Forum Non Coveniens - Civil Procedure - Lecture Slides, Slides of Civil procedure

Download Forum Non Coveniens - Civil Procedure - Lecture Slides and more Slides Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity! FORUM NON CONVENIENS • Compare this doctrine with: • 28 U.S.C. § 1404 • 28 US.C. § 1406 Docsity.com 28 U.S.C. § 1404 • (a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought • PIPER - After removal to US District Court for Central District of CA, action is transferred to US District Court for Middle District of PA • Cases are usually transferred under this section between federal district courts rather than dismissed for forum non conveniens Docsity.com Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno • Was there Personal Jurisdiction over P and H in CA? • Did the Superior Court of California have subject matter jurisdiction over the case? • Why was there federal subject matter jurisdiction? Docsity.com Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno • The federal district court transferred the case to the federal district court for the Middle District of PA. Was this transfer under 1404 or 1406? • Would the CD of CA have been a proper venue under 1391? Docsity.com Middle District of PA • Why does it have pj over the defendants? • Why is it a proper venue under section 1391? • (both are required under 1404 unless there is waiver by the D) Docsity.com Scottish Legal System • Faculty of Advocates (460) • Advocates Library in Edinburgh • Devil Masters • Stables • Solicitors Docsity.com Scottish Legal System • See also Kevin F. Crombie’s useful site: http://www.scottishlaw.org.uk/ Docsity.com PIPER Test • In applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens to a foreign plaintiff, Supreme Court essentially follows two steps it had articulated in Gilbert. • 1. Requires a suitable forum in another country • 2. Considers 4 factors or interests to determine which forum would best serve private and public interests • Unfavorable choice of law alone should not bar dismissal Docsity.com Choice of Law and Erie Railroad v. Tompkins • In federal question cases which substantive law applies? • In diversity cases which substantive law applies? • Fears of forum shopping Docsity.com 2 Choice of Law Problems • 1. VERTICAL PROBLEM - choice between federal and state law • 2. HORIZONTAL PROBLEM - choice of which state law, if state law applies. This is a subject for a subsequent course on conflicts Docsity.com Erie RR v. Tompkins • Harry Tompkins (PA) is injured by he is struck by a train while walking on tracks owned by Erie RR (NY) • Where could Harry bring suit? • Where did he bring suit? Docsity.com Swift v. Tyson • What did this case hold? Docsity.com Swift v. Tyson • What did this case hold? That Rules of Decision Act was limited to local state laws - so federal courts were free to apply federal common law in diversity cases, which permitted federal courts to exercise an independent judgment on what the common law of the State was or should be NOT to apply the unwritten law of the State as declared by its highest court. Docsity.com Swift: Increasingly Controversial • Why did Swift become increasingly controversial? • What are the advantages of Swift? Docsity.com Brandeis’ Critique of Swift • Uniformity had not resulted from Swift • Courts were having trouble drawing a clear line between local and general law • Swift led to forum shopping • Swift harmed federalism by taking away states’ legitimate authority to manage their own affairs Docsity.com Erie: A Very Important Decision • Case “goes to the heart of the relations between the federal government and the states and returns to the states a power that had for nearly a century been exercised by the federal government” • Many interesting questions resulting from Erie are still being worked out today by the courts. Docsity.com 1938: An Important Year for Civil Procedure • Why? Docsity.com