Civil Law Jurisdiction: Contacts, Specific Jurisdiction, Transfer & Forum Non Conveniens, Study notes of Law

Download Civil Law Jurisdiction: Contacts, Specific Jurisdiction, Transfer & Forum Non Conveniens and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! PERSONAL JURISDICTION Pennoyer v. Neff - “Collateral Attack” - legal challenge on a different prior case - “Full Faith and Credit” - all states recognizing judgments made in other states on specific case - 3 Types of In Rem - In Rem - using land that the claim is based on - still somewhat used to help get juris - Quasi In Rem - unrelated land as a stand in for personal service in state - Overturned - 5 ways to get jurisdiction - Attach property - quasi in rem - no longer valid - Service in state - easiest and still effective way - Resident - D is a resident of the state where claim is brought - Agent/Representative - D appoints someone to stand in for their in state service - Voluntary - D shows up to answer claim and volunteers personal juris MINIMUM CONTACTS International Shoe v. Washington - “Minimum contacts” - if someone benefits from laws/protection in state, may have pers juris - “Traditional Notions of Substantial Justice and Fair Play” - must be fair amount of contacts - “General Jurisdiction” - juris over D irrespective of nature of claim - any case - “Specific Jurisdiction” - D’s activity in the forum state enough in relation to actual claim McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. - Single, isolated activity (contract/payments) maybe enough for min contacts if substantial enough - State has a high interest in protecting the rights of citizens, especially against corporations Hanson v. Denckla - “Purposeful availment” - D must avail itself of privilege and benefits/protections of forum state - Not sufficient to have unilateral contacts on behalf of P toward D - Cannot contract with someone, move to other state and send payments, then sue in new state Schaffer v. Heitner - Applies minimum contacts of Shoe to “in rem” as well as “in personam” cases - just a contact - Only “in rem” remaining to get juris on its own is if the property itself is in dispute SPECIFIC JURISDICTION World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson - Insufficient contacts - no selling, advertising, other activity in state - Contacts must be enough for D to reasonably anticipate being haled to court there - Mere “stream of commerce” or “foreseeability” is not sufficient on their own for personal juris Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court - Minimum contacts not enough, must consider “fair play” factors - Stream of commerce vs. stream of commerce plus - SOC not enough without extra (ads, support) Fair play factors - Burden on D - more important for individuals than for corporations - Interest of forum - protecting citizens and corporations in state - Interest of P - everyone prefers their own forum - usually not too strong - Interstate judicial system - is forum better, more efficient, cheaper, state law undecided so far - Substantive social policy - hardly ever used Burger King v. Rudziewicz - Example of minimum contacts then applying fair play - forum interest, interstate interest - MUST have minimum contacts before considering fair play factors Pavlovich v. Superior Ct. - “Effects test” - if you can 4C effects in forum state even if action is in different state - Non-interactive passive websites are not enough to satisfy minimum contacts GENERAL JURISDICTION Coastal Video Comm Corp. v. Staywell - Must have “general jurisdiction” because P bringing declaratory action w/out action by D - To have general juris, actions/contacts must be enough to approx physical presence by D - Interactive website, ads, soliciting, email exchange all may be enough Burnham v. Superior Court - Physical presence in the state is enough for juris regardless of minimum contacts - service in state CONSENT TO JURISDICTION Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute - P can expressly consent to pers juris to all claims from contractual relationship via forum clause - Fairness: notice of clause, no bad faith, no advantage to stronger party, negotiable (adhesion) NOTICE Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank - Notice must be by best means possible, personal contact if addresses known (mail may be ok) - If not personal notice party must be adequately represented by someone else in front of court Rule 4 - D can waive personal service and accept service by mail - benefits: - 60 days instead of 20 to respond - Helps D avoid cost of service - Personal service may be to indiv, someone >18 at indiv house, or via agent LONG ARM STATUTE - State may have a LAS to limit but NOT extend the bounds of 14th amendment (due process) - Order: state statute -> state highest common law -> Erie guess of what to apply - Erie guess: what fed ct. thinks state Sup Ct would do - lower state cases, pose ? to state SC - Apply substantive law of states but procedural rules of federal Guaranty Trust Co. v. York - State SOL had run but not federal SOL - should they apply state procedure in this case? Yes - “Outcome-determinative” - applying federal procedure rule signif affects outcome of case - Case could not be heard in state court so should not be heard in federal - Hypo: If OD is based on federal rule, OK to apply federal rule - parties can use state court - Federal rules may restrict the state rules but cannot extend the state rules - If SOL runs in fed, fed can apply it, but if SOL runs in state fed cannot allow case - Federal court cannot grant more power than what state would have granted Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative - If case is not outcome-determinative ok to apply a federal “procedural” rule Hanna v. Plumer - If a FRCP is on point, it should be used unless unconstitutional - Only unconstitutional if violating Rules Enabling Act - fed ct wrote rules and decides const - If not FRCP, is outcome determinative something to promote forum shopping? - If not affecting forum shopping, apply federal rule - Modified outcome determinative test PLEADING Stating a Claim - Rule 8(a), 8(e), and 10 - Claim shall contain: 1. Short and plain allegation of jurisdiction - not needed if already established 2. Short and plain statement of claim showing entitlement of relief 3. Demand for judgment for the relief - Pleadings must be simple, concise, and direct - no technical - for D to know claim - “notice” - Party may state as many claims/defenses as they want regardless of consistency - One bad claim cannot negate effect of other good claims - If pleading is improper - usually dismiss with leave to amend - Forms of pleadings in Rule 10 - party names, paragraphs, spacing, exhibits Ethical Limitations - Rule 11 - How to serve Rule 11 1. Serve party with motion for sanctions under Rule 11 2. Wait 21 days for other party to remedy the Rule 11 violation 3. If not remedied, file motion with the courts - Rule 11 only applies to written documents not oral statements - Rule 11 only applies to pleadings, not to discovery - Sanctions awarded must fairly reflect the sanctionable conduct - ex. throwing barbies not sanc Special Pleading - Rule 9(b), (g) - All assertions of fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity - time, place, nature - When special damages are claimed, they must be specifically stated - Must give other party better notice of what claim was so they know what to defend DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE Pre-Answer Motions - Rule 12, 5(a) and (b), 7(b) - 12(a) says you have 20 days to answer unless waiving under 4(d) when you have 60 days - Only have one pre-answer motion for all motions under 12, after one, others are waived... - Except 12(b)(6) and (7) cannot be waived - however cannot re-motion before answering - And except SMJ which can be challenged at any point in time regardless of circum - If your motion is granted the case is dismissed - 5(a) Every paper of pleading must be served to all parties according to 5(b) - May do so either in a pre-answer motion or in your answer, but must be in first thing Answers - Rule 7(a), 8, 12(f) - Court may strike any insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous defense - Answer must specifically deny any claim instead of generally denying claims - Anything not specifically denied in answer is considered admitted by the D - 8(c) affirmative defense - even if commiting the act accused of, not breaking any law - Must be used or you might lose it - cannot surprise by failing to disclose info Amendments - Rule 15 - A party may amend the pleading once at any point before other party responds (answers) - If no response required to your pleading, may amend within 20 days after it is served - Or can amend by leave of court or written consent of other party - leave given if justice reqd - A party must respond to amended plead within original times or 10 days, whichever is longer - Amending claims past SOL may be made if it relates back to action arising out of original plea - Amending parties allowed if arising under same claim, and: - New party notified within 120 days of filing of original claim, OR - New party should have known action would be against them if no mistaken identity JOINDER Joinder of claims - Rule 13 and 18 - Compulsory counterclaims - must bring any claim arising under same transaction/occurrence - Permissive counterclaims - may bring any claim not arising under same transaction - Must always have subject matter jurisdiction to join the claim - If federal ? and compulsory, you have SMJ due to supplemental jurisdiction - If federal ? and permissive, you might lose SMJ - Rule 18 extends Rule 8 to allow joinder of as many claims as you want after the initial plea Joinder of parties (Permissive) and Impleader - Rule 20 and 14 - Permissible to join additional parties as P or D as long as: - Arising out of same transaction or occurrence, AND - Same question of law or fact - Impleading possible by D if 3rd party D is liable to D for actions brought against D by P - 3rd party D may then implead to another person if liability exists - may use indemnity - 3rd party D may file counterclaims against D under Rule 13 - 3rd party D may file cross-claims against other 3rd party D under Rule 13 - 3rd party D may file claims against P if arising out of same transaction or occurrence Compulsory Joinder - Rule 19 - Joinder of parties compelled if judgment would be compromised by not having party - Necessary party must be joined if feasible, parties are necessary if: - Complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties - Absent party’s ability to protect interest is impaired or impeded - May subject those already parties to risk of multiple inconsistent obligations - Joinder feasible only if new party has both personal and SMJ and doesn’t make venue improper - If not feasible, must determine if party is indispensable, considerations are: - Extent where absence is prejudicial to party or existing parties - Extent prejudice can be lessened or avoided by protective provisions or shaping relief - Whether judgment will be adequate without absent party - Whether P will have an adequate remedy if action is dismissed Intervention - Rule 24 - 24(a) - intervention of right - court must let you in, but can’t compel you 1. Intervention must be timely 2. Must have interest in property or transaction of suit 3. Interest must be in some way at strong risk 4. No one already adequately representing their interests in the case - 24(b) - permissive intervention - under court’s discretion to allow you in - party has a question of law or fact in common - Failure to intervene does not preclude you from bringing the same action later - not a party Interpleader - Rule 22 and Section 1335, 1397, 2361 - Interpleader involves two or more claimants to specific property or monetary fund - Helps D avoid multiple lawsuits relating to same claim by sticking to one lawsuit - Rule 22 is like narrower version of Rule 19 - need complete diversity, $75,001 - Statutory offers some advantages: - Nationwide service for personal jurisdiction - 2361 - Minimum diversity - only two claimants must be from different states - 1335 - Amount in controversy - only need over $500 in question - 1335 - Can be brought in any state where one or more D’s reside - 1397 - Minimum diversity means only two Ds from different states - If all claimants are from the same state - use Rule 22 instead of statutory Class Action - Rule 23 - 23(a) Prerequisites to a class action suit: 1. Numerosity - class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical 2. Commonality - questions of law or fact common to the class Rule 37 - Cannot fail to respond just because irrelevant or you don’t want to - Rule 37(d) - Respond saying you will not disclose and explaining for what reasons - If you move to compel and win, you may be awarded attorney’s fees for motion 37(a)(4) - Unless objection to bar disclosure was a valid one - If then they don’t respond to discovery requests after court order: - Contempt of court and 37(b) gives more serious sanctions - If they never respond to request at all - 37(d) says may be subjected to 37(b)(A)-(c) not (D) - No order here so no contempt of court - thus no (D) - Should always try to attempt to contact other side and resolve without court order first - If asked to depose and don’t think you should have to, file 26(c) protective order - Do not fail to show up or you face sanctions - Can subpoena a non-party for deposition or documents under Rule 45 - Subpoena is court order, so the non-party would be in contempt of court for non-compliance SUMMARY JUDGMENT Summary Judgment - Resolution Without Trial - Rule 56 - When there is no genuine dispute of material fact leads to summary judgment - When there can be but one reasonable conclusion - Denial of summary judgment does not mean other side has won - either can still win - P must meet the burden of production to show genuine issue exists or else summ judg ok TRIAL AND APPEAL Right to Jury Trial - Jury trials are by request and must ask w/in 10 days of service of last pleading - or else gone - Typically by statute or by showing historically heard in law not equity court - Equity court has no right to jury trial Limits of Rational Inferences - Cases pointing with equal force to two things: one making D liable and the other not, P loses Directed Verdict - Pre-Verdict - Rule 50(a) - Like a summary judgment that occurs during the trial portion - For DV must assume every fact is true for the light most favorable to non-moving party - DV is such that in the face of all the evidence there can be no case to go to jury - When might there be a DV - witness changing story, evidence doesn’t pan out, bad discovery - To use JNOV later, MUST have moved for DV at end of evidence - DV should never be based on credibility of witness because matter of fact is for jury to decide - If judge grants DV and it gets reversed at appeal then the case has to be retried - In this case never a judgment by jury to revert back to - Sometimes wait and hope jury makes right decision - if not, still have JNOV and judgment JNOV - Rule 50(b) - Pretty much the same as a DV but after the jury has decided - If JNOV is reversed, simply reinstate the jury verdict - Must move for JNOV within 10 days of judgment or lose opportunity - JNOV is granted when the burden of production is not met by P - JNOV is a matter of law and so appeals are based de novo review - no discretion of TC New Trial - Rule 59 - Motion must be filed within 10 days of judgment or lose opportunity - Burden of production was met, but some error at trial - Inadmissible evidence, failure of procedure, some problem at trial - May ask for both JNOV and conditional new trial - new trial to be used if JNOV fails - Conflict of interest claiming no BOP met or error and BOP met but error at same time - If arguing evidence admitted incorrectly - must show inadmissible and prejudicial - Must show that so prejudicial it may have changed outcome of case - Appeal based on discretion of the lower court