Every CaseSMJ (Subject Matter Jurisdiction) Court’s authority to hear certain cases
States most often have CON CURRENT jurisdiction. Rarely does fed have exclusive jurisdiction
Every CourtPJ (Personal Jurisdiction) Geographical limitation w/ relationship turning on ∆’s relationship with State
State Courts—limited by 14th amendment FED Courts exercise Nationwide jurisdiction
Every TimeVenue Choosing the court to bring the Suit
SMJPJ Venue
Fed1.) Self Definition
1.) Fed Question
2.) Diversity
3.) Specific Grants
2.) Article III
“Sufficient Connection”
State1.) Self Definition
GENERAL
2.) Higher power restriction
Exclusive fed jurisdictions
Tribal Courts
SMJ is a 2 step process (Both fed and state) 1) Self definition -- legislative grant of power
2) Higher power restrictions if any
§1332 is narrower than Art III’s grant of all diversity cases
DOMICILE= usually defined as the LAST state a person has taken up residence with intent to reside Indefinitely.
Usually at TIME of FILING which is different than Contacts Based PJ
2 judge made Exclusions 1) Domestic Relations – divorce, child custody but do hear Kx and Torts
2) Probate Exclusion
AMOUNT in CONTROVERSY
Legal certainty standard:1) is requested recovery permitted? i.e. damage caps, have appeal courts reviewed similar.…
2) If yes is claim made in good faith?
§1332(c)(1) CORPORATIONS are diversity citizens of Principal place of business AND state incorporated.
-May need to use “bulk of corporate activity” test OR “Nerve Center” Test if corp. widely dispersed
Principal Place of Business Test 1- Nerve Center Test (decision Makers)
Test 2- Operations Test (Bulk of work done)
EXAMPLE DIVERSITY? A (Calif) sues B(New York) and C (An Englishwoman residing in Calif with intent to reside there indefinitely) no
YES IF 1988 revision of 1332(a)Englishwoman deemed a state citizen only if she ADMITTED to the
U.S. for permanent residence.
Must be Diverse AT TIME suit FILED not at time of occurance of events giving rise to suit.
EX: DIVERSITY? A(a NewYorker moving to Colorado but stuck in Kansas due to an injury) sues B (NY) in Kansas? no
still a NewYorker even though he never intends to go back because has not established “permanent” residence.
§133x for exclusive federal jurisdiction like Bankruptcy, Patents, maritime, Prize……..
Indian Tribes are jurisdictional spoilers……. Tribal Indian is citizen of STATE where he resides.
§1331 SMJ justification:1) to allow uniform application of law
2) because of hostility of state courts to fed courts due to 1875 reconstruction era
3) Competence – special expertise
Starting point to determine if you have a fed question:
1) Look at well pleaded ComplaintNote:Sup Ct has left open possibility than an imbedded
2)is there a granted or implied private right of actionfed std “can” be a fed question if “substantiality”
Supplemental Jurisdiction GIBBS is why Congress wrote §1367 supp jurisdiction
PENDENT Claim jurisdiction (Judicially taken) guidelines from United Mine Workers v Gibbs 1966
-Article III grants Jurisdiction over entire “CASES” not just particular claims/issues
-Article III NOT self executing
-Thus, if claim includes 1 jurisdictionally proper under Article III, Fed Ct has power
to hear entire dispute between the parties.
1-Must have a Federal AnchorConstitutional test
2-Other claims must be of “common nucleus of operative facts." POWER not Required
-Judge must determine if it makes sense to hear the auxiliary claims
-does state law claim predominate?
-sensitive or novel issue of state law?
-will both fed and state claims together confuse a jury?
3- Will State Claims predominate the Fed Question?
Ancillary Jurisdictionfor claims asserted by π after the initial complaint
From Moore’s compulsory counterclaim now to include CC’s with
§1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction remains even if anchor claim is dismissed….
Owen v Kroger, ruled extending ancillary jurisdiction would be inconsistent with §1332’s diversity requirement
-1) Fed anchor (now fed claim means simply existence of federal jurisdiction) 1367(a)Orig Jurisdiction
Sets stage-2)Common Nucleus of Operative Fact1367(a)same case/controversy
for §13671367(a) including joining parties
-3) Congressional forbidden…1367(c) Limitations and decline
-4) Power to discretionarily decline 1367(b) can not violate §1332
1367(a) if court has Original Jurisdiction and claims so related to SAME case/controversy
1367(b) DIVERSITY only: NO supp jurisdiction over claims when
Plaintiffs make persons parties under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24. Would destroy diversity
RULE 20 LoopHole – only applies when plaintiff exercises….
In analysis for test, ALWAYS look for Independent subject matter jurisdiction for each claim
then look for supplemental jurisdiction
EXAMPLE: Can Browning assert the compulsory counter claim against Wordsworth?
Browning (NY)1stBlake (Ohio)
Rule 14(a)2ndRule 14(a)
Rule 13(a)3rd
4th
Wordsworth (Ohio)
NO: strictly construing 1367, Wordsworth was made a party under Rule 14but maybe be able to convince a court it is a compulsory
Cclaim….not an endrun around complete Diversity of 1332 as in Owen v Kroger. Courts may look to intent behind 1367 and historical allowances.
REMOVAL: §1441, 1445, 1446
Defendants remove within 30days of receipt of complaint through Service or otherwise
by filing with District Court NOTICE of removal with the basis of removal
then filing notice with the State Court which loses its power ONLY when receives notice of removal.
1441(b) removable only if NONE of parties in interest is a citizen of State where such action brought -- avoiding hometowning
1441(a) one year limit for diversity actions under 1332
1441(c) essentially non related claims can not be joined in fed court but case would be remanded (to protect defendants)
Case can be made removal proof: Don’t file fed claim, don’t file over $75k
REMAND: §1447
Motion must be made w/in 30 days of 1446 notice of removal filed
1447(e) if joinder would destroy diversity, 1) deny joinder
or 2) allow joinder and remand all claims
notice.
SERVICE: Clock starts to run on a duty to answer. The duty to answer does not start until defendant has a
copy of the complaint and has received actual service of process and Filed
Personal Jurisdiction
2 choices when a claim filed in a foreign court: 1 ignore complaint and hope no judgment or challenge enforcement
allowed under Full Faith and Credit then….OR
2 challenge PJ without raising any other issues. Fed rules allow
under rule 12 to challenge all including asking for dismissal
In Personam
1) Defendant found and served IN STATE must avoid fraudulent inducement
2) Defendant consents even though out of state Ins of Ireland v Bauxites:
If one is served with a motion to give discovery in which THAT discovery could lead to minimum
contacts to give the court PJ and they REFUSE, 2 possibilities:
1) Under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) gives jurisdiction and sanctions
2) By refusing, you act as if consented under Rule 37 THUS Waiving PJ under Rule 12(h)
CONTACTS Based- systematic and continuous business activity in a state allows a Corp. to be treated as In Personam
including DOMICILE Miliken v Mayerand agents of it can thus be served.
CONTACTS are Based on TIME of OCCURRENCE giving rise to suit, not at time of filing the suit
2 threshold issues RE contacts based Jurisdiction
1) Border between Specificand General Jurisdiction
2) Specific Jurisdiction: What does “relates to” mean? Circuits are split!!!!
a) Arises out of? b) Factual connection? c) But for?
Decreasing ContactsIncreasing Contacts
Extent of ContactsNoCasual orsingle actcontinuous substantial or
contactsisolatedbut limitedpervasive
Jurisdictional NoNoSpecificSpecificGeneral
ConsequencesJurisdictionJurisdictionJurisdictionJurisdictionJurisdiction
THE SHOE SPECTRUM
International Shoe1)Must be a minimum level of CONTACTS that arise out of the in-state acts themselves
CASUAL or Isolated contacts are NOT SUFFICIENT for Minimum Contacts
14th amend due process2) Does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
2 step processthat always must be followed
Long arm statutes proffered acceptance of LONG ARM STATUTES
Under Long Arms, look to see if Def enjoys benefits implying that Def also bears burdens….
McGeeone contact sufficient since Insurance Co Reached out to McGee
Hansonopposite of McGee, Defendant did not reach out and thus can not be served w/ PJ. “purposely avail itself of privilidge of
conducting business, thus invoking benefits and protections of laws…”
Rule 4k- limits Fed courts to same PJ as State Courts
4(k)(1)(a) Same PJ as State and Fed
4(k)(1)(b) Bulge jurisdiction 100 mile radius for parties joined under RULE 14 or RULE 19
4(k)(1)(d) Statutory Interpleader Nationwide Service OK
4(k)(2) National PJ whenever Congress says it does (i.e. Bankruptcy)
WorldWide1) the required Min Contacts is defined by defendant’s activities
A: What area seeking to serve ?
B: Where would Defendant expect to be sued?
Burgerking5 additional reasons court found PJ existed in Fla for Ill defendant
1) Continuous and Wide-reaching relationship w/ Fla
2) Foreseeability of injury in Fla Effects test but trademark suit dropped
3) Always knew Fla headquarters calling the shots
4) Choice of law term in Kx for Fla
*5) Calls and letters to Fla reaching out to Florida
1,3,4 can happen w/out reaching out by defendant. It could be reaching out by Plaintiff only…. Must look at circumstances
III – escape hatch- prevents all big business from asserting BK jurisdiction.
Asahi MetalManufacturer based minimum contacts analysis Case Book 751
MINIMUM CONTACTS ?O’Conner
1) NO- IIA Stream of Commerce Plus Marketing, agent in jurisdiction, product design
2) YES Dissent - Knowledge of where products going Brennan
3) NO did not DIVERT stream of Commerce intentionally through marketing
BURDEN/HARDSHIP of defending ? O’Conner and Brennan agree
1) burden on Alien ∆, Taiwan v Japan
2) interests of California is zero, Original ∆ is gone
3) Delicate nature of international cases to start with
INTERNET:
Millennium Ent v Millenium Music
ACTIVEINTERACTIVEPASSIVE web pages
Inet Significant portion of businessgenerally advertisements
Interactive: Does the website reach out to the Forum?
What level of interaction is enough to confer jurisdiction?
Cybersell – advertising if targeted is sufficient to confer jurisdiction part of interactive equation
satisfy due process standards
Shaffer- All in Rem must now go through minimum contacts analysis Greyhound stock Owners
BurnheimPerson can be served in state even if there only for a short time – VOLUNTARY
GENERAL JURISDICTION ALTERNATIVE: still based on contacts, but contacts are so pervasive giving total jurisdicti
= systematic and continuous contacts! but no definitive meaning of this
Helicopteros parties only argued general jurisdiction, NOT specific Jurisdiction!
1) Contacts with Texas to negotiate, and pilots trained in Texas. Heli from Tx
These may be minimum contacts sufficient to establish SPECIFIC jurisdiction
2) Can ∆ convince court this case would not comport w/ Fair Play and Substantial Justice?
Using Asahi
1) Texas has an interest
2) No undue burden on ∆
3) Not an international dispute Has Tx litigants
EFFECTS Based usually don’t need since CONTACTS will satisfy, but sometimes needed to establish contacts Calder v Jones
1) Effects of conduct out of state is sufficient when effects IN state occur
2) Effects analysis – targets conduct/activityie intentional tort
3) Effects analysis – looks to see if def KNEW effects would be felt in particular state (localized injury
DEFAMATION CAVEAT: and 4) sometimes defam conduct must be in place where damage happened.
In Rem
Out of state defendant has property in state must ATTACH property First See SHAFFER
Quaisi in Rem essentially dead form of personal jurisdiction Killed by CONTACTS and See Shaffer
Attach property in state that is not subject to the lawsuit
Pennoyer v Neff, Harris v BalkFull faith and credit clause applies to other states, Hess v Pawloski Consented by driving on roads
VENUEPlaintiff is master of his claim except Defendant can remove when otherwise could be federal….
§1441(b) provides that Diversity case is ONLY removable if “none of parties in interest properly joined
and served as ∆’s is a citizen of State in which such action is brought.”
§1441(e) added providing that fed Ct is Not precluded from hearing case simply because filed in State
court which lacked jurisdiction over it and dismissed it. Collateral estoppel “exception”
§1391(a) and (b)(1) Residence of ALL Defendant at time commenced, if yes then in any of ∆’s districts
§1391(a) and (b)(2) Occurrence Route at time commenced =SUBSTANTIAL parts of events or Omissions
§1391(a) and (b)(3) Fall back provision for PJ (a) or where found (b)
§1391(c) CORPORATIONS deemed resident of District where PJ proper at time COMMENCED
§1391(d) ALIENS may be sued in ANY district
§1391(e) Officer/employee of U.S……
§1391(f) Foreign state as defined by §1603(a)
Plaintiff under §1391 chooses which of permissible districts in which to File BUT
Defendant can file motion to TRANSFER under §1404 .
CHOICE of LAW is always determined from state where FILED.
CHOICE of LAW = What substantive Law? Lex Loci Delicti VS Rest 2d of conflicts of laws “the most significant contacts or interests” §§6 and 145
1) What law applies to the Fed Claim? FED law
2) What Conflicts law applies? Always of the state you are in, except maybe under §1404
3) What law applies to State Claims? Remember, where questionable, states rule their law applies
4) What Procedural Law applies? always of the court you are in
ERIE Doctrine 1)Only in Diversity 2) Different Fed & State Ways of doing 3) a party tells fed ct do it state way
Rules in Decision Act (1789) of Fed Judiciary Act
1)Fed Cts apply State Rules of Decision in absence of Fed Law or Constitution
2)Including Judge made Law
This is the need for the RDA
1) Constitution says so2) Congress says so3) 1&2 silent so judges say so
Directly(statutes)Indirectly(rules) “unguided Erie analysis”
Follow itfollow if Valid1)follow if validByrd and Hanna Dicta
Constitutional2) if not violate RDA
Constitutional under Hanna is if it is arguably procedural
Erie RR v Tompkins(US 1938)
Erie claims Penn law applies (trespassing) by §34 of Fed Judiciary Act says use State Law
Tompkins argues Fed Gen law should apply in absence of State Statutes (Only Judge made law existed)
Swift to Erie is a shift from natural to Positive Law
Promotes VERTICAL uniformity between fed and state courts.
Guaranty Trust (US 1945)
Fed Way is Latches vs State way is 2 year SOL.
LoserWinner
NY SOL applied for need to promote (outcome determinative decisions)uniformity between Fed & State Cts
Tier 1- Rights and Remedies so bound up…. Circuits split 50/50
Tier 2 – Byrd Balancing
Substancev.Procedure
Byrd v Blue Ridge Electric (US 1958)
Byrd a contractorBlue Ridge is State Electric Co.
Judge vs Jury ???!!!!
1) must be CONSTITUTIONAL fed courts must honor “definition of state-created rights and obligations by
the state courts.” MEANING Fed Court must follow State law where Fed has no authority to create law.
2)Court held Fed Way controls (but remanded anyway) because of AFFIRMATIVE COUNTERVAILING
CONSIDERATIONS 7th amendment
1) Substance v Procedure?(perhaps efficiency would be a prevailing consideration 6 v 100 jurors)
state way was not so bound up with rights and obligations as to affect
2) Is it outcome determinative? Ct says Maybe Gensler said #2 is junk
Ct Says Preference for Fed way is not enough to outweigh
outcome determinative values (but not substantive)
“GO STATE WAY IF IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE UNLESS FED CT HAS GOOD REASON.”
Hanna v Plumer (US 1965)
Diversity
State Way = individual handoff to executor Fed Way = Spouse of executor is OK Rule 4
Rules Enabling Act 28 USC §2072bANALYZE this step even though SC will never say unconstitutional
“Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right and shall…”cb952
SC Holds Rule 4 Governs because Congress said so.
SC Dicta: Twin Aims of Erie
1) discouragement of forum shopping
2) avoidance of inequitable administration of the law
MODIFIED OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE TEST: because of 1 and 2 above
A) does diff between State and Fed way make a substantial difference?
B) Is the difference enough to make π choose one forum over another?
IF A and B yes, then Supreme Court Cares.
Preclusion Doctrines
1) Everyone gets their day in court
2) You only get one bite of the apple
CLAIM PRECLUSION
1) 2 cases on same claims
2) Parties identical or in PRIVITY ( a label used by the courts after the fact )
3) 1st case ends with a FINAL, VALID judgment on the MERITS Granting Summ Judgment IS on Merits and FINAL
Dismissal on Sanctions MAY be on the meritsDenying Summ Judgment is NOT on the Merits
Default Judg IS on the Merits, had the chance to litigate
VALID : court must have had PJ, SMJ
*Must determine Scope of claim from the first lawsuit decided
Tests1) Separate injury
2) Single Wrong Test
3) Same Evidence Standard
4) Rest 2d of Judgments – SAME Transaction (series of events)
Exceptions:
Parties can agree to split the claim
1st party can expressly reserve the right
Court can split the claim
Parties must split claims due to court having no SMJ
Latent late on set injury
ISSUE PRECLUSION – some issues deemed to have already been litigated
4 Tests1) Same Issue
2) Same issue Actually litigated
3) Same issue actually decided
4) Same issue necessary to the decision
an ongoing relationship would indicate possibility for multiple lawsuits
MUTUALITY evolves to where an outsider who has not had its day in court but can hold prior outcome
against another party and entailed a two step evolution from Blonder-Tongue to Parklane
Non-Mutual Defensive issue preclusion – encourages joinder of parties
-NON bound Party on Defense
VS
-NON bound party on Offense
Non-Mutual Offensive issue preclusion - discourages joinder of parties
Offensive : subject to judges discretion
tests1) Efficiency (joinder of parties)
2) General fairness ie what if 1st suit not vigorously defended
3) Procedural/Evidentiary differences