ e a lastresort

4. !t the "ini"u" you nee$ an o''ortunity to e hear$3) Subject atter Jurisdiction

a. Overview %his is over the clai" what court $o we &o to in the state (state court or

#e$eral court)i. Fe$eral court have li"ite$ su-ect "atter -uris$iction (this is #ro" the Constitution

#rticle III3 Sec 1)1. Aa$isonian co"'ro"ise &ave Con&ress the 'ower to create courts (an$ the

'ower theoretically to &et ri$ o# the courts)2. ow $o we now i# a #e$ court has -uris$iction

a. First ; woul$ it e constitutionally 'er"issilei< !ll cases Barisin& un$er the constitution laws o# the @5

an$ treaties Fe$ uestion Juris$iction

ii< hen @5 is a 'artyiii< Controversies etween two or "ore statesiv< 4etween a state an$ citiHens o# other statesv< CitiHens o# $i##erent states ,iversity Juris$iction

vi< !n$ so"e others9b. 5econ$ ; woul$ it e statutorily 'er"issile 42552

i< an&ua&e is very si"ilar to Constitutionii< 4@% Con&ress inter'rets it "uch narrower

ii. 5tate court have &eneral su-ect "atter -uris$iction1. 5tate can $ivi$e u' how it wants to hear the clai"s2. 4ut in the a&&re&ate they can hear any clai" at all3. %he only ece'tion to this is so"e #e$eral .uestion cases have eclusive

#e$eral .uestion -uris$ictiona. !ntiNtrustb. Patent in#rin&e"ent etc

b. ,iversity o# citizenship 8O% $iversity o# domicile or residency 16 7.S.C. 4 2552 ; two

re.uire"entsi. CitiHenshi'

1. CitiHenshi' o# an in$ivi$ual is ase$ on $o"icile which is estalishe$9a. 4y 'resence in the state !8,b. %he intent to "ae that your 'er"anent ho"ec. It is i"'ossile to have "ore than one $o"icile ut you always have

one at irth it $e#aults to your 'arent+s $o"iciled. y'o $o"icile$ in OG &oes to colle&e in A! &oes to law

school in C! "e$ school in P! #or #our years all this ti"e he hassai$ he $oesn+t want to &o ac to OG ut his $o"icile is still OG<%he #li'si$e there is L the ∏ have all the intent to set u' a ho"ein !M they never &et there an$ so they are still $o"icile$ in 8?

10


11/25


2. CitiHenshi' o# a cor'oration 16 7.S.C. 42551 /c0/20 tells us the

citiHenshi' o# a cor'orationsa. O# all states where incor'orate$b. %he one state where it has its 'rinci'le 'lace o# usinessc. 5o a cor'oration coul$ e a citiHen o# two 'laces at one ti"ed. hat $o we have to consi$er in or$er to $eci$e the 'rinci'le 'lace

o# usiness

i< %he nerve center where the $ecisions are "a$eii< %he "uscle center where cor'oration $oes "ore stu## than

anywhere elseiii< Courts loo at Btotal activities "eanin& you have to loo at

oth the nerve center an$ the "uscle center "ost courts

loo at nerve center @8755 ! o# cor'oration+s activitiesare in one state in which case it will use the "uscle center

iv< 4ut a cor'oration can only have O87 'rinci'le 'lace o# usiness

3. Strawbridge ; there "ust e co"'lete $iversity it+s $e#eate$ i# any ∏ is

a citiHen o# the sa"e state as a ∆ (rule is stricter than constitution)4. Mas v Perry wi#e (#ro" A5) an$ husan$ (#ro" France) sue lan$lor$

(#ro" !) #or installin& two way "irrorsa. 8ot $o"icile$ in ! since they were stu$ents w/o intent to stayb. Court $eci$es to not assi&n wi#e to husan$+s $o"iciliary since that

woul$ "ean she+s a @5 citiHen $o"icile$ aroa$ an$ there#orewoul$ have no #e$eral -uris$iction

c. 42551 /a0/10 &oo$ #or the husan$ since he+s an alien

d. 42551 /a0/50 &oo$ #or wi#e an$ husan$ to&ether since it+s

citiHens o# $i##erent state when citiHens o# #orei&n states are 'arty5. Saadeh v. ,aro!ki :ree citiHen sues Jor$anian citiHen who is a

'er"anent le&al resi$ent o# the @5a. oos at Q1332 (a) hich consi$ers le&al 'er"anent resi$ents to

e citiHens o# the state in which they resi$eb. 4@% only a''licale when it $ecreases the nu"er o# cases that can

e rou&ht as $iversityc. B,octrine o# avoi$ance ; when there are two 'ossile

inter'retations o# a statute the courts will 'ic the one that isconstitutional

ii. !"ount in controversy1. It "ust ecee$ RE>000 (not countin& interest on the clai" or costs)2. ∏+s clai" &overns unless it is clear to a le&al certainty that she can not

recover that "uch3. !&&re&ation it+s where we "ust a$$ two or "ore clai"s to &et over

RE>000 that is a&&re&ationa. *ule we a&&re&ate clai" is there is 1 ∏ vs< 1 ∆ (even i# all the

clai"s are totally unrelate$ le&ally an$ #actually)b. %here is no a&&re&ation i# there are "ulti'le 'arties on either si$ec. For -oint clai"s you the total value o# the clai" (re&ar$less o# the

nu"er o# 'eo'le) (a -oint clai" is &oin& to use the wor$ B-oint)d. I# ∏ turns out to &et less than a"ount in controversy then court

A!? reassi&n court costs

11


12/25


4. In-untiona. Aost courts loo at the value o# ∏ #or &ettin& in-unctionb. Aay loo at the loss to∆ i# ∏ &ets in-unction

5. Counterclai"sa. I# clai" is co"'ulsory then it $oesn+t nee$ to "eet a"ount in

controversyb. I# it+s a 'er"issile clai" then it $oes nee$ to "eet li"it

c. Fe$eral .uestion -uris$iction ; 2n$ "ain way 42552 allows #or #e$eral -uris$iction ; noconsi$eration o# citiHenshi' an$ a"ount in controversy

i. %wo thin&s to consi$er 1. ?ou loo O8? at the co"'laint (only in what the ∏ has #ile$ not at what

∆ "ay have #ile$)2. In the co"'laint you loo O8? at the clai" itsel# 3. %hat clai" has to arise un$er #e$eral law this is the well 'lea$e$

co"'laint ruleii. !s one .uestion9 is ∏ en#orcin& a #e$eral ri&ht

1. Mottley (1D0) ∏ have a #ree li#eti"e 'ass on the railroa$ an$ Con&ress

'asses a law (which "eans it is a #e$eral law) sayin& Con&ress can not

honor #ree 'asses ∏ sue the railroa$ an$ in their co"'laint they say twothin&s

a. ! well 'lea$e$ co"'laint woul$ say ; reach o# Gb. ! "ini"alist co"'laint here woul$ not rin& u' a #e$ issuec. %hat #e$eral law $oes not a''ly here so 5C won+t hear cased. Case &oes to state court an$ co"es ac to 5C on a''eal

i< %his ti"e 5C ha$ -uris$iction since it wasn+t ase$ onori&inal -uris$iction

ii< 7ven thou&h Constitution an$ statute has sa"e wor$in&Q1331 is "uch "uch narrower

iii< 5C -uris$iction #or a''eal is ase$ on a $i## section

e. 4@%9 8O #e$eral .uestion -uris$iction here< Aottley+s are noten#orcin& a ri&ht un$er that #e$eral lawS the clai" is -ust a reach o#contract< %he stu## in the co"'laint is an antici'ate$ $e#ense sothere is no #e$eral .uestion -uris$iction is ∏ en#orcin& a ri&ht

un$er #e$eral law2. S$ith v. ansas City %itle and %r!st 5tate law cause o# action ut

court allowe$ #e$ -uris$ictiona. 5ee"s sa"e as Aottley ut crucial $i##erence GC !5 to tell

court aout #e$eral law in or$er to e'lain state lawb. ere state law in incor'oratin& other le&al stan$ar$s inclu$in&

#e$eral lawc. ,i##erence ecause we have a state law cause o# action an$ a #e$eral

law locin& the state law3. %.". Har$s ∏ is suin& #or a $eclaratory -u$&"ent that ∏ still the owner

o# certain co'yri&htsa. Co'yri&ht see"s to e a #e$eral $octrine ut here we $on+t nee$ to

$eter"ine the vali$ity o# the co'yri&ht only the ownershi'b. ?ou can $istin&uish it #ro" 5"ith ecause9

i< In 5"ith you !L7 to &o into #e$eral law

12


13/25


ii< ere ∏+s ar&u"ent is ase$ on state law an$ you coul$resolve it without &oin& into #e$ law

c. Court consi$ers $eclaratory -u$&"ent as how woul$ it loo i# it wasactually rou&ht so it $oes 8O% e'an$ #e$eral .uestion -uris$iction (,∆ i"a&inary well 'lea$e$ co"'laint)

4. Merrell 8ow ∏s sue $ru& co"'anies #or ein& ne&li&ent un$er state law

an$ #e$eral law ase$ on F,C!

a. ere we woul$ have #e$eral law incor'orate$ in the state law clai"b. It see"s to e oay since it involves a #e$eral clai"c. 4ut it+s a #e$eral clai" that $oesn+t allow #or a 'rivate civil re"e$y

an$ so we have no #e$eral cause o# actiond. Fe$eral court won+t e ale to hear it since no #e$eral cause o#

action ut it "i&ht still e ale to e hear$ in state courtiii. Aottley sets the sta&e an$ 5"ith carves out an ece'tion %4 ar"s clari#ies an$

then Aerrell ,ow carves out an ece'tion o# 5"ithd. 5u''le"ental -uris$iction (∏ "ust have satis#ie$ either $iversity or #e$ .uestion to &et into

#e$eral court ut there "ay e a$$itional clai"s in that case) For every clai" in #e$eral

court there "ust e su-ect "atter -uris$iction not -ust the ori&inal clai" ut #or every

clai" in #e$eral courti. For every sin&le clai"9 $oes it $iversity o# citiHenshi' or $oes it invoe #e$eral

.uestion1. I# yes then it can &et into #e$eral court y itsel#

2. I# no then you "i&ht still e ale to &et it into #e$eral court ase$ on

su''le"ental -uris$ictionii. 5u''le"ental -uris$iction can &et clai"s into #e$eral court that woul$n+t otherwise

(the ori&inal clai" "ust still "eet one o# the two ori&inal ut1. 7nited Mines Workers v Gibbs (1D66) laor $is'utes in coal "ines o#

G? ∏ asserte$ two clai"s one arose un$er #e$eral law one un$er state law ut #ro" un$er the sa"e clai"

a. P (%8) F , (%8) (ase$ on #e$eral law)

i< Oay in #e$eral courtii< !rose un$er #e$eral law an$ so it+s oay

b. P (%8) 5 , (%8) (ase$ on #e$eral law)

i< Is not a #e$eral .uestion (ase$ on state law)ii< !lso $oes not invoe $iversity

c. 4@% it arises #ro" a Bco""on nucleus o# o'erative #act "ost

courts e.uate that #ro" arisin& #ro" a transaction or occurrenced. On #acts o# :is it is the co""on nucleus an$ so ?75 to

su''le"ental -uris$iction

e. I# court &rants su''le"ental -uris$iction then $is"isses the #e$eralclai" thin&s #or the court to consi$er9i< ,is"iss to state court i# Pre$o"ination o# state clai"

(a"ount o# 'roo# sco'e o# .uestion re"e$y) an$ i# it can e $is"isse$ e#ore it &oes to trial

ii< ,on+t $is"iss i# It+s closely tie$ to #e$eral 'olicy an

i"'ortant issue o# #e$eral 'ree"'tioniii< OL7*! a $octrine o# $iscretion

2. Hern cite$ as 'rece$ent in :is

13


14/25


a. I# state an$ #e$eral clai"s #or" a se'arate ut 'arallel &roun$ #orrelie# then there will e -uris$iction

b. !nachronistic /c e#ore 1D3 there was a list o# causes o# actionnow F*CP "ae every civil clai" the sa"e cause o# action

c. :is "aes a new test an$ aan$ons this reasonin&3. #ldinger 9 ,anley ∏ sue$ ∆1 on a #e$eral clai" an$ ∆2 on a se'arate

state clai" which is $i##erent #ro" :is since these are two se'arate ∆s

an$ there#ore no #e$eral -uris$iction over clai"s o# 2∆ (overrule$ y statue)4. ,inley 5a"e as aove ut ∆1 was eclusively #e$eral clai" an$ so they

coul$n+t e rou&ht to&ether in state court ; court says that $oesn+t "atteran$ they have to e $one se'arately (overrule$ y statute)

5. roger orer $ies $ue to electrocution at wor an$ sues 'ower

co"'anya. Gro&er serves O"aha K 1 O"aha sues Owen K 2 Gro&er sues

Owen K 3 (this is 'en$ant 'arty -uris$iction)b. O"aha is a 3r$ 'arty ∏ Owen is a 3 r$ 'arty ∆c. 1 is #ine ecause it+s co"'lete $iversity 2 is not an$ 3 is not oay

either ecause it+s not co"'lete $iversity

d. Gro&er clai"s it shoul$ e oay ecause it was $one in ste's utcourt says it $oesn+t "atter i# it was all rou&ht at the sa"e ti"e orin ste's

6. 16 7.S.C. 425:; co$i#ie$ su''le"ental -uris$iction

a. ,oes 425:; (a) &rant su''le"ental -uris$iction to this clai" ?es i#it "eets :is (co""on nucleus o# o'erative #act)

b. ,oes 425:; () tae away su''le"ental -uris$iction %his sectioncuts ac #ro" (a) in the #ollowin& ways9

i< O8? a''lies in $iversity casesii< ,oes not a''ly i# we are there on #e$eral .uestion

iii< *e"oves su''le"ental -uris$iction #ro" certain clai"s in

$iversity cases 4? ∏iv< In or$er to tri&&er the ece'tion that woul$ overri$e

su''le"ental -uris$iction you have to "eet91< %he clai" is "a$e y ∏2< !&ainst a 'arty who was a$$e$ an$ not as a 'lainti## 3< hich woul$ otherwise e inconsistent w/ Q1332

("ain clai" is $iversity an$ no in$e'en$ent 5AJ)7.


15/25


1. Q136E (a) $oes a''ly an$ $oes &rant su''le"ental -uris$iction2. Q136E () $oes 8O% a''ly since it+s 8O% a $iversity -uris$iction case

e. *e"ovali. ∆ sue$ in state court "i&ht e ale to re"ove #ro" state court to #e$eral court

ii. 4223 42:3 42; are all relevant to the issue o# re"ovaliii. *ules to e aware o#

1. It+s a one way street only &oes #ro" state to #e$eral

2. Only ∆ can re"ove3. ?ou re"ove within 30 $ays o# service (not #ro" #ilin& #ro" service) o# the

$ocu"ent that #irst "aes the case re"ovale4. ?ou can re"ove the case IF there is #e$eral su-ect "atter -uris$iction (#e$

courts have to e ale to hear it)5. Fe$eral venue statutes $o not a''ly to cases re"ove$ to #e$eral court

iv. %wo ece'tions O8? #or $iversity cases1. 8o re"oval i# any ∆ is a citiHen o# the #oru"

a. On ea"s when an ece'tion a''lies #irst tal aout the rule an$then "ove on the ece'tion

2. 8o re"oval o# a $iversity case "ore than one year a#ter it was #ile$ in state

courta. I# it+s een sittin& in state court #or "ore than a year b. ?ou have 30 $ays #ro" when it eco"es re"ovale ut it+s 'ossile

that it woul$n+t eco"e re"ovale until a#ter it+s een sittin& incourt #or "ore than a year

4) !enue

a. Overviewi. 3r$ "a-or hur$le you have to reach K -uris$iction notice venue

ii. 7actly which court $o we &o toiii. 5u-ect "atter -uris$iction -ust says you can &o to a #e$eral court ut venue tells

you what #e$eral $istrict you can &o to

iv. here $o 'eo'le/cor'orations resi$e1. In$ivi$ual resi$es in their 'lace o# $o"icile2. ! cor'oration can resi$e in ! $istricts where it is su-ect to 'ersonal

-uris$iction /425>2 /c00a. %his "eans "ost o# the ti"e you can sue cor'orations anywhere you

wantb. hen a state has se'arate $istricts then the contacts o# each have to

e consi$ere$v. Fe$ courts $eal with the $istricts in each state (there "ay e "ulti'le)

vi. It is 'ossile ()ivingston v Jefferson) that location #or venue an$ 'ersonal -uris$iction are "utually eclusive

b. 4asic Provisions #or venuei. 425>2 /a0 ,iversity .uestion cases

ii. 425>2 /b0 Fe$eral .uestion cases

iii. In either case (a) or () ∏ can lay venue in either91. here any ∆ resi$es i# all ∆ resi$e in sa"e state

a. I# all ∆s resi$e in $i##erent $istrict o# the sa"e state you "ay layvenue in a $istrict where any one o# the" resi$es

b. Lenue $eals with resi$ency (not citiHenshi'T)2. !ny $istrict where a sustantial 'art o# the clai" arose

1>


16/25


a. (a) an$ () $i##er in 'art 3 (ut these al"ost never ha''en)3. I# neither o# these a''lies then venue is any -u$icial $istrict9

a. (a) where any ∆ is su-ect to 'ersonal -uris$ictionb. () where any ∆ "ay e #oun$

iv. 4 25>2 /d0 !n alien can e sue$ anywhere

v. 4 25>2 /e0 hen the ∆ is the @5 or an o##icer o# the @5 actin& as such

1. Aay e rou&ht where9 a ∆ resi$es

2. a sustantial 'art o# the events occurre$3. O* i# no real 'ro'erty is involve$ where ∏ resi$es

a. ere you coul$ loo at where ∏ resi$esvi. 425>2 /f0 *ules #or when the civil action is a&ainst a #orei&n state

vii. 425>2 /g0 ,eals with I*5

viii. 8ee? v. Haveafil #e$eral antiNtrust case

1. 8otice ; worl$wi$e service allowe$ y Clayton !ct in antitrust "atters2. Juris$iction ; =()(2) allows use to use a&&re&ation o# contacts to estalish

'ersonal -uris$iction anywhere3. Lenue N Q13D1 ($) allows aliens to e sue$ anywhere

c. %rans#er o# venuei. Aovin& within the sa"e -u$icial syste" (one #e$eral court to another #e$eral court)

ii. %er"inolo&y1. %rans#eror court ori&inal court where case was rou&ht

2. %rans#eree court new court where case is &oin&

a. In or$er to "ove here the trans#eree court "ust e a 'ro'er venueb. !n$ it "ust have 'ersonal -uris$iction over the ∆c. (an$ these "ust e in$e'en$ently true the ∆ can+t waive these)

iii. 5tatutes1. 42@ /a0 when trans#eror is a 'ro'er venue

a. ere you loo at convenience (#or 'arties an$ witnesses)

b. !8, loo to the #actors o# -usticec. here court acnowle$&es they are a 'ro'er #oru" ut another 'lace woul$ e etter

d. 8ew court still has to have 'ro'er 'ersonal -uris$iction an$ venue2. 42@ /b0 allows trans#ers #ro" one court to another in the sa"e $istrict ut

that are in $i##erent $ivisions3. 42@: /a0 when the trans#eror is an i"'ro'er venue4. 42:52 ; trans#er #or su-ect "atter -uris$iction ut hi&hly unusual since this

is the sa"e in all #e$eral courts5. 42@; ; concerns 're trial "otions o# cases that are in "ore than one

$istrict this co"ines cases #or all 're trial hearin&s an$ then $is'ersesthe" a&ain #or the actual trial

iv. Van 8!sen air'lane crash in 4oston so"e suits were #ille$ in P! since those ∏s

woul$n+t have een ale to collect in A!1. ∆ ase$ #or trans#er on asis o# convenience ut really so P! ∏ coul$n+t

liti&ate2. Court sai$ ∆ coul$ trans#er ut that ∏ woul$ ee' rules o# law o# the

ori&inal courtv.


17/25


1. !ccor$in& to 7eire A5 a''lies A5 'roce$ural rules an$ P! sustantiverules so ∏ #iles in A5 an$ then tries to trans#er to P!

2. ∆ ar&ues that ∏ shoul$n+t e ale to trans#er a#ter alrea$y choosin& the#oru"

3. Court says that 1=0= is not aout choice o# law ut aout convenience an$that shoul$ a''ly to any 'arty (an$ to court) 'lus it won+t chan&e law ecause ori&inal court choice o# law still a''lies

4. 5calia $issent ; thins this -ust increases #oru" sho''in& since i# it wasreally inconvenient court woul$ sua s'onte trans#er on it+s own

d. Foru" non convenies where a court $is"isses ecause the liti&ation woul$ e "ore

a''ro'riate elsewhere (not trans#errin& it+s $is"issin&)i. e+re $is"issin& ecause trans#errin& is i"'ossile since the "ore convenient

court is in another -u$icial syste" ("ay e con$itione$ on 'arties waivin&$e#enses) #re.uently co"es u' when it+s in a #orei&n country

ii. Gilbert 4rou&ht $iversity action in 8? where ∆ was incor'orate$ even thou&h

#ire an$ $a"a&es were all in L! (where ∏ was #ro")1. 4rou&ht e#ore trans#er ut since this "ove$ $o"estically now it woul$ e

trans#er an$ not F8C

2. Aove$ to L! since that was where 'roo# an$ witnesses were wei&hs 'ulican$ 'rivate interest

iii. Pi'er #ircraft v -eyno (all $ecease$ are 5cottish 'ilot was 5cottish crash was in5cotlan$ #ile$ in state court in C! re"ove$ to #e$ court trans#erre$ to P! #ile$ to$is"iss on &roun$s o# F8C)

1. Fe$ court in P! $is"isse$ to allow the" to liti&ate in 5cotlan$2. :oo$ #or ∆ /c there is no strict liaility an$ no 'unitive $a"a&es aroa$

ut court sai$ that $i$n+t "atter that they woul$ recover less3. Court lai$ out #actors in $eci$in& whether or not they shoul$ $is"iss #or

F8C ase$ on :ilert rulin&a. Pulic #actors court con&estion local interest havin& court a''ly

law it nows a''lication o# #orei&n law ur$enin& citiHens withunrelate$ -ury $uty

b. Private #actors ease o# accessin& 'roo# availaility o#

co"'ulsory 'rocess #or unwillin& witnesses 'role"s with viewin& 're"ises

4. 8or"ally re.uires a stron& showin& to $is"iss #or F8Civ. !sahi the 5C $i$n+t have 'ower to tell a state court that they shoul$ have

$is"isse$ #or F8C even thou&h state courts have a si"ilar rule5) "#allen$in$ jurisdiction

a. ow $oes a ∆ challen&ei. In so"e state courts you have to #ile a s'ecial a''earance an$ i# you $on+t #ile a

s'ecial a''earance at the e&innin& then you waive your ri&htii. In #e$eral court it+s ase$ on *ule 12 o# F*CP

b. Fe$eral rules you a $i##erent theoryi. ere we want to #orce ∆ to raise certain $e#enses at the outset (an$ you are not

'unishe$ #or raisin& "ulti'le at one ti"e)ii. Outline$ y ,-CP 21

1. ithin 20 $ays o# ein& serve$ with 'rocess you have to res'on$ either y"otion or answer (anythin& else riss $e#ault -u$&"ent)

a. ! "otion is not a 'lea$in& it is a re.uest #or a court or$er

1E


18/25


b. It "i&ht e a "otion to $is"iss on one o# the &roun$s o# 12()which lists E $e#enses (which can e raise$ either y "otion or inthe answer)

i< 5u-ect "atter -uris$ictionii< Personal -uris$iction

iii< Lenueiv< Insu##icient 'rocess

v< Insu##icient servicevi< Failure to state a clai"

vii< Failure to -oin an in$is'ensale 'artyc. 12(&) an$ 12 (h) 5'eci#ic ti"in& aout $e#enses

i< 23= an$ > "ust e 'ut in the FI*5% *ule 12 res'onse orelse they+re waive$

ii< 6E can e raise$ any ti"e throu&h trial on the "eritsiii< 1 can e raise$ any ti"e in the case

iii. In state court it+s calle$ a s'ecial a''earance

1) %e&o'al ( %e&and

a< 422 ; !ctions re"ovale &enerallyi< 422/a0 !ny case with ori&inal #e$ -uris$iction can e re"ove$ y any

$e#en$ant (not U) to the #e$eral $istrict in which the state court sitsii< 422/b0 Ori&inal -uris$iction can e con#erre$ y Q1331 or Q1332 ut i# Q1332

the case can not e re"ove$ i# it was rou&ht in a state where any $e#en$ant is acitiHen

iii< Q1==1(c) I# "ain clai" is Q1331 an$ there is at least one nonNre"ovale clai"

the #e$ court has $iscretion to $eci$e to re"ove the whole thin& or re"an$ where5tate law 're$o"inates

1< !llows -u$&es to re"an$ ac to state court2< Q136E(c) $is"isses clai"s an$ lets U rin& it a&ain

iv< Q1==1($) ! #orei&n state ∆ can re"ove w/o ti"e li"it

v< Q1==1(#) %he #e$ court still can have -uris$iction even i# the state court was

incorrect in its -uris$iction < 4 2A %y'es o# cases that can not e removed to #e$eral court (inclu$in& worer+s

co"e an$ $o"estic violence)c< 4 2: ; Proce$ure #or re"oval

i< 5hort 'lain e'lanation #or why you+re re"ovin&ii< Aust e #ile$ within 30 o# eco"in& re"ovale

iii< Aust e #ile$ within 1 year a#ter start o# the action$< 42; ; Proce$ure a#ter re"oval

i< 42;/a0 !s soon as 'a'ers are #ile$ in state court #e$ court can tae over

ii< 42;/c0 30 $ays to re"an$ #or $iversity or until the en$ o# the case #or 5AJ

iii< 42;/d0 Or$er to re"an$ is not reviewale on a''eal (ut there is a writ o#

"an$a"us)e< )ewis v. Cater'illar incorrectly re"ove$ to #e$ court ase$ on Q1332

i< Court "aes a "istae assu"es $iversity to e only etween 'arties who haveclai"s a&ainst each other instea$ o# any U a&ainst any ∆

ii< :insur& 'ra&"atically says that in interest o# econo"y an$ e##iciency once it+s$one it+s $one

1


19/25


#< Willia$s v. Cater'illar ,octrine o# co"'lete 'reNe"'tion is so $ra"atic it woul$ #orce

a clai" into #e$ courti< In this case the it coul$ have een #ile$ as state O* #e$ clai" so court allows it to

stay as a state clai"ii< 4@% intro$uces 'ossiility state clai" coul$ e co"'letely 'ree"'te$

2) Joinder o clai&s

a< -!le 26 ; Join$er o# Clai"s an$ *e"e$ies

i< 1(a) One U can sue one ∆ on as "any clai"s as U wants once one &oo$ clai"is estalishe$ (ut su''le"ental is li"ite$ y 136E)

ii< 1() hen $ecision o# one suit is ase$ on $ecision o# another the two clai"s

"ay e -oine$ (inclu$in& clai"s in the alternative) < -!le 25 ; Counterclai" an$ CrossNclai"

i< 25/a0 ! co"'ulsory clai" is one that arises out o# the sa"e transaction or

occurrence an$ $oes not re.uire any thir$ 'arties over who" the court can notac.uire -uris$iction< I# you $on+t rin& it now you lose the chance

ii< 25/b0 @nrelate$ clai"s are allowe$ as 'er"issive a&ainst alrea$y eistin&

'artiesiii< 25/c0 ∆ is allowe$ to as #or "ore R than U

iv< 25/e0 ?ou can rin& later counter clai"s only with the 'er"ission o# the court

v< 25/g0 CrossNclai" "ust e o# the sa"e transaction or occurance o# either the

clai" or the counterclai" ("uch $i##erent #ro" 13()) "i&ht necessitate rin&in&in etra 'arties can e ase$ on in$e"nity ut $oesn+t have to e

vi< 25/h0 !$$itional 'arties to counter clai"s an$ crossNclai"s can e a$$e$ in

accor$ance with rule 1D an$ 20c< Plant v "la(er %ruth in en$in& !ct an counterclai"s is it co"'ulsory

i< Four 'ron& testV Co""onality o# issues o# #act an$ law res -u$icata sustantiallysa"e evi$ence Blo&ical relationshi'

ii< Court says that it is the sa"e issue o# #act an$ law an$ there#ore it shoul$ e

rou&ht to&ether here (es'ecially since y s'littin& it u' it "ay #orce ∆ to 'ay out"oney that it shoul$ &et ac ut U will s'en$ it all e#ore ∆ can &et any o# it ac)

iii< %his case is 're Q136E what aout 'ost Q136E It woul$ arise un$er C8OF whichis roa$er than Blo&ical relationshi'

iv< !llows #or theoretical 'ossiility that so"e 'er"issive clai"s woul$ e within theC8OF even thou&h not #ro" the sa"e transaction

3) Joinder o *arties

a< -!le 1 ; Consoli$ation 5e'arate %rialsi< 1/a0 5e'arate cases can e consoli$ate$ #or trial when e##icient

ii< 1/b0 Court also has $iscretion to or$er se'arate trials when it thins that it

woul$ e in the interest o# e##iciency

< -!le 1@ ; Per"issive Join$er o# Partiesi< 1@/a0 %here "ust e so"e connection etween U+s ri&ht to recover (one coul$

e reliant or one coul$ e in the alternative) an$ the clai"s have to arise #ro" thesa"e transaction or occurance an$ have so"e co""on .uestion o# law or #act

ii< 1@/b0 Court has $iscretion to se'arate trials

c< -!le 12 ; Ais-oin$er an$ 8on -oin$er o# Parties Ais-oin$er is not &roun$s #or

$is"issal -ust se'arate the cases or the 'arties$< Mosley 10 clai"s o# $iscri"ination tryin& to rin& the" as one

1D


20/25


i< 5ince we nee$ syste"atic $iscri"ination it woul$ e a co""on .uestion o# law an$#act

e< -!le 2 ; I"'lea$er an$ %hir$ Party Clai"si< !llows thir$ 'arties to e rou&ht in on an in$e"nity action

ii< I# 3r$ 'arty serve$ within 10 $ays you $o not nee$ to otain leave to "ae serviceiii< ?ou have to e ale to convince court at ∆2 "i&ht e su-ect to so"e o# the costsiv< 3r$ 'arty can now raise any $e#enses that ∆ coul$ have raise$

v< I# ∆ counterclai"s U can rin& in a 3r$ 'arty ∆ (as lon& as Q136D allows it)#< Price Aaer o# chicen houses is sue$ an$ wants to -oin nail "anu#acturer

i< 5tate law $oes not allow #or -oint contriution U can sue either ut ∆ can not &etanyone else to contriute to -u$&"ent

ii< ∆ can not -oin I% as an alternative $e#en$ant ; they+re sayin& Bit+s not "e it+sthe" which ee's the" #ro" -oinin& I% on asis o# in$e"nity

iii< In$e"nity has to e ale to e wor$e$ BI# I+" liale then they are as well aso''ose$ to ; it+s the" not us)

&< -!le 2> ; Join$er o# Parties 8ee$e$ #or Just !$-u$icationi< 2>/a0 I# -oin$er will not $e'rive the court o# -uris$iction a 'arty shall e -oine$

as ∆ U or involuntary U i#

1< In 'arty+s asence co"'lete relie# can not e accor$e$ to current 'arties2< Party clai"s an interest an$ their asence "ay i"'air or i"'e$e their

'ractical aility to 'rotect that interest O* leave any current 'arty su-ect toinconsistent oli&ation

ii< 2>/b0 I# a 'erson can not e -oine$ in accor$ance with the rules aove the court

"ust $eci$e i# they are necessary or in$is'ensale an$ i# in$is'ensale it "ust$is"iss the action $eter"ination is ase$ on the #ollowin&

1< %o what etent a -u$&"ent woul$ e 're-u$icial to either the current or theasent 'arties

2< %he etent to which the 're-u$ice can e lessene$ or avoi$e$3< hether a -u$&"ent in that 'erson+s asence woul$ e a$e.uate

=< hether the U will have an a$e.uate re"e$y i# action is $is"isse$h< Hel(b!rg contra$ictory -ewelry store leases

i< %here is 'otential 'revention o# co"'lete relie# ase$ on 1D(a)(2) ; un#air to asent 'arty an$ 'ossile inconsistence -u$&"ents

ii< %hir$ 'arty &iven o'tion to intervene ut they choose not to an$ since thecontra$ictory situation is the #ault o# ∆ court rules thir$ 'arty is necessary ut notin$is'ensale

iii< 1D()(3) ; Prevents inconsistencies in #uture -u$&"ents ut sayin& 3r$ 'arty canlater sue ∆ ut only #or $a"a&es not s'eci#ic 'er#or"ance

i< -!le 1 ; Interventioni< 1/a0 Intervention as a ri&ht court has no $iscretion when clai" is #ile$ in a

ti"ely "anner an$1< ! statute con#ers an uncon$itional ri&ht to intervene O* 2< !''licant clai"s an interest relatin& to the 'ro'erty or transaction !8, as a

'ractical "atter their interest "ay e i"'aire$ !8, there is no other 'artywho coul$ re'resent those interests

ii< 1/b0 Per"issive intervention allows #or the 'ossiility o# intervention when

clai" in #ile$ in a ti"ely "anner an$1< ! statute con#ers a con$itional ri&ht O* 2< %here is a co""on .uestion o# law or #act

20


21/25


3< In usin& $iscretion court shoul$ $eter"ine i# -< +-8C v. 7S+-C 8uclear a&encies want to -oin even thou&h there is alrea$y a nuclear

co"'anyi< Court says that we $on+t now aout insi$e in$ustry 'olicy an$ current 'arties "ay

not re'resent others interestii< 5ee"s to say that even a sli&ht 'ossiility that another 'arty+s interest will e

i"'aire$ an$ that there is no other 'arty to re'resent those issues then they shoul$

e allowe$ to intervene as a ri&ht< Martin Ori&inally a suit y lac #ire#i&hters as a civil ri&hts suit then white

#ire#i&hters rin& suit sayin& in-unction was un#air to the"i< ?ou can 8O% re.uire so"eone to intervene an$ #ailure to intervene $oes not "ean

you lost any 'otential to sue in #utureii< 4ase$ on *ule 1D 4l FF coul$ have co"'ulsory -oine$ other necessary 'arties

iii< ,oes not want to 'lace ur$en on outsi$e 'arties to -oin un$er 2=iv< Current 'arties are etter situate$ to now aout liti&ation an$ who shoul$ e

-oine$ so court 'uts ur$en on the"l< -!le 11 ; Inter'lea$er hen there are "ulti'le 'ossile U whose clai"s "i&ht su-ect

∆ to "ulti'le liaility they can e re.uire$ to inter'lea$ even i# their clai"s $o 8O% have

a co""on ori&in ut are a$verse an$ in$e'en$ent o# each other (see chart 1)"< %ashire Insurer o# truc $river (who has ca''e$ insurance)

i< 5CO%@5 #in$s staehol$er $oes not nee$ to wait until clai"s are re$uce$ an$ sointer'lea$er is allowe$

ii< *ule 22n< I$eldo Marcos Aarcos tries to intervene an$ court consi$ere$ three #actors in its

consi$erationi< %i"eliness ; she was involve$ in 'reNliti&ation settle"ent tals an$ everyone new

she woul$ try to -oin so it+s oayii< Interest ; Aarcos alle&e$ an interest in the 'ro'erty at stae an$ this is 'roce$ural

so that+s enou&hiii< Possile Pre-u$ice an$ ac o# *e'resentation ; U+s interest "ay e i"'aire$ an$

not a$e.uately 'rotecte$ y 'artiesiv< %here#ore Aarcos #ul#ills re.uire"ents #or intervention y ri&ht (2=(a)(2))

4) "lass+,ctions

a< -!le 15 ; Class !ctioni< 15/a0 ! class action "ust e all o# the #ollowin&

1< 5o nu"erous that -oin$er is i"'ractical2< Co""onality .uestions o# law or #act3< Clai"s or $e#enses o# re'resentative are ty'ical o# the whole class=< %he class will e re'resente$ #airly an$ a$e.uately

ii< 15/b0 ! class action "ust #all into one o# the #ollowin&

1< 5e'arate actions woul$ create a ris o# a< Inconsistent or varyin& -u$&"ents < i"ite$ Fun$

2< *elie# is &enerally a''licale since it+s sou&ht as $eclaratory relie# or anin-unction

3< Co""on .uestions o# law or #act 're$o"inate an$ rin&in& this as a classsuit is su'erior ase$ on9

a< Interest o# in$ivi$uals to rin& it se'arately < Procee$in&/'en$in& liti&ation

21


22/25


c< ,esiraility o# liti&atin& in this #oru"$< Possile $i##iculties ("ana&eaility)

iii< 15/c0 ,eter"inin& whether or not to certi#y

1< Court has to $eter"ine relatively .uicly2< Court "ust 'rovi$e certain notice to "e"ers

a< Court shoul$ $irect "e"ers to use est 'ractical notice < Potential "e"ers "ust e ale to o't out

c< ,e#ault "ust e an o't in3< 15/c0/0 ; Court can $ivi$e class into suclasses when it #eels as thou&h it+s

a''ro'riateiv< 15/e0 Court "ust a''rove settle"ent

v< 15/f0 !llows #or interlocutory a''eal at $iscretion o# a''ellate court #irst court

$eci$es i# they want to tae the a''eal an$ then i# certi#ication was acce'talevi< 15/g0 Court has $iscretion i# $eter"inin& whether counsel is a''ro'riate

< Co$$!nities for


23/25


i< Consi$ers oth certi#ication an$ settle"ent issuesii< i"ite$ #un$ court $oes not thin this is a li"ite$ #un$ (or at least not yet)

1< e nee$ to show there+s actually a li"ite$ #un$2< !n$ that it is 'ayin& out e.ually to U

iii< 5uclasses (!"che" re.uires suclasses when you have 'resent an$ #uture clai"s)1< ,i##erentiate etween 'resent an$ #uture clai"ants2< !lso etween 're an$ 'ost 1D>D clai"ants

&< Sh!tts ∆ a''eals on asis that class action Us $i$n+t &et 'ro'er noticei< Aini"al $ue 'rocess nee$e$ #or asent class action 'lainti##s

ii< 15/b0/50 ; est reasonaly 'ractical notice (a la Aullane) that has an o't out o'tioniii< Others ; reasonale notice as court sees #it

5) Pleadin$

a< -!le 6 ; :eneral *ules o# Plea$in&i< 6/a) Clai"s #or relie# all "ust have

1< ! short 'lain state"ent inclu$es a asis #or -uris$iction (so you nee$ certainty'es o# #acts)

2< 5hort 'lain state"ent showin& that 'lea$er is entitle$ to relie# 3< ,e"an$ #or -u$&"ent that you want

ii< 6/b0 ,e#enses1< 5hort an$ 'lain2< Aust a$"it or $eny each aver"ent an$ set out $e#enses to each clai"3< !llows you to say you $on+t have enou&h in#or"ation ut have to 'ut #orth

a &oo$ #aith e##ortiii< 6/c0 !##ir"ative ,e#enses ; have to e 'lea$ in res'onseiv< 6/d0 Issues re.uirin& a res'onse are a$"itte$ i# not $enie$v< 6/e0 Plea$in& 5houl$ e Concise

1< Plea$in& will e si"'le concise an$ $irect2< ?ou can &ive all your clai"s an$ $e#enses even i# they+re inconsistent with

each other

< -!le ;/a0 ; %here shoul$ e a co"'laint an answer a re'ly to a counterclai" an$ answerto a crossNclai" ('ossily a thir$N'arty co"'laint an$ answer) ut no other 'lea$in&s will e allowe$

c< -!le 2@ /b0 ; 7ach 'ara&ra'h will e a sin&le set o# circu"stances$< -!le 21 ; ,e#enses an$ O-ections

i< 21/a0 ; ?ou nor"ally have 20 $ays to serve an answer ut i# you waive service o# 'rocess you &et 60 $ays a#ter court res'on$s to a "otion you &et an etra 10 $aysto #ile another answer (which can &ive you etra ti"e to #or" the res'onse)

ii< 21/b0 ; Aost o# the res'onsesiii< 21/d0 ; Court can have hearin&s to $eci$e aout answers #ile$ an$ $e#er until the

trial

iv< 21/e0 ; I# 'arty #iles so"ethin& that is va&ue or a"i&uous the court can re.uire the 'arty to re#ile with a "ore $e#initive state"ent

v< 21/f0 ; %he court "ay or$er stricen #ro" any 'lea$in& any $e#ense that isinsu##icient or scan$alous

vi< 21/g0 ; I# you "ae a "otion un$er *ule 12 you can -oin it with any other"otions i# you #ail to -oin it you won+t e ale to -oin it later ece't as allowe$ in12(h)

vii. 21/h0

23


24/25


1< 21/h0/20 ; ?ou waive any 12()(2)N(>) $e#enses i# you #ail to consoli$atethe"

2< 21/h0/10 ; Clai"s un$er 12()(6) $e#ense o# #ailure to -oin in$es'ensile 'arty un$er 1D an o-ection o# #ailure to state a le&al $e#ense to a clai""ae e "a$e in any 'lea$in& un$er rule W(a) or y "otion #or -u$&"enton 'lea$in&s or at the trial

3< 21/h0/50 ; Parties can always su&&est that court $oe not have su-ect "atter

-uris$ictione< -!le 6 ; For"s in !''en$i o# F*CP are su##icient#< #$erican +!rses ; alle&in& se $iscri"ination /c nurses 'ai$ less

i< U al"ost 'lea$ the"selves out o# court y &ivin& too "uch in#or"ationii< 4@% Posner says a -ury "i&ht #in$ causation that woul$ allow the" to #in$

$iscri"ination an$ courts shoul$ try to ee' 'lea$in& in court i# at all 'ossile thereis a clai"

&< Stratford ; $entist sue$ insurance co who countersue$ #or #rau$i< Clai"s o# #rau$ have to inclu$e 'articularity

ii< Insurance co"'any here $i$ not &ive enou&h s'eci#ics ut court allows the" tore'lea$

iii< e have a hi&her stan$ar$ #or #rau$ to ee' 'eo'le #ro" #ishin& #or suits we nee$to 'ut ∆ on notice aout #actual &roun$ on which clai" is ase ; closest to co$e 'lea$in&

h< )eather$an ; $oes "unici'ality+s i""unity ee' it #ro" ein& sue$ un$er Q1D3i< Q1D3 allows #or li"ite$ liaility #or res'on$iat su'erior 'rotecte$ towns #ro"

$a"a&es an$ #ro" havin& to liti&ateii< 4@% hei&htene$ 'lea$in& is not necessary since it is not s'eci#ically set out in any

statute or F*CPi< Go$e( ; Police o##icer sues city #or i"'ro'er $is"issal

i< Court has to $eci$e i# ∆ has ur$en o# 'lea$in& it acte$ in &oo$ #aith o# U has ur$en o# 'lea$in& it acte$ in a$ #aith

ii< e want to loo at who has etter access to in#or"ation an$ court says issue o#&oo$/a$ #aith is a $e#ense an$ so ∆ has ur$en o# 'lea$in& they acte$ in &oo$ #aith

iii< 5ince this woul$ e har$ to $eter"ine it "ay "ae a 'ractical $i##erent since 'lea$in& is har$ to 'rove an$ ur$en woul$ ti' scale

6) ,&end&ents

a< -!le 2A ; !"en$e$ an$ 5u''le"ental Plea$in&si. 2A/a0

1< ?ou can a"en$ once as a "atter o# course within 20 $ays2< !#ter that leave shall e #reely &iven to a"en$ a&ain when -ustice so

re.uires3< ! 'arty shall res'on$ to the a"en$"ent within at least 10 $ays

ii< 2A/b0 ; once issues have een raise$ an$ not o-ecte$ to then they+re in y i"'lie$consent

iii< 2A/c0 ; !n a"en$"ent relates ac to the $ate o# the ori&inal 'lea$in& when91< *elation ac is 'er"itte$ y law that 'rovi$es #or 5o2< Clai" or $e#ense arose out o# sa"e con$uct transaction or occurrence3< I# 'art 2 is satis#ie$ you can also chan&e the na"e o# the 'arty i# the real

$e#en$ant has actual notice an$ will not e 're-u$ice$ an$ new that ut #ora "istae the action woul$ have een rou&ht a&ainst the other 'arty

b. "eeck v. #B!aslide

2=


25/25


i< 5ee"s un#air to U to allow a"en$e$ 'lea$in& since 5o has 'asse$ an$ U will not e arre$ #ro" recovery

ii< 4@% also un#air to #orce !.uasli$e to 'ay #or a sli$e they $i$n+t "aeiii< 8o a$ #aith o# ∆+s ehal# an$ -u$icial econo"y ; court allows a"en$e$ 'lea$in&iv< Justice so re.uires see"s to allow a"en$e$ 'lea$in& 7C7P% when it woul$ e

un#air to the 'arty seein& to a"en$c< *elation ac

i< Moore ; can 8O% a"en$ (lac o# in#or"e$ consent v< "e$ical "al'ractice)ii< "onerb ; C!8 a"en$ (ne&li&ent "aintenance v< counselin& "aintenance)

iii< #(anbal ; C!8 a"en$ ("e$ical "al'ractice v< in#or"e$ consent)iv< Court uses Bco""on nucleus o# o'erative #act

civil procedure i - abramowicz_4.doc

Documents