Cucco

Personal Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction is the courts power to enter a judgment against a person or property. There are two types of PJ: 1) In personam jurisdiction 2) In rem jurisdiction 14th amendment forbids the states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. includes appropriate places where a defendant must defend a lawsuit. y Under this clause states may only assert jurisdiction over defendants who have established a significant relationship to the forum state, such as: Domicile, in state Presence-physical presence (even passing through) or (PPB and state of incorporation) for Corps. Consent- agents or appearing without objecting to PJ Or purposely availed Minimum Contacts y PJ must exist at time of commencement of law suit y Plaintiff consents to PJ by bringing suit in the forum state Challenging PJ only defendant can challenge Direct Attack- Challenge in the original forum state court to challenge basis of PJ. In some states a special appearance is available. This is an appearance at the beginning of an action for the sole purpose of challenging PJ of the court. Without actually submitting to the courts jurisdiction by appearing before it. -Must be careful not to raise other objections or issues, otherwise the court may conclude that PJ is being waived since there are arguments to the merits of the case. In state court an interlocutory appeal may be allowed to appeal the decision of PJ, so dont have to wait till end of trial However in-Fed Court- Under Rule 12(b) 2 a defendant may move for dismissal for lack of PJ and at the same time for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Collateral Attack defendant ignores suit because he feels state has no PJ over him. Plaintiff brings judgment to Ds state to collect under the Full Faith and Credit Clause which requires courts to honor judgments of other states. But the enforcing court must inquire if original state had PJ. y Dangerous because if state finds there was PJ, then D cant fight the merits anymore. 3 Step Process to determine PJ 1) Statutory grant (long arm statutes) Remember to explain why its Constitutional y Does the state statue authorize it to exercise PJ under the circumstances? Sometimes the reach of a long arm statue may exceed its constitutional grasp. 2) Constitutional grant (due process clause of 14th amendment) a) Minimum contacts test b) Fair play and substantial justice 3) Notice - service of process

Cucco

Minimum Contacts test: Constitutional analyses: quality, quantity, and nature of contacts
1) Purposely availed min. contacts- Ds who deliberately chooses to take advantage of benefits and protections of laws y Specific Jurisdiction- jurisdiction over claims arising out of single or limited acts. -in state activity is limited, D is only subject to PJ for claims arising from those Min. Contacts -McGee v. international Ins. upholding jurisd. over single contract solicited in the state -Burger King v. Rudzewics continuous but limited activity such as business relationship. y General Jurisdiction D can be sued for any claim, even one unrelated to activity in the state. This is because the D has substantial contacts in the state. Must be Systematic & Continuous. - Companies that have extensive activities, personnel, and facilities in a state *Must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities w/in the forum state- D must have deliberately chosen to conduct business in the state. Unilateral actions of plaintiff are not enough. e.g. World-Wide, dealer did not advertise, sell cars, or solicited business from residents there. Until. action by car buyer! - the fact the car was in the state was not purposeful availment of world wide! 2) Reasonableness balancing test must be a big burden to override Min. Contacts -Does the exercise of Jurisdiction comport with fair play and substantial justice D has burden of proving * 5 Factor test: Burden on D, Forum states interest to enforce their substantive law, Ps interest in quick and effective relief in a convenient forum, Legal systems interest in efficiency. In rem and Quasi In-rem In rem jurisdiction true in-rem cases are usually about ownership of property (usually land). e.g. quiet title or foreclosures. judgments are against the whole world. judgments are limited to the value of the land or property. Quasi in rem: Actions brought for purposes other than determining competing rights to property. Type 1 - if the claim arises out of or is otherwise related to the property. Type 2 If the claim is unrelated to the property, the property usually serves as an asset to satisfy any judgment that the court may enter against the owner.- severely limited by Shaffer - Minimum Contact applies to In rem jurisdiction, thus the claim must arise out of the property. y y - property is a contact and may suffice alone if true in rem Dont need Minimum Contacts if: have traditional basis of jurisdiction, Expressly contented to, and if state allows a forum selection clause, or implied consent like a plaintiff or defendant that fails to raise a objection to PJ early (before answer)

Cucco

Notice other primary requirement for exercising PJ

y y y 14th amendment , the due process clause requires the defendant receive adequate notice of litigation. Judgment without notice is invalid. Plaintiff must serve the summons and copy of complaint on the defendant

Adequacy of Notice y y y Due process requires service be reasonably calculated, under all circumstance, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford the an opportunity to present their objections Receipt of notice not necessary as long as method of service meets reasonableness standard Remember: Hindsight irrelevant. Court looks at Method, foresight, and reasonableness Acceptable means of Notice in addition to in-hand service (best) y First class mail, certified mail, or service to an adult at the defendants residence y Service through publication not valid (Mullane) if address is known or better method exists. - if used doesnt have to reach everyone in a big class of people Methods of Service In state in hand or on an agent of the defendant. Out of state accomplished by the use of states long arm statute Service in Federal Court in hand, usual place of business, home if left with suitable age and discretion who also lives there or any method authorized by the state in which the district sits or where the service takes place. Rule 4k 1 A Defendant can Waive Service alternative to actual service. - must specify date to be returned 30 days in US - not required to waive, but FRCP provides a carrot and stick to encourage waiver. Carrot- if D waives, instead of 20 days, D has 60 days from went sent to answer Stick duty to avoid unnecessary service costs. D will have to pay for costs of actual service; unless good cause. y Waiver does not waive lack of PJ or venue defenses

Relevant Case Law:

International Shoe established Min. Contacts test. Mcgee single, isolated, and connected claim is sufficient for assertion of PJ Hanson v. Denkla D must voluntarily or purposefully avail himself of the forum state. - Unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a non-resident D cant alone est. Min. contacts World-Wide Volks. Foreseeability of being hauled into court is insufficient to establish min. contacts - D must prove he availed himself of min. contacts in the forum state Burger King- privilege of conducting business in state requires one to submit to burdens of litigation there. - Did D purposely direct his activities to the forum state? - Established reasonableness factors burden must be huge to override min. contacts Asahi Reasonableness test can override min. contacts if asserting PJ would violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Outcome- you need more than just putting a product out there!! y Steam of Commerce analysis OConnor said that placing a product into the stream of commerce without more is not an act purposefully directed toward state. Need stream of commerce plus - Must have intent to serve market in forum state ex. Designing for market, advert., establishing channels for consumers, marketing through distribution (stream of commerce +) + = intent - Awareness that stream of commerce may sweep product into forum state is not enough. - Brennan dissented: its foreseeable that product could end up anywhere.

Cucco

4
Shaffer v. Heitner Minimum contacts test always applied, even in-rem - Ds property cant be attached only for purpose of forcing D to defend suit in the forum state. - made quasi in rem much less appealing might as well get in personam for full credit Burnham v. Superior Ct physical presence in the state is still enough to assert PJ-TAG Jurisdiction --substitutes for minimum contacts test..allows system to be predictable - Minimum contacts test only applies to absent defendants Mullane - Notice must be reasonably calculated to put D on notice and give D an opportunity to be heard - Reasonableness of notice is evaluated at the time it is given, not in hindsight
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject Matter Jurisdiction power of the court to hear the type of case
y y y Defined in Article 3 ss2 lists the categories of federal jurisdiction Lack of SMJ can be raised at any point, even on appeal if not raised in trial (no time limits) Court may raise sua sponte of its own accord

Federal Question Jurisdiction ss1331

No amount in controversy requirement - after 1980 Not exclusive jurisdiction but concurrent with states in most cases a FQ can be litigated in fed or state ct - however exclusive jurisdiction over patent, copyright infringement and concurrent juris. over trademarks. y Most litigants choose federal ct because of: shorter dockets, larger jury pools y Plaintiff who wishes to invoke ss1331 must include in complaint statement alleging requirements are met - well pleaded complaint rule from motley Sources of Federal question jurisdiction 1) Constitution Constitution itself must be the source of plaintiffs claim violated constitutional rights 2) Federal Law actions brought under federal law y Statutes Cause of action can be set forth expressly in the statute, or impliedly from language and context of the statute. y Federal common law Distinct from Statutes (legislative made), judge made substantive law . any claim arising under federal common law can be heard in federal court 3) Treaties most treaties actually do not create rights themselves, but are instead implemented by statute. y y Arising under one of these sources of federal law 1) Federal law creates the right federal statute creates a cause of action and plaintiff invokes the federal cause of action as a basis for recovery. y Plaintiff need only allege a claim based on fed statute, the constitution, or treaty of united states y However this claim must be substantial frivolous claims not valid 2) State law claim with necessary federal element (Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals) y A state law claim presents a federal question only if the federal law also affords a private right of action for parties injured by violation of statute. - fed statute must allow recovery or right of action

Cucco
Well- Pleaded Complaint Rule y Arising under has been interpreted as requiring - plaintiff must present the federal question on the face of the plaintiffs complaint is federal element necessary to plaintiffs case? - merely including a federal issue does not sufficemust be necessary for recovery y Anticipating a defense - Sometimes a state law claim will be followed by a mention or anticipation of a federal defense to that claim does not meet the well pleaded complaint requirements Ex. R.R v. Motley claim was a breach of contract, a fed law was brought as a defense to the breach. - They said that breach violated their constitutional right to preservation of property. - why defendant breached the contract was not an essential element of the plaintiffs claim y Well pleaded complaint rule is not a constitutional requirement, but instead an interpretation of what congress meant in ss1331 Declaratory Judgments declaration of relative rights. Often intended to preempt a later lawsuit y It is only a federal question if the court looks behind the declaratory judgment to the essential nature of suit y Would the lawsuit being preempted qualify for federal question jurisdiction?

Diversity Jurisdiction allows fed cts. to hear cases between people who are domiciled in different places
y y y y y y Authorized under Article 3 ss2 and 28 USC ss1332 Purpose was to protect out of state defendant from state court biases Requires an Amount in Controversy of $75,000.01 Not exclusive can be litigated in either state or federal court (Diversity federal jurisd. is concurrent) - if brought in state court, defendant can remove to fed court Diversity must exist at the commencement of action if party moves after commencement no problem Plaintiff must prove , has burden of proving diversity is satisfied

Complete Diversity requirement

y No plaintiff can be a citizen/domicile of the same state as any defendant - even if one plaintiff does not sue one defendantall must be diverse  Domicile is determined by actual presence and intent to remain both must be met at same time j Every person has one domicile. A person retains his current domicile until new residence and intent to remain j Original domicile is acquired at birth, usually parents domicile j Usually proved objectively new license, registers to vote, sells old house j Because diversity is determined at commencement of suit, a person could chage their domicile prior to action in order to meet diversity requirements must be good faith move  Corporate citizen/domicile j Ss1332 Corporations have 2 domiciles, the state it is incorporated in and the state that has its principle place of business. j Opposing party can not be from either of these two domicile  Partnerships and unincorporated associations llcs j Must consider citizenship of all the partners or members of the organization. If any member from same state as opposing party- no diversity. Ex. teamsters

Cucco
 Representatives estate reps., j Citizenship of representative is ignoreddeemed to have same citizenship as party represented. j Prevents party from attaining diversity by choosing rep from other state Trusts citizenship or domicile of trustee used.. not beneficiaries

Alien Jurisdiction citizen of a foreign nation y When a foreigner receives a grant of permanent resident alien status person is treated a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled. y When person has dual citizenship, only U.S. citizenship counts. y Pure alienage is not covered two aliens who sue each other are not considered diverse Amount in Controversy y All forms of damage are included just not interest and court costs y If permitted to recover attorney fees they can be included in amount in controversy y Amount is measured by complaint y Amount in complaint controls unless it appears to a legal certainty that plaintiff will recover less then the $75,000.01 required y Actually recovery irrelevant doesnt matter what court actually awards so long as in good faith y Non-monetary relief court may consider value to plaintiff, cost of defendant to comply with judgment, or the cost or value to the party invoking federal jurisdiction Aggregation of claims: y Single defendant single plaintiff = can aggregate claims even if claims are unrelated y Multiple plaintiffs ordinarily may not aggregate their claims unless joint claim -ex. 2 plaintiffs own a house.. a bus hits the house causing 100,000 in damage.. requirement is met y Multiple plaintiffs, one claim greater than 75,000 as long as one plaintiff meets requirement, then other plaintiff can meet the requirement under supplemental jurisdiction if the claims are factually related y Multiple defendants plaintiff meets the amount in controversy if each defendant is potentially liable for an amount in excess of 75000, even if liability is joint and several. Attempts to get around Diversity Requirement y Assignments plaintiff cannot assign his claim to someone else for purposes of creating diversity. However there is no rule against a defendant who assigns claim to no diverse person in an attempt to destroy diversity y Omitting parties plaintiff can omit plaintiff to create diversity, but only if plaintiff is not essential to the case. y Artificially low amount in controversy- If plaintiff explicitly asks for less the 75000, then the case cannot be removed based on diversity

Cucco

Supplemental Jurisdiction ss1367

y y y If a district court can exercise jurisdiction over some of the claims in a case, in certain circumstances it may be able to hear other claims that do not themselves qualify for SMJ Only possible when at least one claim(federal claim) independently qualifies for fed SMJ The federal claim can be either a diversity or a federal question claim - important exceptions for diversity cases

Applying Supplemental Jurisdiction - 2 step test 1) Same case or controversy two or more claims form part of the same case or controversy when they arise out of the same set of facts. Ss1367(a) empowered by Article 3 y Common nucleus of operable fact y Claims that stem from the same core transaction or occurrence y Same witnesses or evidence needed for both claims - Exemplified by United Mine workers v. Gibbs Said that article 3 gave the federal courts jurisdiction not over claims but cases. They reasoned a case comprised all claims that arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact. Therefore article 3 allows jurisdiction over the entire case, not just the fed question or diversity question 2) 1367 sets out 2 main exceptions

Cucco

Venue Locating the most convenient place for litigating a case in both State and Federal
Not required by the constitution, so judgment lacking proper venue is still valid. State venue look for factors like: where cause of action took place, D or P resides, D conducts business or especially where the property is located.- determined by state Federal Venue - 28 USC 1391- determined by district more than one district is usually proper. y Plaintiff chooses, must pick district with PJ over all defendants in case Federal Venue in Diversity cases - 1391 (a) must be based on diversity only (SMJ) Venue is proper anywhere 1. Any district a defendant resides, if all defendants reside in same state 1391(a)(1) 2. Any district a substantial portion of events or omission give rise to the claim - 1391(a)(2) 3. If no other option, any district where a single defendant is subject to PJ - 1391(a)(3) Federal Venue in Federal Question or combined or supplemental jurisdiction 1. Any district a defendant resides, if all defendants reside in same state 1391(b)(1) 2. Any district a substantial portion of events or omission give rise to the claim - 1391(b)(2) 3. If no other option, any district where any defendant may be found (subject to PJ) - 1391(b)(3) y y Application of Venue determined by residence, not domicile of defendant!! (actually resides) y No real difference between 1391(a) and 1391(b) y (a)1 and b(1) apply only if every defendant lives in the same state. if one D lives in diff. state-cant use - However if all defendants reside in same state, any district where at least one D resides is proper. y (a)2 and (b)2 - substantial portion of events is pretty broad, several districts may qualify. - Must be relevant to plaintiffs claim to be a substantial events Corporate Defendants y 1391(c) states corps. reside in any district where they are subject to PJ at the time action is commenced. y 1391 (c) treats each district as a different state, need Minimum contacts with that District.  If no single district has sufficient contacts, then the district with the most significant contacts is its residence if contacts are sufficient for the state as a whole Alien Defendants 1391(d) y Aliens may be sued in any district that it has personal Jurisdiction y In multi district state alien can be sued in every district in the state so long as there is state PJ y If P sues Alien and Citizen, then alien is deemed to reside in every district in U.S. - then venue is proper where the U.S. citizen resides Real Property exception - Local Action defined by case law, not statute y Those actions that determine or affect the title to property or involve physical harm to property y Overrides regular venue statute Removal Exception if a case is properly removed from state court to federal court, venue is automatically satisfied. Even if it would not otherwise satisfy 1391. Challenges to Venue is a personal defense that can be waived like personal jurisdiction. y Rule 12 sets strict time limit must object to venue no later then answer y Rule 12(g) waiver by inconsistent action any action inconsistent with venue defense like transfer Forum non Conveniens court created doctrine -dismissal if venue is improper based on discretion of court y Usually does not apply to transfer in Fed Ct. in this case transfer(1404) would be appropriate y Used if more convenient court is a foreign court- state or other country y To determine forum non conveniens : must be alternative forum available to hear case - chosen forum must be very inconvenient

Cucco
Factors to consider : Alternative forum must have PJ and SMJ - Differences in remedy- bar dismissal only if they effectively deny plaintiff any rights in 9 alternative forum Piper Aircraft v. Reyno y Private Factors 1) where underlying events occurred, 2) where witnesses and evidence is 3) comparative costs, 4) can witnesses be compelled to testify (foreign nations), 5) language issues, 6)is judgement enforceable in the place where defendants assets are located. y Public Factors 1) choice of law questions (familiarity and ease of determining law), 2) policy implications, 3)backlog in court chosen by plaintiff, 4) burden on court system and jury y Timing No fixed time limits, but longer case goes on the less likely court will dismiss

Transfer of Venue - governed by 1404, 1406, 1631

y y y Transfer apply only in federal courts, state court cannot use fed law Nothing allows a state court to transfer a case to fed ct, state ct, or foreign ct., only option is to use forum non conveniens to dismiss case. The court transferred to must have proper PJ and Venue i.e. where a case could have been filed

Transfer from a court with proper Venue and PJ -1404 for the convenience of parties and witnesses y Either party may seek 1404 transfer when multiple Ps & Ds any party may move to transfer y Court must have proper PJ and venue to use 1404 y No time Limit y 1404(a) says transfer is not mandatory court has discretion y Factors to consider: similar to forum non convenience Private Factors 1) convenience of witnesses, 2) convenience of parties, 3) where claim arose, 4) location of physical evidence(records or property), 5) forum selection clause (considered) Public Factors 1) ease of enforcing judgment, 2) judges familiar with governing law, 3) local interests or relative judicial economy. y Governing law - In diversity cases a 1404 transfer does not change the substantive law used to decide. Original venue law will be applied. So possible a plaintiff may pick a venue where there is favorable law, and even if transferred that law applies.

Transfer from a court with improper venue and PJ if lacking transfer under 1404 impossible y Transfer may be possible under 1406(a)(improper venue) or 1631(no PJ) y Transferee court must have proper PJ and Venue y Either party can transfer usually plaintiff??? y Governing law not automatically applied from transferred court. 1406(a) when venue is improper y Provides that if venue is improper, the court shall dismiss or transfer (for justice) y PJ is irrelevant, 1406a is proper even if court lacks venue and PJ y About Justice not convenience ??? 1631 counterpart to 1406a applies mainly when original court lacks PJ but has proper venue

Cucco

10