Understanding Personal Jurisdiction and Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Civil Procedure, Exams of Civil procedure

Download Understanding Personal Jurisdiction and Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Civil Procedure and more Exams Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity! .' 10: Exam Name: CivPro_LS2_Lund_FinaU2012Fl4. ................. .................. . .... ........ ~~~ent[AU1J: 34/35 Grade: 1 ) 1. Rules are clear and specific - they can usually be applied at the time of filing. Standards are more loose in the sense that it can depend on perspective and how a particular judge chooses to apply it. An example of a rule is subject matter jurisdiction because there are clear rules and tests for establishing subject matter jurisdiction through diversity jurisdiction (complete diversity and amount in controversy) or federal question jurisdiction (holmes creation test - arising under some federal constitution, statute, or law). An example of a standard would be person jurisdiction because much of how specific jurisdiction (minimum contacts) is determined after international shoe is based on a sliding scale (quality and quantity), and in some ways, depends on how you interpret the given facts. The benefit of having a clear rule is that it is easier to apply than a standard. Rules bring stability, uniformity, and efficiency. However, logic is sometimes sacrificed when rules are used. Thus, sometimes standards would be better suited because you can apply it differently (slightly) depending on the given situation and ensuring that justice is given according to the facts (rather than a strict rule). 2. For a lot of the determinations in civil procedure (subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, venue), individuals are evaluated by their domicile. Individuals, however, only have one domicile. Corporations, on the other hand, are considered residents of their place of incorporation and principle place of business (for SMJ) and wherever they have physical presence (PJ). The difference is especially noticeable in personal jurisdiction, because a large corporation with offices in different states could lead them to be potentially sued in those many states for even claims unrelated to that state (general jurisdiction). Civil procedure probably treats corporations this way because corporations are potentially making a lot of money by purposefully availing itself of the forum state by doing business and such. Thus, since they are benefiting from the forum state, it would also be fair to have them brought to court if a cause of action occurs in that state.The same is not true for individuals and personal jurisdiction over them should be limited to where they are domiciled or where the cause of action actually occurred. 3. The Due Process clause is used to judge whether a state's long-arm statute (for purposes of personal jurisdiction) is constitutional. Without the due process clause, a state could potentially have a long arm statute that hails in out-of-state defendants for any number of causes of actions simply because the state statute allowed it. Thus, through the due process clause, the number of ways an individual can be hailed in to defend themselves (because of personal jurisdiction) is limited to situations in which the reside in the forum state (not burdensome for them to go to court since they live close by) and in which they cause something (like an accident) in another state (but only because they Arguably, PL was the one who sought out KNB by looking for information online and then "contacting" them through a third-party online service. However, this is a weak argument for the reasons following. There was a website that had information and means by which viewers could contact various banks. Under the Zippo Test, the information would not constitute purposeful availment of a forum state because they are simply info. However, there is some level of interactivity, but probably not enough to constitute purposeful availment because no transactions were actually made (cannot apply for mortgage online). Instead, info is provided about random banks in which the viewer could contact by sending a message. Moreover, the website was run by a third party and not KNB itself. However, in a somewhat modified version of a stream of commerce analysis, it can be argued that there was purposeful availment because KNB knew that there information was on the website and that it could be accessed by many people from different states. KNB did not take down the info and probably wanted people to get their contact info. Under Justice O'Conner (and Kennedy), it is arguable that they intended for their information to reach people from all 50 states. If not, it can at least be established that they knew that information would reach various people (Brennan and Ginsburg). Under Stevens, there may also be purposeful availment depending on the volume of sales (possibly high if a lot of people get their contact info) and hazard ness of the product (low since this isn't dangerous). Even if that fails, however, it is undeniable that KNB solicited PL in CA by using her cell phone to contact PL while she was in CA (McGee). It was KNB's sales represenative who called PL and then talked her into Signing a contract. Thus, by solicitation, KNB availed itself of a CA resident. Also, under the contract plus analysis, there would also be SJ in CA (and probably Kansas) because there was a contract and several back and forth emails and contacts as they figured out a contract. However, despite this, there is no SJ - and more broadly, PJ - in Louisana. There is GJ over KNB in Kansas (and whever they have offices) and SJ in CA because there was sufficient contacts (both qaulity and quanitity) and the cause of action arose out of those contacts under both the but-for and evidence tests. In applying th Asahi reasonableness factors, there would also be SJ in CA (or whereve there are offices) because PL would be interested in litigaing near home, the CA court would be interested in providing relief to its citizen in CA, and it wouldn't be an undue burden on KNB to travel to CA. PJ can be waived through consent and arguing on the merits in court. Venue { CommentlAU3): 10/10 In additional to SMJ and PJ, there must also be proper venus within the court system. Venue is proper in a) the district in which the defendant resides, 2) the places of events or property, and 3) the escape hatch provision (which only applies if 1 and 2 fails to establish venue). Here, KNB resides in Kansas (O.Kans) and because there would be minimum sufficient contacts to establish PJ if the district were treated as a separate state. There would also be proper venue in whichever district PL lives in CA because a substantial portion of the events leading up to the cause of action occurred there. There would also probably be proper venue in W.O.La because the subject of the contract was the house and the cause of action is related to it. Venue can be waived though. Conclusion Since there is no PJ in Louisana, W.O.La cannot hear the case. The best thing to do would to bring the case to either a CA federal court or O.Kans. 2. Can PL serve KNB with process in W.D.La? What about CA federal court? Notice Notice must comply with both the constituaional requirements and the relevant statutory provision (FRCP 4). The constituional requirement is satisfied as long as there the notice was reasonably calculated to appraise KNB of the pending suit. Usually, this can be achived through personal service or through first class mail. However, even if there is actual notice, service may be deficient because process was not proper. For corporations, the FRCP allows service by 1) serving a desigated agent for purpose of receving process, 2) serving the papers to an officer or managing agent of the corp, or 3) following the state rules of service for the forum state or the state in which service was made. Thus, PL could serve the KNB by 1 or 2 or by following the state rules for serving process in Louisana and CA. In CA, there is an exception - the substantial compliance - so any deficiness in process is excusable as long as actual notice is received. Therefore, notice is probably easier achived in CA. Notice can be waived, however and 60 days is given instead of 21 if done SO. 3. Can KNB moves to transfer to D.Kans? If so, what choice of law provision? Transfer and Choice of Law - { Comment IAU41: 3/3 If PL had originally brought the case in W.D.La, it would be an improper venue. Therefore, it could be transferred or dismissed under §1406. If, however, PL had brought the case in a CA federal court, venue would be proper. KNB could still move to transfer under §1404 by showing that private and public interest considerations favor transfer to D.Kans. Generally, plaintiff's choice in forum is given more weight unless the other considerations outweighs it. Private considerations are: plaintiff's choice of venue, defendant's choice of forum, where the cause of action took place, convenience on the parties, convenience for the witness, and ease of access to sources of proof. The public interest includes: the transferee court's familiarly with the governing law, the relative congestion of the transferee and transferor courts, and the local court's interest in solving local problems. Here, the private considerations equally favor CA and Kansas because PL is in CA and KNB is in Kansas, and the cause of action happened in both states (arguably). However, since the Kansas courts are congested, it is likely the case will stay in CA court due to public considerations. Venue, however, can be waived so it can be moved to Kansas if KNB does so and PL doesn't pbjec( ... However, assuming the case was removed to D.Kans and it was improperly filed, the Kansas choice of law provision will be used. However, if it was properly filed in CA and removed to D.Kans, the choice of law provision would be CA choice of law because according to horizontal choice of law, the choice of law to be used is the state choice of law in which the action was properly filed. As side note, choice of law and venue can be contracted with a choice of law provision (so this could potentially be avoided). 4. Erie Doctrine Analysis Rules Enabling Act (REA) Here, there is an state law that is arguably procedural because it asks how specific the complaint has to be. There is also an arguably conflicting federal rule -FRCP 8, which states that complaint only has to be short and plain. This rule probably conflicts with the Kansas state law because the state law says that the complaint has to be so specific that it has to give the statements made with dates on which the statement was given. If it is found that the two can not be simultaneously followed, the FRCP would be said to conflict with the state law. Thus, under the Hanna/REA analysis, we would go on to ask whether the FRCP rule was valid. A rule is valid if it is arguably procedural and it doesn't abridge, enlarge, or modify the substantive right of litigants. Here, since the FRCP tells how specific a complaint should be, it is arguably procedural. As for the second prong, it is arguable that it may affect substantive rights, but it would not alter substantive rights because the case would still be judged on the merits of the ( Comment(AU5]:4IS