ifill civprooutline spring 2011
TRANSCRIPT
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 1/24
14/12/2010 10:13:00
← Grable Test?
← Gasperini?
←
← 1332
← 1367
← 28 USC § 1331
← 1391
← 1404
←
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 2/24
14/12/2010 10:13:00
← Ch 2: Jurisdiction Over the Parties or Their Property
• Personal J Checklist:
o Was the defendant properly served with process within the state
(constitutional ?
yes- there is general personal jurisdiction
no- go to the next question
o Does the forum state’s long-arm statute provide for jurisdiction over the
defendant? (may list the required contacts)
no- there is no personal jurisdiction
yes- go to the next question
o Does the defendant have proper contacts to satisfy general jurisdiction?
(Consent, Domiciled, Owns Property)
yes- there is general personal jurisdiction no- go to next question
o Does the defendant have substantial minimum contacts with the forum state to
allow for specific personal jurisdiction?
• Expanding the Bases of Personal Jurisdiction
o Hess v. Pawloski
Hess was charged with negligent driving
Was not personally served and had no property in Mass.
Mass gov’t passes a law of implied consent, that when you drive
through the state, you appoint gov’t official to serve process
Appeals that it violated police power
Court says that it is ok because state has the right to regulate
There’s a safety concern-police power
No discrimination against out-of-staters
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 3/24
• A New Theory of Jurisdiction
o International Shoe Co v. Washington
Issue: whether Washington has J over an out-of-state business that
engages in business within the state, with an agent in state who was
served. Presence:
Minimum Contacts
• Agents, Rentals, Sales
• Systematic and continuous
Specific J: Can be sued for something arising out of these
contacts, regardless of minimal-ness
General J: Can be sued where HQ is
Test:
Received benefits as a result of protection form state laws/
services
Not violate fair play/substantial justice: burden on parties,
interest of state, evidence, witnesses
Quality and frequency in relation to law
General J:
• Corporate HQ
• State of Incorporation
• Domiciled• Specific Jurisdiction and State Long-Arm Statutes
o Development of Long-Arm Laws
Gray v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp
When the statute covers a particular event and that event both
relates to the case and occurred in the forum state, the event
satisfies minimum contacts
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 4/24
o Due Process and Long-Arm Statutes
McGee v. International Life Ins. Co.
Contract issued by foreign corporation to resident of California
had substantial connection with that state sufficient to meet
requirements of due process. Less burdensome to litigate across states
Substantial Connections
Hanson v. Denkla
How extensive must contacts be?
Must be some act by which the D purposefully avails itself of
the privilege of conducting activity in the forum state, thus
invoking its benefits and protections
Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
Purposeful availment
Test:
• Minimum contacts
• Foreseeability
• Reasonableness and Fairness
Burger King Corp v. Rudewicz
D’s purposefully availed themselves to the forum
Foreseeability and fair warning
• Site of injury as well Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court
Purposeful availment: knew product could end up in forum
state
Calder v. Jones
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 5/24
A state has personal jurisdiction over any party whose actions
intentionally reach another party in the state and are the basis
for the cause of action.
• General Jurisdiction and State Long-Arm Statutes
o Domicile: Where you intend to stay
o Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co
Can a state exercise PJ over a foreign corp when the cause of action
does not arise in the state or relate to an of the corp.’s activities while
in the state?
As long as activities in the state are systematic and continuous
o Fisher Governor Co. V. Superior Court
Need more than sales and sales promotion within state by ind
nonexclusive sales reps
o Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, SA v. Hall
Personal J Test: Can you hail D to state?
Purposeful Availment
Interest of Forum State
Reasonableness
• Internet and Other Technological Contacts
o Pebble Beach v. Caddy
Personal Jurisdiction Purposeful Availment
Purposeful Direction
• Jurisdiction Based Upon Power Over Property
o Harris v. Balk
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 6/24
Creditor can claim a debt against one of his debtor’s debtors
The debt follows the debtor wherever he goes
o Shaffer v. Heitner
Kills Pennoyer
Needs a quasi in rem standard(subject to min contacts) Mere ownership of property in a state is not a sufficient contact to
subject the property owner to a lawsuit in that state unless the property
is the subject of that lawsuit
Insufficient contact owning stock in a company
Everything must meet min contacts
• A Refrain: Jurisdiction Based Upon Physical Presence
o Burnham v. Superior Court
Issue: whether due process requires a similar connection between the
litigation and the defendant’s contacts with the state in cases where the
D is physically resent in the State and the time process is served upon
him
Physical presences has been and still is always jurisdiction but must be
voluntary
Shaffer: quasi in rem jurisdiction and in personum jurisdiction are
really one and the same and must be treated alike, and satisfy the
litigation- relatedness requirement of Shoe
• Another Basis of Jurisdiction: Consento Ins Corp of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Baux-Ites De Guinee
If you contest the issue in court you consent to abiding vy the court
rule and procedures
By contesting the jurisdiction you may not be contesting to whether
the jurisdiction is valid but you are consenting to the court’s authority
to decide that issue
o M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co
There can’t be globalized commerce and not honor forum selection
clauses
o Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc v. Shute
Cruise line had a special in limiting forum because customers come
from all over
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 7/24
• Types of clauses:
o Choice of law clause:
Tells course which law should apply
o Consent to jurisdiction clause
Parties consent to a certain forum but is not limited to that forumo Forum selection (Carnival, Bremen)
This is the only appropriate forum
o Arbitration Clauses
Parties waive right to jury trial
Controversial, legislature trying to limit arbitration clauses
Arbitrators can be swayed
← Ch 3: Providing Notice and an Opportunity to be Heard
• The Requirement of Reasonable Notice
o Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co
Notice Requirements:
Notice by publication is insufficient if address is known
But ok if address is unknown
o Goldberg v. Kelly
Post-termination is not allowed if it is a right, but entitlement is not a
right
Requirements for a post-hearing
Adequate notice
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 8/24
Need opportunity to confront witnesses
Need to be able to present oral argument
o Matthews v. Eldridge
Termination of benefits:
Due process: meaningful time and manner Balancing test:
Private interest at stake
Risk of erroneous deprivation
Government interest- cost
o Lassiter
Private Interests
Parent has strong interest in fairness and justice of the trial
Risk of erroneous deprivation
Shouldn’t take away a parent who deserves child
Government Interest
Keeping cost down
• The Mechanics of Giving Notice
o Specific Applications of the Service Provisions
Federal Rule 4(d): Waiving Service
Maryland State Fireman’s Association v. Chaves
Federal Rule 4(e): Personal Delivery on Natural Persons
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 9/24
Federal Rule 4(e)(2)(B): Service on a Person Residing in D’s Dwelling
or Usual Place of Abode
Federal Rule 4(e)(2)(C): Delivery to an Agent Authorized by
Appointment
National Equipment Rental Ltd. V. Szukhent Federal Rule 4(h): Serving a Corporation, Partnership or Association
Ins Co of North American v. S/S Hellenic Challenger
Federal Rule 4(f): Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country
Wagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk
• Immunity From Process and Etiquette of Service
o Immunity From Process
State Ex Rel. Sivnksty v. Duffield
A nonresident defendant may be served with process for a civil
action while confined to jail for a criminal prosecution arising
from the same acts if the defendant was voluntarily in the
jurisdiction at the time of arrest and confinement.
o Etiquette of Service
Wyman v. Newhouse
A judgment based on service of process procured by fraud is
invalid.
← Ch 4: Jurisdiction Over the Subject Mater of the Action: The Court’s Competency
• Subject-Matter Jurisdiction in State Courtso Lacks v. Lacks
Problems discovered in cause for relief does not remove SMJ
o Tafflin v. Levitt
State courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide civil claims brought
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
Holding: the principle that lack of SMJ makes a final judgment void is
not applicable to cases which, upon analysis, do not involve
jurisdiction, but merely substantive elements of a cause for relief
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 10/24
Would undermine res judicata: a case in which there is a final
judgment is not subject to appeal
And would eliminate the certainty and finality in the law and in
litigation which the doctrine is designed to protect
Because the matter had gone to final judgment the mattershould have ended
o Thrasher v. U.S. Liab. Ins. Co.
Drew a distinction between court’s competence to entertain an action
and its power to render a judgment on the merits
Absence of competence to entertain action deprives court of
SMJ; absence of power to reach the merits does not
• The Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts- Diversity of Citizenship
o Domicile: Primary establishment where someone lives/lived and intend to
return to sometime in the foreseeable future
Corporated places of business: weight is given to where production or
service activities are
Considers all circumstance of a corporation
Unincorped like unions or law firms
Domicile of every member is considered
If one person is domiciled in the same state as the P there is no
diversity jurisdiction
o Aggregation Rules: Single Parties can aggregate all claims, even if unrelated.
Multiple Parties : no aggregation unless the claims are joint, such as
undivided interest claims (i.e., ∆ ’s jointly liable); ’s allegation of π
amount suffices unless disproved as a legal certainty, injunctions
should be quantified in $ value to meet the jurisdictional requirement.
Single P cannot aggregate costs for one D
2 P sue 1 D and neither meet juris threshold can’t aggregate claims
unless they are seeking to enforce right they share
unlikely in personal injury
More than one P and one doesn’t meet jurisdictional threshold the
court can exercise Supp. Juris. Over both
P -> D (c1+c2)
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 11/24
Can be aggregated
P-> D1 <- $75,000
D2 <- $75,000
Can’t be aggregated
As long as one of the claims is > $75,000 and there is diversitycitizenship, you can get into federal court
• The SMJ of the Federal Courts- Federal Questions
o Complaint arise from federal law
No minimum amount
o Express or implied federal cause of action? No> Allege a state cause of action
in which fed law is essential? Yes > Private right of action?> Yes? FQJ
o Four-part test (307) Private Right of action
Is P one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted
Is there an indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to
create such a remedy or to deny one
Is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme
to imply a remedy for the plaintiff
Is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law in an area
basically the concern of the States, so that is would be inappropriate to
infer a cause of action based solely on federal law
o Louisville And Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley
Anticipating that a D will make a claim under a fed statute does notqualify for fed q
o Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Thompson
If legis never intended statute to allow a private cause of action- there
can be no fed q
o Grable And Sons Metal Products Inc v. Darue Engineering And
Manufacturing
If there is a coexisting fed and state law can choose either for
jurisdiction so long as fed j wouldn’t disturb any congressionally
approved balance of fed and state judicial responsibilities
• The SMJ of the Federal Courts- Supplemental Claims & Parties
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 12/24
o §1367(a) authorizes a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over civil
actions and contains two bases for declining supplemental jurisdiction: (1) a
federal statute that prohibits supplemental jurisdiction
o Part (b) lists the Rules of Civil Procedure under which a district court could
not exercise supplemental jurisdiction.o (c) details other circumstances in which the court may choose to decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction: (1) a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) predominance of a state claim, (3) dismissal of the case under original
jurisdiction, and (4) in exceptional circumstances, other compelling reasons
o Same case or controversy? Y> Fed Q /DJ? Fed Q>SMJ, DJ> no
o United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
three-part test to establish jurisdiction:
(1) the federal claim must confer subject matter jurisdiction,
(2) the federal and state claims must derive from a “common
nucleus of operative fact,”
(3) the claims must be such that the plaintiff would be expected
to try the cases together
If the federal claim loses out the state claim can still be heard in fed
court if it passes the test (Pendant J)
Shouldn’t exercise Pendent J:
Doctrine of discretion
Even if federal claims are dismissed before action can befurthered then they should dismiss state claims as well even if
fed claim was sufficient
If state claim is the real body of the claim
o State National Ins Co v Yates
If diversity is destroyed by P over Joinder rules then no J
BUT if diversity is destroyed by D court can
Counter claims do not make a D a P for 1367
o Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Services Inc
At least one of the P’s in a claim have to meet the 75,000 threshhold to
qualify for SMJ
o Executive Software North American Inc v. United States District Court for the
Central District of CA
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 13/24
Affirmed Gibbs but with 1367 which is stricter- mandatory language
• The SMJ of the Federal Courts- Removal
o If there is a case for SMJ in federal court, and the P files in state court, the D
can file for removal to federal court
Court can also move a caseo 1441: When can a case be removed?
Only goes from state court to federal court
• Cant’ remove the other way
o Federal court can remand though
if the case could have been filed in federal court in the first
place
where federal SMJ (diversity or fed q)
If D is sued in the state it’s domiciled and there’s a case for
diversity jurisdiction, it cannot remove to federal court on basis
of diversity
• The purpose of diversity jurisdiction to prevent out of
state prejudice is no longer an issue
• If diversity changes after the original complaint cannot
be removed (there are exceptions)
o 1446: Procedure for removal
o If lack of SMJ is discovered late in the process it’ll be allowed for efficiency,
finality and economy (Caterpillar v Lewis)o Challenging the SMJ of the Court
Direct Attack on a Court’s Lack of SMJ
United States v. Unites Mine Workers
• Common nucleus and try together
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group
• Even if a lack of diversity is cured after filing, the case
lacked SMJ at the time
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 14/24
Collateral Attack on a Judgment for Lack of SMJ
Court can raise a challenge to SMJ on behalf of parties
← Ch 5: Venue, Transfer, and Forum Non Conveniens
• Venue
o Venue In Federal Courts Bates v. C and S Adjusters Inc
Can avail self of forum if forwards mail
• Transfer of Venue in Federal Courts
o Hoffman v. Blaski
Court can transfer for convenience of witnesses
• Forum Non Conveniens
o Gulf Oil Corp v. Gilbert
Ease of access to sources of proof
Availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling
witnesses
Cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses
Possibility of views of premises if appropriate
All other problems of ease, expeditiousness, and cost
o Piper Aircraft Co v. Reyno
Applies Gilbert
o Odenton
Weigh public and private interests
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 15/24
Must weight heavily in favor of moving party
← Ch 6: Ascertaining the Applicable Law
• State Law in Federal Courts
o The Erie Doctrine: The Rules of Decision Act and the Rules Enabling Act
Erie R Co v. Tompkins A federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state
substantive law
Prevents forum shopping
Guaranty Trust Co v. York
Outcome-determinative test: state law controls only if the
choice between state or federal law could determine the
outcome
Ask about state law…
Whether kind of law that would cause are reasonable litigant
to choose or escape the state forum at a point in time when it is
still possible to comply with both federal and state law
because of the laws effect on the character or result of the law
suit.
question about STATE LAW.
• Can't forum shop for diff substantive standard
• Point in time matters.
• Statute of limitations - not outcome determinative Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc
Interest Assessment test
• Is the state rule “bound up by the [state created] rights
and obligations?” if so state rule applies?
• Even if it isn’t, would application of state v. federal law
determine outcome?
• Even is so, then court must balance state interest against
federal interest.
Hanna v. Plummer
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 16/24
Federal procedural rules (unless found constitutional and
invalid under the Rules Enabling Act) are not overridden by
state law or policy
Test:
• Is there a FRCP or statute on point?• If so, question is whether it’s constitutional and, in the
case of a rule, comports with the Rules Enabling Act?
• When there’s no fed rule or statute, question is whether
fed practice would lead to
o Forum shopping OR
o Inequitable administration of the laws
Walker c. Armco Steel Corp
If both rules can operate together: awesome
If not: if there is a state SOL, that will be respected by the
court. There is not specific statute or FRCP that sets a SOL for
every kind of action
Stewart Org, Inc v. Ricoh Corp
Forum selection clauses respected in federal court
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities Inc
If a state law can be used without violating the federal it should
←
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 17/24
14/12/2010 10:13:00
← 1. Does court have subject matter jurisdiction?
• Diversity
• Federal Q
o Four-part test (307) (Private Right of Action)
Is P one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted
Is there an indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to
create such a remedy or to deny one
Is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme
to imply a remedy for the plaintiff
Is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law in an area
basically the concern of the States, so that is would be inappropriate to
infer a cause of action based solely on federal law
•
Supplemental Jurisdictiono Three-part test to establish jurisdiction:
(1) the federal claim must confer subject matter jurisdiction,
(2) the federal and state claims must derive from a “common nucleus
of operative fact,”
(3) the claims must be such that the plaintiff would be expected to try
the cases together
If the federal claim loses out the state claim can still be heard
in fed court if it passes the test (Pendant J)
Shouldn’t exercise Pendent J:
Doctrine of discretion
Even if federal claims are dismissed before action can be
furthered then they should dismiss state claims as well even if
fed claim was sufficient
If state claim is the real body of the claim
← 2. Does court have personal jurisdiction over D?
• Specific: Minimum contacts (International)
o
Purposeful availment
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 18/24
Offices or Agents in Forum State (McGee)
Reached into forum state to solicit or initiate business (McGee/ BK)
Engaged in significant or long-term business activities in state (BK)
Nature, quality, and extent of the parties’ communications about the
business being transacted (Consulting) Did D make in-person contact with the resident of the forum in the
forum state regarding the business relationship (Consulting)
Any ads must be aimed at the specific forum
o Claim arises from forum-related activities or was a result of such activity
D committed intentional tort
P felt brunt of harm in forum
D expressly aimed tortious conduct at the forum
o Reasonableness
o Contact with forum state must be significant
• General
o Corporate HQ
o State of Incorporation
o Domiciled
← 3. Assuming SMJ and PJ, has the D received proper notice and ability to be heard?
(Minor Part/ Elderidge standard)
← 4. Have the service of process been carried out properly?
• Service of Process: the procedure employed to give legal notice to a person (such as adefendant) of a court or administrative body's exercise of its jurisdiction over that
person so as to enable that person to respond to the proceeding before the court, body
or other tribunal.
← 5. Does the court have proper venue?
← 6. Can D remove the case to federal court?
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 19/24
• if the case could have been filed in federal court in the first place
• where federal SMJ (diversity or fed q)
• If D is sued in the state it’s domiciled and there’s a case for diversity jurisdiction, it
cannot remove to federal court on basis of diversity
← 7. What law applies? Federal or state?• The Rules of Decision Act requires that federal courts apply state law in their
decisions arising out of diversity jurisdiction, except when in conflict with federal
law.
• § 2072. Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe (REA)
o (a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of
practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States
district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and
courts of appeals.
o (b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All
laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such
rules have taken effect.
o (c) Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the
purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title.
• Basic Rule:
o Federal court hearing a state claim pursuant to diversity or supplemental
jurisdiction must apply state substantive law and federal procedural law
o Sometimes, line between substance and procedure is blurred• Steps in the Analysis:
o Is there a conflict between the state and federal standard?
If they can be “harmonized,” no conflict and court will apply both
If there is a direct conflict, apply the various tests from Hanna/Byrd
• Modern Erie Test (use only if a direct conflict between federal and state law):
o Step 1: Is there a federal statute or rule on point? (fed r of civ pro, statute
passed by congress, constitutional provision)
If yes, under Hanna test, federal law is supreme and must be followed,
but there is a check…
o Step 2: Is the statute a valid exercise of federal (congressional) power that
comports with the Rules Enabling Act (in other words, is this truly a
procedural rule, or does it improperly “abridge, enlarge or modify” a
substantive right?)
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 20/24
***Most cases resolved at this point, because federal law is supreme
and will be applied
o Step 3: if no federal rule or statute on point, consider the following questions:
A: will following the federal practice lead to 1) forum shopping or 2)
the inequitable administration of laws (the “twin aims” of Erie)-if yes,then use the state practice/law
B: Is the state rule “bound up with” state-created rights and
obligations? If so, under Byrd, state rule applies
C: UNLESS, the federal interest strongly outweighs the state interest
(if Byrd had been decided using Hanna test, would have been resolved
earlier because there was a federal constitutional provision on point,
and federal Constitution is supreme)
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 21/24
14/12/2010 10:13:00
← Federal Rule of Civ Pro 4
← (d) Waiving Service.
← (1) Requesting a Waiver.
← An individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service under Rule 4(e), (f), or
(h) has a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons. The plaintiff may notify
such a defendant that an action has been commenced and request that the defendant waive
service of a summons. The notice and request must:
• (A) be in writing and be addressed:
o (i) to the individual defendant; or
o (ii) for a defendant subject to service under Rule 4(h), to an officer, a
managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or
by law to receive service of process;
•
(B) name the court where the complaint was filed;• (C) be accompanied by a copy of the complaint, 2 copies of a waiver form, and a
prepaid means for returning the form;
• (D) inform the defendant, using text prescribed in Form 5, of the consequences of
waiving and not waiving service;
• (E) state the date when the request is sent;
• (F) give the defendant a reasonable time of at least 30 days after the request was sent
— or at least 60 days if sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the
United States — to return the waiver; and
• (G) be sent by first-class mail or other reliable means.
← (2) Failure to Waive.
← If a defendant located within the United States fails, without good cause, to sign and
return a waiver requested by a plaintiff located within the United States, the court must impose
on the defendant:
• (A) the expenses later incurred in making service; and
• (B) the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, of any motion required to
collect those service expenses.
←
(3) Time to Answer After a Waiver.← A defendant who, before being served with process, timely returns a waiver need not
serve an answer to the complaint until 60 days after the request was sent — or until 90 days after
it was sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the United States.
← (4) Results of Filing a Waiver.
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 22/24
← When the plaintiff files a waiver, proof of service is not required and these rules apply as
if a summons and complaint had been served at the time of filing the waiver.
← (5) Jurisdiction and Venue Not Waived.
← Waiving service of a summons does not waive any objection to personal jurisdiction or to
venue.←
← (e) Serving an Individual Within a Judicial District of the United States.
← Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual — other than a minor, an
incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed — may be served in a judicial
district of the United States by:
← (1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general
jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made; or
← (2) doing any of the following:
• (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual
personally;
• (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with
someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or
• (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to
receive service of process.
←
← (f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country.
← Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual - other than a minor, an incompetentperson, or a person whose waiver has been filed - may be served at a place not within any
judicial district of the United States:
← (1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give
notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and
Extrajudicial Documents;
← (2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but
does not specify other means, by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice:
• (A) as prescribed by the foreign country's law for service in that country in an action
in its courts of general jurisdiction;
• (B) as the foreign authority directs in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request;
or
• (C) unless prohibited by the foreign country's law, by:
o (i) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual
personally; or
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 23/24
o (ii) using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the individual
and that requires a signed receipt; or
← (3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.
←
←
← (h) Serving a Corporation, Partnership, or Association.
← Unless federal law provides otherwise or the defendant’s waiver has been filed, a
domestic or foreign corporation, or a partnership or other unincorporated association that is
subject to suit under a common name, must be served:
← (1) in a judicial district of the United States:
• (A) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual; or
• (B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a
managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to
receive service of process and — if the agent is one authorized by statute and the
statute so requires — by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant; or
← (2) at a place not within any judicial district of the United States, in any manner
prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under (f)(2)(C)(i)
Serving the United States and Its Agencies, Corporations, Officers, or Employees.
8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 24/24
14/12/2010 10:13:00
←