Upgrade to remove ads
Only $35.99/year

Civil Procedure

Terms in this set (56)

Pennoyer v. Neff
Traditional Basis for Personal Jurisdiction

FACTS: Neff owned property in OR but was not a resident. State Ct. rendered judgment against Neff and sold his house.
RULE: Service to D by publication alone is insufficient. D must have presence inside jurisdiction.
International Shoe
Expanded Basis for Personal Jurisdiction

FACTS: Nonresident corporation with no employees in state.
RULE: Without presence, due process is not violated so long as D has certain minimum contacts so suit does not "offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."
Minimum Contacts test: International Shoe
1. Look at quality and nature of the activity.
2. Does D derive certain benefits from doing business in the state?
Kulko v.
P.J. and Long-arm Statutes
McGee v.
P.J. and Long-arm Statutes
World-Wide VolksWagen
P.J. and Long-arm Statutes

FACTS: P bought a car from D at a dealership in NY. P drove car through Okl and got into accident. P brought products liability action in Okl.
RULE: Minimum contacts are NOT created by "fortuitous" activities by P that were not foreseeable.
Foreseeability: W.W.V.W.
1. Predictability
2. Fairness
3. Equality
Fairness Analysis: W.W.V.W.
Factors:
1. Burden to particular defendant
2. P's interest in having jurisdiction
3. Forum State's interest in the matter
4. Interstate judicial system's interest in efficient resolution.
5. Shared interest in several state's furtherance of social policies.
Burger King
P.J. & Contracts
FACTS: P was in Florida and had a contract with D. The contract had a choice of law provision.
RULE: A contract can satisfy minimum contacts when D enjoys the advantages of doing business with a corporation in that state.
Personal Jurisdiction - Specific
1. Continuous and systematic activities directly related to the cause of action.
2. Lower burden for number of contacts - P brings suit for a very specific reason.
Personal Jurisdiction - General
Substantial activities and contact that are unrelated to the cause of action.
Personal Jurisdiction Analysis
1. Presence? -> Rule 4(k) & Pennoyer
If not, then
2. Statutory Authority (long arm)
3. Constitutional Analysis (SCOTUS case law)
A. minimum contacts
B. fairness
Asahi
P.J. & Stream of Commerce

FACTS: Asahi, a japanese corp., produced a part that a Tawainese corp used to make a product sold in CA.

RULE: Simply placing a product into stream of commerce does not, by itself, create minimum contacts.
Stream of Commerce Analysis - O'Connor (maj)
To purposefully avail yourself to the state, one must take steps towards the market by advertising, promoting, etc in addition to placing it in the market.
Stream of Commerce Analysis - Brennan (min)
Placing a product into the stream of commerce IS enough to create purposeful availment.
Stream of Commerce Analysis - Stevens
The volume of sale, revenue, and type of product should be considered in determining purposeful availment.
Helicopteros
P.J. - General jurisdiction

FACTS: Heli was a Peruvian company that bought helicopters in Texas, sent their pilots to Texas for training, and did some banking in Tx.

RULE: These contacts did not meet the "continuous and systematic" contacts required for general jurisdiction.

Brennan (dissent): cause of action need not "arise" out of forum so long as they are related.
Shaffer
Jurisdiction - power over property

FACTS: P owned stock in Greyhound which created losses for P in Oregon, but P sued in Del., where D was incorporated. Del. seized control of the stock.

RULE: Jurisdiction cannot be founded on property within a state alone and without sufficient contacts within the meaning of International Shoe.
Burnham
Jurisdiction - physical presence & consent

FACTS: Wife (CA) sued husband (NJ) for divorce. She wanted to sue in CA, so when husband visited kids in CA she served him then.

RULE: Physical presence fulfills due process, therefore no minimum contacts analysis is required. The length and purpose of presence is irrelevant.
Mas v. Perry
S.J. - Diversity Jurisdiction

FACTS: P's (H&W) previously lived in Illinois but moved to La so W could finish school. P's rented an apartment in La. D was from La, and P's sued in fed. ct under FRCP 1332.

RULE: Residing in a state for educational purposes does not make it your domicile per se. Residence isn't enough - one must intend to stay there permanently.
Diversity Jurisdiction - complete diversity
Complete diversity is required: No P may be domiciled in same state as any D (FRCP 1332).

Exception: When a statute exists allowing minimal diversity (1369).
Diversity Jurs - Domicile, defined
Domicile is the true, fixed, permanent home and principal establishment of which the person intends to remain.
Exception: Aliens are citizens of the state in which they reside (1335 & 1441).

Factors:
1. Address - permanent or filed for change?
2. Place of work or school?
3. Place of worship
4. Registered to vote?
5. Banking acct's
AFA Tours
S.J. - Diversity Jurisdiction

FACTS: P sued D in fed. ct. under diversity jurisdiction. Ct. ruled that P could not meet the amount in question requirement (FRCP 1332) sua sponte and dismissed the case.

RULE: A P must be given an opportunity to provide the Ct. the facts that would substantiate the amount in question is satisfied.
Osborn
Federal Question Jurisdiction
Mottley
Federal Question Jurisdiction

FACTS: P previously sued D and settled in exchange for lifetime railroad passes. Congress passed a law making lifetime passes illegal, so D stopped honoring it. P sued in fed. ct. for breach of contract.

RULE: To get into fed. ct. with a fed. question, the P's claim must state a federal issue.
Pendant Jurisdiction - defined
Fed. ct's may decide state issues which are closely related to the federal issues being litigated.
Exxon Mobil - case basics
Pendant & Supplemental Jurisdiction

FACTS: Some P's met the amount in controversy requirement and some did not.

RULE: 1367 allows fed. ct's to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when at least 1 plaintiff meets the amount in controversy requirement.
Exxon Mobil - two theories
1. Indivisibility theory - if one claim is bad, they all are.
2. Contamination theory - applies in diversity jurisdiction
Executive Software
Pendant & Supplemental Jurisdiction

FACTS: P filed complaint against former employer in state court alleging state and fed law claims, and D removed it to federal ct.

RULE: 1367 allows a fed. ct to hear both state and fed claims so long as they "arise" out of the same nucleus of operative fact and can be expected to be tried in one judicial proceeding
Shamrock Oil
Removal Jurisdiction
Bates
Venue
Hoffman
Venue Transfer in Fed. Ct's
Piper Aircraft
Forum Non-Conveniens
Swift v. Tyson
Early: State Law in Fed. Cts
Erie v. Tompkins
Early: State Law in Fed. Cts
York
Early: State Law in Fed. Cts
Bird
Early: State Law in Fed. Cts
Hanna
Modern: State Law in Fed. Cts
Walker
Modern: State Law in Fed. Cts
Stewart
Modern: State Law in Fed. Cts
Gasperini
Modern: State Law in Fed. Cts
Rush
Claim Preclusion (res judicata)
Jones
Claim Preclusion (res judicata)
Mitchell
Claim Preclusion (res judicata)
Cromwell
Issue Preclusion (collateral estoppel)
Russell
Issue Preclusion (collateral estoppel)
Rios
Issue Preclusion (collateral estoppel)
Bernhard
Mutuality
Parklane Hosiery
Mutuality
Harris
Joinder of Claims - Plaintiff
MK v. Tenet
Joinder of Claims - Plaintiff
Heyward-Robinson
Joinder of Claims - Defendant
Lasa
Cross-Claims
Exam Discussion (7/11)
-3 questions (each worth 33%) with subparts (3-4)
-There will be a POLICY question (review recent SCOTUS cases re: civ pro)
- She wants to test KNOWLEDGE and not issue spotting as much.
Brown v. Goodyear
2011 SCOTUS Case
ISSUE: Can stream of commerce substantiate general jurisdiction?
RULE: No, they do not.
McIntyre v. Nicastro
2011 SCOTUS CASE re: specific jurisdiction

Kennedy (great explanation):
As a general rule, the sovereign's exercise of power requires some act by which the defendant "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws."
In cases like this one, it is the defendant's purposeful availment that makes jurisdiction consistent with "fair play and substantial justice" no- tions. No "stream-of-commerce" doctrine can displace that general rule for products-liability cases.
Students also viewed