Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
52 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
In personam
|
Over the defendant themselves because they have come connection with the forum.
How to establish it: Presence in the state with personal service, status, consent, notice, domicile |
|
|
In rem
|
Involve a dispute over the ownership of the property and judgment binds everyone in the world
|
|
|
Quasi In Rem Type One
|
Similar to in rem, just doesn't bind everyone in the world. Just fighting over ownership between the two parties.
|
|
|
Quasi in Rem Type Two
|
Not about ownership of property. Property is relevant because the plaintiff cannot get in personam.
|
|
|
Ways to get Personal jurisdiction
|
Domicile, Status, Consent, personal service within the state, attaching property within the state, minimum contacts
|
|
|
Minimum contacts
|
minimum contacts within a state so that jurisdiction over D does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Elements=contact and fairness
-Factors relevant to fairness: Burden on D, forum state’s interest, P’s interest, interstate judicial system’s interest in efficient resolutions, shared interest of several states -Need purposeful contacts- purposeful availment. What is your target market? -Foreseeability- is not that your product will end up there, but whether it’s foreseeable that you’ll have to defend a lawsuit there. |
|
|
Specific jurisdiction
|
Defendant's activities within the state gave rise to the claim
|
|
|
General Jurisdiction
|
state has jurisdiction over the defendant there no matter what the claim is because they have so many continuous and systematic contacts. Feels at home there.
|
|
|
Long arm statutes
|
States are saying what kinds of cases they would want to hear.
|
|
|
Notice: constitution standard and statutory standard
|
Whatever is reasonable under the circumstances.
Rule 4- personal service delivered directly to D made anywhere in the forum state. Doesn't have to physically get in their hands. Substituted service at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there |
|
|
How to serve corporations
|
service can be made upon “an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.
-Someone who represents the company, who understands the importance of the papers, and who is likely responsible enough to ensure that they are transmitted to those who can act upon them. |
|
|
Opportunity to be heard
|
The case has already started.
Balancing test: Private interest affected (D), risk of error of erroneous deprivation, P's interest |
|
|
Ways to get subject matter jurisdiction
|
Diversity of citizenship or federal question
|
|
|
Diversity
|
Between citizens of different states, amount of controversy exceeding $75,000
|
|
|
Citizenship of individuals
|
Domicile
|
|
|
Domicile
|
True, fixed permanent home and principal establishment to which you have the intention of returning to whenever you're gone
|
|
|
How to change your domicile
|
1)Physically establish presence there, and 2)Subjective intent to make that state your home for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Citizenship/Domicile of Corporations
|
Every state that it is incorporated in AND the state in which it has its principal place of business (just one).
|
|
|
How to find the principal place of business
|
Nerve center test- Where the corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities (normally headquarters)
|
|
|
Citizenship/Domicile of Unincorporated Companies
|
Take on the citizenships of their members.
|
|
|
Amount in controversy
|
More than $75,000
Doesn't include interest and costs Must be good faith claim Has to appear to a legal certainty that P will collect that amount. |
|
|
Equitable relief
|
Most courts look at P’s viewpoint on if they value it for more than $75,000. Some courts just use the viewpoint of whoever is trying to use diversity jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Aggregation
|
When separate claims can be put together to meet the required amount.
1 P, 1 D- Can aggregate any claims Multiple parties- generally can't aggregate unless they're joint or common and undivided. |
|
|
Alienage
|
Person from another country granted permanent resident status and domiciled in the same state does not create jurisdiction in a case with a US Citizen.
|
|
|
US Citizen domiciled outside the US
|
is not considered to be a citizen of any U.S. state, and cannot be considered an alien. The presence of such a person as a party completely destroys diversity jurisdiction, except for a class action or mass action in which minimal diversity exists with respect to other parties in the case
|
|
|
Federal Question + elements
|
Arising out of the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States
well-pleaded complaint rule centrality |
|
|
Well-pleaded complaint rule
|
Federal question must be present in whatever you need to prove your claim. Ask: if the plaintiff attempting to vindicate some right given by federal law?
|
|
|
Centrality (does a state law claim arises under federal law)
|
Ingredient of the claim? Federal law an element of the claim (well-pleaded), Is there a federally created cause of action? If no cause of action- Is is necessary? Substantial? Will it upset the workload balance?
|
|
|
Venue
|
Where defendant's live, where a substantial amount of the events occurred, last resort is where the D's have personal jurisdiction.
|
|
|
1404 Transfer
|
From a proper court to a proper court for the convenience of witnesses, convenience of the parties, and in the interest of justice.
Take the law from the original court with you Whatever the choice of law rules are in that state come with you to the next state (Van Dusen) |
|
|
When is a court considered proper?
|
When it has proper venue under 1391(b)
|
|
|
1406 Transfer
|
From improper court to proper court in the interest of justice, otherwise it should be dismissed.
Proper court's choice of law applies. |
|
|
Factors for forum non conveniens (Set forth in Piper)
|
Public- administrative difficulties of keeping the case, local interest in having localized controversies decided at home, the desire to have a case tried in a forum well versed in the law that will apply, avoiding undue problems with conflict of laws or applying foreign laws, unfairness of burdening juries with stuff not related to their own forum
Private factors- Relative ease of access to evidence, ability to compel witnesses to come, expense of obtaining attendance of witnesses. |
|
|
When it's okay to transfer to an improper court
|
If all parties agree.
|
|
|
Removal
|
Moving from state to federal court.
All defendants (who have been served) must agree) Get 30 days from service. |
|
|
P's dollar amount is the amount in controversy unless:
|
P is suing for nonmonetary relief, sues for monetary relief but didn’t state an amount, sues for monetary relief of $75,000 or less in a state that has no cap on recovery
|
|
|
Instate D Rule
|
There can be no removal of a diversity case if any defendant is a citizen of the forum. Theory is that they won’t have bias if they live there.
|
|
|
Claim Preclusion
|
Same claim
Same parties (in same configuration) Valid final judgment on the merits |
|
|
Tests for whether it's the same claim
|
-Primary rights- number of rights invaded is the number of claims
-Single Act- Comes from one act (what D did). One injury is one claim -Sameness of the evidence- Same showing is one claim -Transactional- All rights within a transaction, which is the natural grouping of facts. Look at time, space, origin, and motivation. |
|
|
Same parties
|
Either the same people or people in privity
|
|
|
Compulsory Counterclaim Rule
|
Rule preclusion- a claim made by a defendant against a plaintiff that arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim. The claim is compulsory in this situation in that it must be raised in the defendant's answer, or it is waived
|
|
|
Valid judgment on the merits
|
Valid- Court had PJ and SMJ
Final- Someone won; the case is over On the merits- parties has a fair opportunity to litigate their claim. Default judgments and involuntary dismissals count (unless for improper venue and failure to join a party) |
|
|
Issue Preclusion
|
5 questions:
Was the same issue litigated and determined? Was the issue essential to the judgment? Valid final judgment on the merits? Against whom may preclusion be asserted? By whom may preclusion be asserted? |
|
|
Alternative determinations
|
Rest. says: Neither have preclusive effect.
1st case- A was negligent, B was not negligent. |
|
|
Essential to the judgment
|
If the finding on this issue had come out the other way, would the judgment be the same?
|
|
|
Valid final judgment on the merits
|
Same as claim preclusion except that default judgments don't count. Settlements don't count either
|
|
|
Against whom may preclusion be asserted
|
If that party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate
|
|
|
When are non-parties bound by a judgment (Taylor v. Sturgell) and therefore had a full and fair opportunity to litigate
|
they agree to be bound, bound by a pre-existing substantive legal relationship with a party, adequately represented by a party, they controlled the litigation, litigated through a proxy, special statutory schemes
|
|
|
By whom may preclusion be asserted?
Mutuality |
the only people who can use preclusion in Case 2 are people who would be bound by the judgment of Case 1
|
|
|
Exceptions when people in mutuality are not bound
|
-Vicarious liability- employee found NOT liable, employer may use issue preclusion
-Broad exception- Employer found NOT liable, employee may use issue preclusion |
|
|
Non-mutual offensive
|
Allowed if Parklane factors allow it
Court looks at: 1) Ability to join first 2) D’s incentive to litigate 3) Inconsistent judgments (only relevant if there were multiple judgments) 4) Differences in procedures |
|
|
Non-mutual defensive
|
Allowed as long as the party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate
|
