Civ Pro -- Federal -- Jurisdiction/venue*

Front 1

Personal Jurisdiction

Back 1

Power over the parties

(same as CA)

Front 2

Traditional Bases for Jurisdiction

Back 2

1) resident of forum state
2) consent to jurisdiction
3) service in forum state

Front 3

Statutory Basis for Jurisdiction

(Long Arm Statute)

Back 3

(same as traditional)

+ Long Arm Statutes - identify under which circumstances court has personal jurisdiction over defendant

Front 4

Constitutional Basis for Jurisdiction

(same for in personam / in rem / quasi in rem actions)

Back 4

Even if proper under state long arm statute, must still comply with Due Process Clause of Constitution

Such minimum contacts with the forum so that exercies of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Front 5

Personal Jurisdiction --
My Parents Frequently Forgot to Read Children's Stories

Back 5

Minimum Contacts
--Purposeful Availment
--Foreseeability

Fair Play & Substantial Justice
--Relatedness
--Convenience
--State's Interest

Front 6

Personal Jurisdiction -- Purposeful Availment

Back 6

Defendant must reach out to the forum.

Front 7

Personal Jurisdiction -- Forseeability

Back 7

Foreseeabile that Defendant could get sued in this forum

Front 8

Personal Jurisdiction -- Relatedness

Back 8

Does Plaintiff's claim arise from Defendant's conduct with the forum?

YES --> Specific PJ
NO --> General PJ (continuous systematic ties with forum)

Front 9

Personal Jurisdiction -- Covenience

Back 9

Defendant put in a severe disadvantage in the litigation?

Front 10

Personal Jurisdiction -- State's Interest

Back 10

Providing forum for its citizens

Front 11

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Back 11

Power to exert its authority over the case

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Can only address:

1) Diversity
2) Fed ques

Front 12

Diversity

Back 12

1) Actions between citizens of different states OR state citizen and foreign citizen

2) amount in controversy over $75,000

No diversity if any Pltf a citizen of same state as any D

Exceptions: federal courts will not hear:
divorce, alimony, child custody, probate

Front 13

Determining Citizenship -- Domicile

Back 13

1) Presence in state
2) Intent to make it permanent home

Test for diversity at time case is filed

Front 14

Corporation's Citizenship

Back 14

1) State where incorporated
AND
2) where principal place of business ("nerve center") where corp managers direct/control/coordinate corporate activities

Front 15

Partnership Citizenship

Back 15

Use citizenship of all members

Front 16

Citizenship of decedents, minors, incompetents

Back 16

Use their citizenship, not their representative

Front 17

Amount in Controversry -- Aggregation

Back 17

Adding two or more claims to get over $75,000 to qualify for diversity

Do when one plaintiff v. one defendant

Joint claims - use total value of claim.

Front 18

Federal Question -- "Well Pleaded Complaint Rule"

Back 18

Is the Plaintiff enforcing a federal right?

YES - fed ques
NO - fed ques

Front 19

Supplemental Jurisdiction
(SEE other card for ATTACK PLAN)

Back 19

TEST: Does it share a common nucleus of operative facts with federal question claim (from same transaction or occurrence)

LIMITATION: In a DIVERSITY case, Plaintiff cannot NEVER use supplemental jurisdition to overcome a lack of diversity

Front 20

Supplemental Jurisdiction
ATTACK PLAN

Back 20

A non-federal, non-diversity claim can be heard in federal court if it meets "the test" (common nucleus of operative facts) UNLESS:
1) asserted by a plaintiff
2) in a diversity of citizenship (not FQ) case AND
3) would violate complete diversity

Front 21

Removal

Back 21

DEFENDANT can transfer from a state court to a federal court in appropriate fed district

must occur w/in 30 days after service of first document that makes case removal (usu. service of process)

DIVERSITY CASES:
No removal if any defendant a citizen of the forum
No removal more than one year after the case filed in state court

Front 22

Procedure

Back 22

1) Defenand files Notice of Removal in Federal Court
--includes grounds for removal under Rule 11, includes a copy of all documents served on D in state court
--serves on all Defendants

) Defendant files a copy of notice in state Court

Front 23

Procedure -- Plaintiff's Response

Back 23

If Defendant files a PROCEDURALLY IMPROPER removal -->Plaintiff moves to remand to state court

IF NO FEDERAL SMJ -->P can move to remand at ANY TIME

Front 24

Erie Doctrine

Back 24

Does the court have to apply state law in some issue?

DIVERSITY -- Federal court must apply:

Federal law on point. (Usually none, so you can argue -->

STATE SUBSTANTIVE law (see examples on other card)
and FEDERAL PROCEDURAL law

Front 25

CA Choice of Law Distinctions

Torts

Back 25

Torts (Governmental Interest):
-laws of two states identical?
YES? No conflict. NO -->
-does each state have an interest in application of law?
NO? Interested state law wins.
YES? Conflict --> Court balances

Front 26

Erie Doctrine EASY --
STATE SUBSTANTIVE LAW examples

Back 26

elements of a claim of defense

SOL

tolling rules

conflict (choice) of law rule)
CA --> federal judge must apply CA choice of law rules (see separate cards for Torts and K)

Front 27

Erie Doctrine EERIE -- Tests for STATE SUBSTANTIVE LAW

(3)

Back 27

Is state law substantive?

3 different tests -- argue all:

1) Outcome determinative
(would applying or ignorig the state rule affect the outcome of a case)?

2) Balance of Interests
(does either federal or state system have a strong interest in having its rule applied?)

3) Avoiding forum shopping
(if federal law ignores state law on the issue, will it cause parties to flock to state court?)

Front 28

CA Choice of Law Distinctions

Contracts

Back 28

Contracts (Choice of Law Clause?):
YES. Enforceable?
NO? End of analysis.
YES? Ask if non-CA conflicts with CA?
YES? Balancing by Court.

(No choice of law clause) --> Governmental Interest test for torts

Front 29

Venue

Back 29

Local Action?

Local Land --> Local Action

NOT Local Land --> Transitory:
Plaintiff can bring suit in any district where:
--all defendants reside***
OR
-a substantial part of the claim arose

Front 30

Venue --

Where do defendents reside?

Back 30

Persons -- where they are domiciled

Corporations -- in all districts where they are subject to personal jurisdiction when case filed

Front 31

Venue --

Where do Corporate and other Business associations reside?

Back 31

Reside in all districts where they are subject to personal jurisdiction when case filed

Front 32

Transfer of Venue

Back 32

VENUE Proper? -- look to Private and Public Factors

--PUBLIC FACTORS: what law applies, what community should be burdened with jury service, keeping local controversy in local court

PRIVATE FACTORS: convenience (e.g., where are witnesses and evidence?)

Front 33

Forum Non Coveniens

Back 33

If there is another court far more convenient than present court, it dismisses or stays action.

Why --> b/c transfer impossible because more convenient court is in a different judicial system (like a foreign country)

Same PUBLIC and PRIVATE factors used in transfer analysis BUT w/ requirement for very strong showings

--USUALLY not granted if Plaintiff is a resident of the present forum
--fact that Plaintiff may recover less in other court not determinative