Determining Minimum Contacts & Federal Question Jurisdiction in Civil Lawsuits, Summaries of Civil procedure

Download Determining Minimum Contacts & Federal Question Jurisdiction in Civil Lawsuits and more Summaries Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity! lOMoARcPSD|39591929 D. A. Dittfurth, Civil procedure Personal Jurisdiction: the power to bring a person or thing into a court’s adjudicative process. Step 0: Is there a traditional basis for establishing PJ - presence and consent? 1. Is the person a resident of the forum state? [Pennoyer, Miliken] 2. Was the person served within the forum state? [Burnham] 3. Did the person consent to jurisdiction (via contract, appearing in court no specially, or failing to contest it) [Carnival Cruise] Step 1: If the answer is no, then determine whether GJ or SJ can be found using minimum contacts Authority: is PJ available under state long arm statute OR federal statute? [4(k)(2)/14AM or 5AM] a. If Max Statute – means that it makes the scope of its authorization equivalent to what is permitted under the federal DPC and go directly into DPC analysis b. If gap between statute and “to the max,” are you able to attach D’s property for quasi in rem? [Shaffer] 2. Due Process: does PJ conform under either 14AM or 5AM? [5AM nationwide contacts] a. General Jurisdiction: if the harm does not arise from the Δ ’s contacts with the forum i. Substantial, continuous and systematic contacts? [International Shoe/Goodyear/Daimler] 1. Businesses: “At home” in the jurisdiction? [Daimler] a. Where they are incorporated and b. Contacts are so continuous and systematic so as to render it at home =PPB [Daimler] i. PPB = headquarters ii. Nerve-center test iii. This can only be ONE place 2. Individual: a. Where they are domicile b. Intend to stay ii. Reasonableness (not always considered; just say if court found…) b. Specific Jurisdiction i. PART 1: Minimum contacts: originally relied on the nature, quality, and circumstances of the party’s activities in the forum state [International Shoe] 1. Cause of Action: where did the cause of action arise? 2. Activities in the Forum State a. Systematic and Continuous = general b. Sporadic = specific c. Direct vs. indirect d. Dangerous? 3. Purposeful Availment: has D purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the forum’s laws? [Hanson and WWV] a. Stream of commerce: the flow of goods and services that unknowingly bring those goods and services into unforeseen forums i. Merely placing an item in the stream of commerce is not sufficient ii. Placing an item in the stream of commerce, coupled with some other act that shows the intent to serve state is sufficient. [Asahi and McIntyre] 4. Foreseeability: could D foresee or expect being haled into court? [WWV] a. There must be more than mere foreseeability that D could be sued in the forum b. National advertising provides foreseeability that D can be hauled into any of the 50 state courts not enough for MC 5. Initiate: did D initiate contact with forum state? a. Unilateral contacts are typically insufficient ii. PART 2: Fair Play and Substantial Justice Reasonableness [Asahi 5 factor test] 1. Δ ’s burden [relative cost to D – how much is it a pain for the Δ to travel to forum to defend?] 2. Does the state-law claim share a “common nucleus of operative fact,” such that they arise out of the same case or controversy as provided in Article III §2? [Gibbs, 1367a] a. When two theories of recovery arise from the same nucleus of common operative fact it makes sense to plead both cases under 1 scenario [Gibbs] i. Jurisdiction is based on cases and controversies, not recovery ii. Same facts? Same witnesses? Same legal status of parties? Convenience? 3. If up on diversity, would supplemental jurisdiction destroy complete diversity? [§1367b] a. Cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent parties or ancillary claims if it would destroy diversity [Kroger, Aldinger, §1367b] i. Ex: P cannot join parties when joinder of the parties under the rules would defeat diversity. 1. BUT- if a different party joins another party then the lawsuit will stay in federal court 2. If you need to prevent diversity jurisdiction – can state that the court will not allow P to make any claims against C. b. Pendent parties do not need to meet AIC [Allapattah] 4. Would federal court choose to decline jurisdiction based on novel/complex state law issues, state claim predominates, the valid original claim has been dismissed or exceptional circumstances? [§1367c] 5. POLICY: judicial economy, keep federal law in federal court Removal Jurisdiction - §1446 1. First – Would federal court have original jurisdiction over the claim? (§1446) a. Analyze – diversity jurisdiction b. Analyze – federal question jurisdiction i. Removal Jurisdiction is present for the most part only if the federal court could have jurisdiction to entertain the claim had the π brought the case to the federal court. 2. Is hometown D removing to hometown district? (§1446b): there is no diversity removal from state courts in the Δ home state a. The purpose of diversity-based removal is to cure hometown prejudice, and a Δ could not claimed to be prejudiced by local sentiment in its home state 3. Did all Δ s consent to removal? (§1446) Venue and Forum Choice - § 1391 and §1404 and §1406 1. Proper Venue (§1391) and Motion to Transfer (§1404) a. § 1391 applies when cases are founded solely on diversity i. Are the π and Δ s completely diverse? ii. Does the π meet the amount- in-controversy? b. Venue is proper wherever (1) a Δ resides, (2) transaction occurred, or (3) court otherwise has personal jurisdiction (§1391) i. Are all the Δ s in a single state? If yes, then you can have venue in a federal district in any one of those places where Δ resides. ii. If no, then look at the states where Δ s are and ask where the biggest part of the injury or event occurred? iii. If that does not work, then get venue wherever you can get personal jurisdiction over a Δ iv. *if none of these works, you may also look to where a substantial part of the property lays c. Would a different venue that has original jurisdiction be more convenient, based one evidence and witnesses? (§1404 and § 1406) i. Did the π file in district court that has 1391 venue and jurisdiction? [§1404] 1. If YES, then nothing changes about applicable law [Van Duesen] a. Convenience of parties b. Convenience of witnesses c. Interest of justice: access to witnesses, forum, docket congestion, speed of trial 2. RULE: the transferee court must apply whatever law the transferor court would have applied ii. Did the π file in district court that does have 1391 venue or jurisdiction? [§1406] 1. If yes, then π can randomly go to a federal court and file a case and transferee court gets to apply substantive law of its choice. 2. RULE: law of transferor court does not apply Erie Doctrine: State Law in Federal Courts [Reminder: state who wanted what. Ex: D wanted statute of limitations; P wanted no statute of limitations] • Erie only applies when there is a state cause of action in federal court because of diversity 1. Step 1: Is there a conflict because some sort of federal law conflict with state law? a. Might require a particular issue in a case to be resolved differently b. Yes step 2 2. Step 2: Characterize the Conflict a. Federal Rule of Decision promogulated under REA and State Rule Hanna Branch i. Long tradition of trying to narrow the scope of the Rules [Walker] b. Judge Made Rule and State Rule Erie Branch 3. Step 3: Hanna Branch [Federal Rule of Decision probably wins] a. Whether the Federal Rule is valid under the REA and if it is then it preempts any inconsistent state law in the supremacy clause i. Is rule procedural? Does it really regulate procedure [Hanna, §2072b]? 1. Cannot modify, abridge, or enlarge substantive right [Shady Grove] a. The court need to look at only the purpose of federal rule, not the purpose behind the state rule 2. Scalia and Stevens: whether the result of the 2072b inquiry changes whether the state rule is substantive or procedural a. Scalia: thinks it doesn’t matter only whether the federal rule is procedural b. Stevens: you actually have to look at the state rule 4. Step 3: Erie Branch [Judge Made Decision and State Rule Erie Branch]: Is State Law Substantive? a. York: reject substance/procedure distinction – any state federal conflict that is outcome determinative requires application of state rule i. Avoided problems of characterizing rules of substantive or procedural ii. Very favorable to the state rule iii. O-D: if the state rule, when applied would change the outcome of the case, then it is substantive and trumps federal law [York, Guaranty] 1. If it is not outcome determinative, then go to Byrd and look at countervailing circumstances b. Byrd: SC cuts back on favorability from York, modified outcome determinative i. Federal courts may apply federal rules, even if state rules are outcome-determinative, if federal policy in enacting the rules outweighs state policy 1. Ex: involving judge vs. jury decision-making ii. Modified O-D: if important federal interest at stake, federal rules might win [Byrd] 1. Essential characteristic and function of federal courts? c. Hanna Dicta [Twin Aims of Erie]: do not just care about outcome determinative conflicts, only care about the ones that cause forum shopping that would be an equitable loss i. Is the difference between the state rule and federal rule one that would cause litigants to choose one forum over the other? If so federal rule If not state rule ii. Does it encourage forum shopping? iii. Inequitable administration of law? 1. Disadvantages an in-state party who would have to defend different rules in a state or federal court? d. Gasperini: Ginsberg uses outcome affective, she seems to use the Hanna dicta, but then she cites Byrd favorably, precisely what this test means is somewhat unclear i. Basically, run the Hanna dicta [Twin Aims Test] and if it is outweighed by a countervailing federal interest ii. Can you accommodate state-federal? [Gasperini] 1. Run the Hanna Dicta test and see if it is outweighed by countervailing federal interest 2. Apply Twin Aims then apply Byrd 5. NOTES: a. If we read the federal rule narrowly to avoid conflict, the standard could be with same between federal and state law [Ginsberg in Gasperini] i. Thus, there is no conflict and it does not matter which is applied b. Only read the federal rule as its plain language and cannot read it narrowly, apparently there is a conflict between applicable state and federal law. [Scalia in Gasperini] Ascertaining State Law 1. Federal courts must apply the conflict-of-law rules of the state in which they sit. [Klaxon] a. In diversity, transferor court laws apply [Van Duesen] 2. POLICY: prevent forum shopping, BUT hurts uniformity across federal system Federal Common Law 1. Should we invoke federal common law? a. Is there a uniquely federal interest and significant conflict between federal policy and the operation of state law? [Boyle] b. Is there a gap between existing authority? [Clearfield] c. Would the application of state law frustrate federal policy? [Boyle] 2. What should the federal common law rule be? [Clearfield] a. How can we preserve uniformity in system? [Clearfield] b. Does the relevant state law frustrate federal policy? [Clearfield] i. If so, must create federal rule [Kimbell, Boyle] c. Would federal rule disrupt existing state commercial relationships? i. If yes, and no federal interest, apply state rule [BofA v. Parnell] 3. NOTE: if federal common law rule applies, federal law applies federal subject matter jurisdiction Federal Law in State Courts/Reverse Erie 1. Presume state courts can hear a federal claim unless otherwise barred from doing so. 2. Does state rule conflict with federal law? [Dice] a. State courts adjudicating federal claims must allow jury trials [Dice] Pleadings Compliant – Rule 8A 1. Grounds for SMJ? 2. Short/Plain statement of the claim a. Under Conley, the compliant should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the π can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. 3. Demand for relief sought Motion to Dismiss (12B): challenging the sufficiency of the π’s compliant 1. 12B: dismiss for lack of (1) SMJ, (2) PJ, defect in (3) mechanics or (4) quality of service of process, (5) improper venue, (6) failure to state a legally cognizable claim, (7) indispensable party 2. 12B6: If all possible inferences are drawn in favor of nonmovant, does compliant state a legally recognizable claim? [Conley, “retired” by Twombly]: test for a compliant to survive 12(b)(6) motion 2. Is there SMJ? a. FQJ FQJ 1331 b. Diversity i. Is there complete diversity between the named parties and one claim at 75k? [Allapattah] ii. CAFA 1332D 1. Is any class member a diverse citizen from any Δ? 2. Does adding all the claims together exceed 5 million? 3. Are there at least 100 members? 3. Prerequisites: Does the class satisfy numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequate representation? [RULE 23A] a. Numerosity: is class large enough such that joinder is impractical (40+)? i. <25 probably not b. Commonality: do members share common issue of law or fact? c. Typicality: does class representation sufficiently share common issue, such that he’s typical? i. Does claim arise out of same events? Will class representation and members utilize same legal arguments establishing liability? ii. Look to how lawsuit will play out d. Adequate Representation: will rep(s) fairly and adequately represent the interests of all classes? i. Could it be said absent π had his day in court, no due process concern? [Hansberry] 4. Once a court finds 23A, the court must then determine which of the three primary sorts of class action is to be created: The party seeking class certification must show that the case falls within one of the three types: [23B] a. Limited Fund Action (mandatory, cannot opt out) i. When individual pursuit of claims as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of other members not parties to the individual adjudications ii. Allows claimants to protect their own interests by directly seeking unified distribution of insufficient assets. b. Injunctive/Declaratory Relief (mandatory/cannot opt out/92) i. When a defendant is alleged to have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate. ii. Applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class [Walmart] c. Damage Class Action (mandatory notice, right to opt out) i. Permits certification upon a determination that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating.” Preclusion Claim Preclusion/Res Judicata 1. Is there a (1) judgment on the merits, (2) involving same two parties or those in privity involving (3) same transaction or occurrence? [Mathews v. York Racing] 2. If not a party, do one of the exceptions to mutuality apply? Virtual Rep = no good [Taylor v. Sturgell] a. Class Actions. (procedural protections) b. Privity. (legal relationship) c. Agreement to be Bound. (orally, perhaps by detrimental reliance) d. Assumed Control. e. Relitigation by Proxy. f. Special Statutory Schemes (bankruptcy, in rem actions) Issue Preclusion/Collateral Estoppel 1. Issue (1) actually litigated [Cromwell] and (2) necessary to the judgment [Rios] (3) on the merits? a. Identity of issues: the issue in F2 proceeding must be the issue in F1 proceeding b. Actually Litigated i. Reasonable to produce all info in prior litigation? ii. Passage of time affect issue. iii. Foreseeable that issue would arise again? c. Actually Decided: On the merits: final judgment, or dismissed on statute of limitations? d. Necessary to the Judgment: are there alternative grounds for judgment? 2. Mutuality: was estopped party a party to the prior judgment? [Martin v. Wilks] a. Defensive: was the π party to the prior judgment? [Blonder-Tongue] i. POLICY: “shield,” prevent the gaming table, incent the sideline sitters b. Offensive Nonmutual Issue Preclusion i. 4 Requirements for Offensive Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion 1. Whether F2 person C was a strategic sideliner in F1 2. Amount in controversy in F1 nominal (how much money is at stake) 3. Whether there are multiple inconsistent prior judgments 4. Whether there are meaningful procedural differences between what is available in F2 and F1 for Δ to defend ii. Collateral estoppel is not allowed when the π: [Parklane] 1. Could have easily joined the suit OR 2. It would be unfair to apply the judgment against the Δ because: a. Lack of incentives to vigorously defend issue in prior suit b. Inconsistent judgments (public wants consistency, unfair to D, gaming table) c. New procedural opportunities available in current suit that were not available in prior suit (favorability of forum) 3. Do any of non-party exceptions apply? [Taylor] 3. Most questions may be resolved by just asking a. Whether the party against whom preclusion is sough has had a chance to press his claim or defense in some prior proceeding? i. No preclusion will not be permitted 1. Absent some direct privity between the party and a losing party in a prior case No Preclusion Allowed • F1: A v. B o A win an issue • F2: A v. C o C can argue the same issue, because she was not in the court the first time. • F1: A v. B o B wins issue • F2: C v. B o B is not shield; C may argue the issue o Perhaps C can do a better job than A