Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/74

Click to flip

74 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Talk about MCs and general jx
"Dispute Blind" exists where the D's contacts (number and quality) with the forum state are sufficiently substantial that one may litigate any dispute in the court or forum Though corp was incorporated in Phillipines, it conducted all of its business from OH, but claim actually occurred during the tim it was still doing business in the Phillipines. Must be able to treat it like OH resident. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck
Talk about Perkins case, where does this fall
MC test and General jx: Though corp was incorporated in Phillipines, it conducted all of its business from OH, but claim actually occurred during the tim it was still doing business in the Phillipines. Must be able to treat it like OH resident. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck
Talk about general jx and service of process
A resident of state can be served process, it does not matter where the claim arose, another state or another country
General jx definition:
Can be sued in the state of residence no matter where the use arose
Talk about Mcs and specific jx
What case?
"Dispute specific."
McGee v. Int'l Life: Reasonable to foresee suit out of one activity that they intended to continue systematic and purposeful contact=C/a arose specifically from those substantial and purposeful acts
Things that limit specific jx
Unilateral decisions: Not going to hold someone liable for unilateral decision of another party. Foreseeability alone is not enough
Hanson v. Denkla: no specific jx: Trust originated in Delaware, and Mrs. Donnder chose to solicit the trust company (not vice versa), and then decided to move to FL. Therefore, court is not going to hold Deleware corp. liable for Donner's unilateral decision to move to FL.
Specific vs. General Jx, talk about Helicopteros
More difficult to prove general jx.
a. Helicopertos: Court "denied" specific jx by limiting specific jx to those causes of action "arising specifically out of contacts." NOT taking into account c/a's thatmay be "related to contacts." Forced to decide on general jx. Also, this case arose outside of the US--which may have been a deterrent to international transactions with US had it gone through
What did Worldwide teach us?
Foreseeability alone is not enough. Must also look to the reaosnableness by weighing the P and D's inconveniences. Court recognizes that it would be of little consequence to the Ps if they denied jx over the NY companies. Because there are still others would be responsible for any damages awarded.
What did Burger King teach us?
Once mcs are found, 5 "other factors" may be considered--determining whether the exercise of in personam jx is reasonable." (Burden on the D**, the forum state's interst in adjudicating, the P's interest in obtaining convenient and efficient relief, judicial efficiency in resolution, advancement of social policies). These relate to weighing traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
What else did BK teach us about choice of law clause?
The choice of law clause in the franchise contract (FL) = Rudzewicz purposesly availed himself to the FL forum- mcs?
What did BK show about Rule 4(k):
4k: Territorial Limits on Effective Service: Service of summons or filing a waiver of service is effective to establish jx over the person of a D:
i. Under general jx
ii. Who is a party joined under Rule 14 or Rule 19
iii. Who is subject to federal interpleader jx
iv. When authorized by a statute of the U.S.
What is Title 28 1338?
Patents and Copyrights: Confers original jx to district courts over any questions involving patents and copyrights
What did Asahi Metal show?
In personam jx requires more than a "mere awareness." Where just because a co. is aware that another international co. it does business with, also does business in the U.S., does not mean that it is purposefully availing itself to that jx also, by doing business with that company. Speaks to "reasonableness."
Talk about Rule 14a in Asahi
Asahi impleaded by Rule 14a, but the cause of action under which it was impleaded was under Taiwanese or Japanese law. CA plaintiff had already been settled=CA interests have already been settled as well. i. CA might have deterrent interest
ii. Ultimately the contacts with CA are not sufficient, and CA has no real interest
iii. Don't cite Asahi for the proposition of stream of commerce argument-just O'Connor's view
What does Rule 14a say? 14b?
Impleader: When a defendant may bring in a third party. (14b: When a plaintiff may bring in a third party). The original D becomes the third party P, and may cause summons and complaint to be served upon a person not part to the action who is or may be liable to the third party P for all or part of the P's claim against the 3rd party P
Talk about MCs and general jx
"Dispute Blind" exists where the D's contacts (number and quality) with the forum state are sufficiently substantial that one may litigate any dispute in the court or forum Though corp was incorporated in Phillipines, it conducted all of its business from OH, but claim actually occurred during the tim it was still doing business in the Phillipines. Must be able to treat it like OH resident. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck
Talk about Perkins case, where does this fall
MC test and General jx: Though corp was incorporated in Phillipines, it conducted all of its business from OH, but claim actually occurred during the tim it was still doing business in the Phillipines. Must be able to treat it like OH resident. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck
Talk about general jx and service of process
A resident of state can be served process, it does not matter where the claim arose, another state or another country
General jx definition:
Can be sued in the state of residence no matter where the use arose
Talk about Mcs and specific jx
What case?
"Dispute specific."
McGee v. Int'l Life: Reasonable to foresee suit out of one activity that they intended to continue systematic and purposeful contact=C/a arose specifically from those substantial and purposeful acts
Things that limit specific jx
Unilateral decisions: Not going to hold someone liable for unilateral decision of another party. Foreseeability alone is not enough
Hanson v. Denkla: no specific jx: Trust originated in Delaware, and Mrs. Donnder chose to solicit the trust company (not vice versa), and then decided to move to FL. Therefore, court is not going to hold Deleware corp. liable for Donner's unilateral decision to move to FL.
Specific vs. General Jx, talk about Helicopteros
More difficult to prove general jx.
a. Helicopertos: Court "denied" specific jx by limiting specific jx to those causes of action "arising specifically out of contacts." NOT taking into account c/a's thatmay be "related to contacts." Forced to decide on general jx. Also, this case arose outside of the US--which may have been a deterrent to international transactions with US had it gone through
What did Worldwide teach us?
Foreseeability alone is not enough. Must also look to the reaosnableness by weighing the P and D's inconveniences. Court recognizes that it would be of little consequence to the Ps if they denied jx over the NY companies. Because there are still others would be responsible for any damages awarded.
What did Burger King teach us?
Once mcs are found, 5 "other factors" may be considered--determining whether the exercise of in personam jx is reasonable." (Burden on the D**, the forum state's interst in adjudicating, the P's interest in obtaining convenient and efficient relief, judicial efficiency in resolution, advancement of social policies). These relate to weighing traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
What else did BK teach us about choice of law clause?
The choice of law clause in the franchise contract (FL) = Rudzewicz purposesly availed himself to the FL forum- mcs?
What did BK show about Rule 4(k):
4k: Territorial Limits on Effective Service: Service of summons or filing a waiver of service is effective to establish jx over the person of a D:
i. Under general jx
ii. Who is a party joined under Rule 14 or Rule 19
iii. Who is subject to federal interpleader jx
iv. When authorized by a statute of the U.S.
What is Title 28 1338?
Patents and Copyrights: Confers original jx to district courts over any questions involving patents and copyrights
What did Asahi Metal show?
In personam jx requires more than a "mere awareness." Where just because a co. is aware that another international co. it does business with, also does business in the U.S., does not mean that it is purposefully availing itself to that jx also, by doing business with that company. Speaks to "reasonableness."
Talk about Rule 14a in Asahi
Asahi impleaded by Rule 14a, but the cause of action under which it was impleaded was under Taiwanese or Japanese law. CA plaintiff had already been settled=CA interests have already been settled as well. i. CA might have deterrent interest
ii. Ultimately the contacts with CA are not sufficient, and CA has no real interest
iii. Don't cite Asahi for the proposition of stream of commerce argument-just O'Connor's view
What does Rule 14a say? 14b?
Impleader: When a defendant may bring in a third party. (14b: When a plaintiff may bring in a third party). The original D becomes the third party P, and may cause summons and complaint to be served upon a person not part to the action who is or may be liable to the third party P for all or part of the P's claim against the 3rd party P
What does Title 28 Sec 1332 do
Diversity of Citizenship: Allows CS to confer jx upon inferior courts (courts of inferior jx) as in lower courts to hear cases between states and non-residents
Talk about 1332c1
Definition of corporation for use in 1332 and 1441
Talk about Rule 18a (also saw this in Asahi)
A party asserting a claim to relief may join either as independent or alternate claims, as many claims, as the party has against the opposing party
Talk about Rule 13g (saw this in Asahi)
Cross-Claim against a 3rd party: A pleading may state as a cross-claim any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurence that is the subject matter of either the original action or of a counter claim therein or relating to any property that is subject matter of the original action.
What does Title 28 1331 do (saw this in Asahi)
Gives the P the option to file in state or federal court
Talk about the effects test
Calder v. Jones and Pugh v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamah:
A foreign act that is both aimed and has the effect in the forum state satisfies PA prong of specific jx analysis. 3-pronged test.
Saw it where Ps were executors of American citizens killed with a bomb planted by Ds destroyed a French airliner en route b/t Congo and Paris. C'lly subject to jx in US b/c they knew it was International flight, foreseeable that citizens from man nations on board, and b/c U.S has strong interest in preventing and punishing international terrorism
Long Arm statutes, generally
A court will not find in pers jx unless there is statutory authorization for the exercise of that jx. Remember, this determination can be made only after mcs have been established
Long arm statutes(LAS), what do they do?
Reach across state lines and assert state's authority to reach into another particular state or country, and thereby subject a person or corp to its jx
First of 3 forms that LAS can take:
CA: A court can authorize jx through the C in a very broad manner. See I'l Shoe. "A court of this state may exercise jx on any basis no inconsistent with the C of this state or of the U.S."
lAS 2nd form:
NY: The statute can also be detailed, setting out particular circumstances under which the state intends to exercise jx, usually these statutes do not exceed jx to the full extent permitted by the DP clause hence the gap Jiminez has discussed
LAS 3rd form:
Blend: A state can also blend both approaches allowing specific details of applicability to prevent any confusion re: application of the broad statute
What did Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King show
The federal courts follow the long-arm statute of the state n which they sit (Rule 4k). In NY in personam jx requires that the tortious act to have taken place in NY. This was not the case, decided in favor of D
Internet notes on long-arm statutes page 233
No answer yet
WWhat specific question did Omni Capital v. Rudolf Wolff Co (foreign Ds) involve?
Rule 4k2, which allows the aggregation of all contacts between the D and the US as a whole as a basis for jx over foreign Ds. However, does that enlarge the scope of substantive federal law under which the D is being sued?--Going against the Federal Rules Enabling Act, "shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right."
Talk some more about Rule 4k in Omni, this part is subsection a for last flashcard
Rule 4k2: If the exercise of jx is consistent with C and laws of US service a summons or filing a waive of service is also effective, with respect to claims arising under federal law, to establish personal jx over the person of any D who is not subject to the jx of the courts of general jx of any state.
Talk more about Rule 4k and Omni, this is subsection b
4k1 is a basic framework for exercising territorial jx over a D found within US
Talk more, this is subsection c
nothing
subsection d
4k1a: provides that each of the state's territorial jx governs in the absence of a federal rule
subsection e
4k1b: provides that third-party Ds impleaded are subject to in per jx in federal court, provided they can be served wih process within 100 miles of the federal courthouse, "bulge" jx...available in federal question cases, diversity cases, and cases of subject matter jx.
subsection f
4k1c&d indicate that a federal interpleader statute, authorizes in personam jx
ssubsection g
4k2 provides for territorial jx over Ds found outside US...restritcted by allowing nationwide aggregation of contacts for purposes of assertion of jx of a foreign D, but only in cases where the claim arise under federal law, and only where there is not state that D. Then some of Colin's blue notes
subsection h
Rule 4f (pre 1993) describes where process may be served, authorizing service in the State, or anywhere else authorized by a federal statute or by the Rule
ssubsection i
Rule 4e: a federal court normally looks either to a federal statute or to the long-arm statute of the State in absence of a foreign statute
subsection j
Rule 82: You can't view the Rules as permitting jx in themselves
i. If you can implead, you sill need to determine jx, and the question becomes...whose rule you look to--usually the federal court looks to the jx of the state in which they are sitting.
subsection k
1391: Assures convenience to Ps and Ds...an alien can be sued in any jx
Talk about presence of property in a state
does not automatically confer jx over the owner's interet in the property where presence of the propery alone does not support jx if other mcs with state do not exist.
Talk about Shaffer
It is determined that the standards of fairness and substantial justice and mcs set forth in Int'l Shoe should be held to govern action in rem and quirem. Ownership of stock not enough
Talk about Rule 20a in Shaffer
Permissive Joinder of Parties: All persons may join in one action as ps if they assert a right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction.
What happened in Burnham?
Divorce case: F served D with process while he was visiting the kids to settle claims of property. Had F just wanted to dissolve marriage there would be no reason to obtain jx over her husband, however, jx over the person is requred to deprive one of their property. The court determined that presence, for all intensive purposes, was alone, still enough to establish in per jx (ie mcs not needed). Although-the concurring justices determined that there were mcs
Talk about presence and domicile generally:
"Domicile in the state is alone sufficient to bring an absent D within the reach of the state's jx for purposes of a personal judgment by means of personal or appropriate substituted service."
a. For most issues your place of residence is the same as your domicile--however, your domicile can be defined as being the place where you intend to stay for an indefinite amount of time
Talk about Fraudently induced presence:
Service of process on someone who has been fraudulently enticed into the state will not confer in personam jx
Talk about 1391a, a3:
A civil action based on diversity of citizenship may be brought only in (3) a judicial district in which any D is subject to personal jx at the time the action commenced, if there is no district in which the actoin may otherwise be brought
Talk about Rule 12b3:
A defense of improper venue--a motion made before pleading
Talk about notice
(Rule 4(c): Service of process required delivery of both a “summons” and a copy of the complaint.
(Rule 4(c)(2): Service can be made by a non-party over the age of 18.
Rule 4(d)(2): Service can also be made by mail.
Rule 4(e)(2): A person may leave the summons and complaint at the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discreten then residing therein.
Rule 4(h): Service upon Corporations and Associations.
a.Service on corporations and unincorporated associations may be made by obtaining a waiver of service under Rule 4(d); by service in accordance with the state law 4(e); or by delivery of a copy of the summons and the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service or process.
Talk about consent by appearance, first consent to general appearance
a. D may have plausibly jx'l defense, but all things considered by decide that it is in his best interest simpl to litigate the merits and forgo contesting
b. May also be inadvertent if the D fails to make a timely objection
Talk about consent by filing suit:
A P is deemed to have consented to jx, at least for certain purposes, in a forum in which she has filed suit
a. Filing a cross-claim (Rule 13-a counter-claim in Federal Rules). The SC did not distinguish between compulsory and permissive cross claims. It did not insist that the subject matter of the cross claim be related to the subject matter of the original complaint.
b. In some class action cases over member of the class
Talk about Consent by K case:
Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute: A forum clause on the back of a cruise ticket may be enforced. Based on the recognition of the need of certainty of a specific body of law, and a specific form. And recognizing costs if the cruise line was to have to defend itself all over the U.S.--saving which are passed down to passengers.
a. but consider--the clause was not freely bargained for, and the inconvenience for the WA residents to litigate in FL...also a powerful force in convincing parry to abandon ts claims
Talk about 1404a with respect to consent:
1404a: Motions to transfer: "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.--A forum selection clause has some wieght, but is not dispositive in all cases
GTalk about 1338 and consent
Patents
What about 1441 and consent:
Any case over which the fed courts might have jx, may be removed from federal to state court. THERE'S NO WAY THIS IS RIGHT!!!
How do we object to jx?
Speical Appearance: : Special appearance subjects the defendant to the decision of the court in which the appearance is made. A defendant who makes a special appearance for the purpose of contesting territorial jurisdiction, and loses, can only challenge the correctness of the jurisdiction by appealing within the court system that has asserted jurisdiction
What did Insurance Corp of Ireland v. some Del. Corp tell us about objecting to jx?
The Insurance Co. kept delaying the discovery of the files that the plaintiff requested. The court finds that by delaying discovery under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), the defendant is deemed to have waived any objection to jurisdiction, and therefore personal jurisdiction has been established.
a.Where a party raises the question of a defense, the court has jx to determine if there is jx, and has the authority to make requests/orders to determining that question – i.e. require discovery of some evidence.
Talk about Rule 37b2A and objecting to jx
Failure to comply with order: Sanctions by court in which action is pending. If a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, the court may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just… such as (A): An order that the matters regarding which the order was made shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order.
Talk about Hypo with respect to objecting to personal jx
A sues B in forum 1.
a. B challenges, special appearance, exercise of personal jx in forum 1.
i. Court finds jx
b. B goes home to forum 2--what happens?
i. The court will only have initial complaint from A. Until B denies, there is not litigation....
c. Anything that is not effectively denied is essentially an admission.
i. =Default judgment against B in forum 1
ii. A asks forum 2 to enforce judgment, and forum 2 must give full faith and credit, so long as there is competent jx: The court in forum 2 should say that jx was already decided in forum 1.
subsection 1 under last sentence: The judgment sought to be enforced must be competent jx
d. =B should have taken up the issue of jx on appeal in forum one=by leaving=too bad
e. If you had never shown up for special appearance, you could allow the court to make a default judgment, then contest the judgment in forum 2.