Civ Pro

Front 1

Personal Jurisdiction (basic)

Back 1

"In what state can P sue D? (state or federal doesn't matter)

P wants to impose a personal obligation on D. Jurisdiction is over the person, not property, because of some contact between D and the forum state

1. Satisfy a statute (state long arm)

2. Satisfy the Constitution (Due Process)"

Front 2

Statutory Analysis (In personam jurisdiction)

Back 2

"All have have domicile, presence and consent

Some long arm statutes simply say they reach the constitutional limit.

Others list things that a nonresident might do in the forum to submit herself to jurisdiction there. (Argue both ways)"

Front 3

Constitutional Analysis- basic test (in personam jurisdiction)

Back 3

"Does the D have œsuch minimum contacts with the forum so that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice????

Easy Cases (domiciled, presence, consent)"

Front 4

Contact (Con Analysis- in personam jurisdiction)

Back 4

"Some tie between D and the forum

The contact MUST result from PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT (D's voluntary act “ reach out)
ie. ship goods, use road, cause an effect

FORESEEABILITY that D would get sued in this forum"

Front 5

Fairness (Con Analysis- in personam jurisdiction)

Back 5

"Fair play and Substantial Justice

1. RELATEDNESS: between the contact and the claim (important if small amount of contact)

- Don't need if substantial ties (domiciled, continuous business, served)- general jurisdiction

2. CONVENIENCE (severe disadvantage in the litigation- hard)
3. STATES INTEREST (provide forum for its citizens)"

Front 6

My Parents Frequently Forget to Read Childrens' Stories

Back 6

"Minimum Contacts
Purposeful availment

Foreseeability

Fair play & substantial justice

Relatedness of contact and claim

Convenience

State's interest"

Front 7

In rem and quasi in jurisdiction

Back 7

"Jurisdictional basis is property
Statutory basis is an attachment statute

Constitutional

- Historically: attachment only necessity

- Modern: My Parents Frequently Forgot to Read Children's Stories"

Front 8

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (basic)

Back 8

"State or federal court?

2 types of federal cases

1. Diversity of Citizenship

2. Federal Question"

Front 9

Diversity of Citizenship (SMJ)

Back 9

"The action must be between citizens of different states (or a foreigner)

The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000"

Front 10

Complete diversity rule

Back 10

"œThere is no diversity of citizenship jurisdiction if any plaintiff is a citizen of the same state an any defendant

Test: When the case is filed"

Front 11

Individuals (Diversity)

Back 11

"Citizenship is the state of a HUMAN's domicile.

Domicile is established by two concurrent factors

1. Presence instate (physical)

2. Subjective intent to make it her permanent home (mental)

- No single factor determinative for intent

Always have a domicile, can't have more than one"

Front 12

Corporations (Diversity)

Back 12

"Don't talk about domicile
1. All states where incorporated
AND
2. the ONE state where the corporation has its principle place of business (PPB)

i. Headquarters
"

Front 13

Unincorporated Associations (Diversity)

Back 13

"Use the citizenship of all members

Includes general and limited partners"

Front 14

Decedents, minors, and incompetents (Diversity)

Back 14

Look to their citizenship, not the citizenship of their representative

Front 15

Amount in controversy (Diversity)

Back 15

"Good faith allegation that claim EXCEEDS $75,000

P who recovers less than $75,000 may be liable to D for litigation costs (not att. fees)

AGGREGATION allowed when case is a single P against a single D (unless joint)

EQUITABLE RELIEF: P's viewpoint OR D's viewpoint injunction's value exceeds $75,000

COLLUSION: can't assign just to achieve diversity

EXCLUSIONS: divorce, alimony, child custody or probate"

Front 16

Federal Question jurisdiction

Back 16

"Claim arises under federal law (no diversity or amount in con req)
- Well-plead complaint: sets forth only a claim
Is P enforcing a federal right?

- Fed. Law may not allow something, this is not creating a RIGHT

- Ask for every claim!!! (If no, diversity? If no, try supplemental jurisdiction)"

Front 17

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Back 17

"Lets a federal court hear ADDITIONAL claims over which there is no diversity of citizenship or GQ jurisdiction

Test: Claim must share a œcommon nucleus of operative fact
- Comes out of œsame transaction or occurrence (T/O)

Court has discretion where:
1. FQ dismissed early
2. State law complex
3. State law issues predominate"

Front 18

Limitation to Supplemental Jurisdiction

Back 18

"By P only in diversity of citizenship cases

Cannot use to overcome a lack of diversity (second D no diversity)

Can use to overcome lack of diversity for a P in a FQ case

Can use to overcome a lack of amount in controversy for claims by P in a diversity cases

Can use for anyone, but P

So a non-federal, non-diversity claim can be heard in federal court if it meets œthe test: UNLESS
1. Asserted by a plaintiff
2. In a diversity of citizenship case
3. Would violate complete diversity"

Front 19

Removal

Back 19

"Allows D to have case filed in state court œremoved to fed court.

Only state to federal. If improper, fed remands

Can remove if the case could be heard in fed courts

Case can only be removed to the federal district embracing the state court in which the case was originally filed

Must remove no later than 30 days after SERVICE of the first removable document. (Some become removable after original service)

All D's must agree

Even with counterclaim, P can't remove

Special rules for diversity cases

1. No removal if any D is a citizen of the forum

2. No removal more than one year after case filed (even if D citizen of forum dropped)"

Front 20

Procedure for Removal

Back 20

"1. D files notice of removal in federal courts

2. Stating grounds of removal

3. Signed under Rule 11

4. Attach all documents served on D in state action

5. Copy to all adverse parties"