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

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


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

46 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Rule 4(k)(1)(A)
The federal court will have personal jurisdiction if the state in which it sits would have personal jurisdiction
a. Borrow the state’s long arm statute
b. Must comport with 14th Amendment due process
Rule 4(k)(1)(B)
the federal court will have personal jurisdiction over persons made parties under Rules 14 and 19. That person must be served at a place within a judicial district of the US and not more than 100 miles from the place from which the summons issues
Rule 4(k)(1)(C)
– The federal court will have personal jurisdiction over one who is subject to the federal interpleader;, jurisdiction under § 1335.
Rule 4(k)(2)
a. Personal jurisdiction in any federal court where:
i. The claim is based on federal law.
ii. Jurisdiction is constitutional (minimal diversity)
iii. There is no state which would have personal jurisdiction.
b. Nationwide service of process.
Making Service of Pleading
Rule 5
1. Give to person
2. If unable to give to the person, then mailing to last known address
3. If no known address, then leave a copy with the clerk of the court.
4. The person being served may authorize electronic delivery, but this is not effective if the person attempting service learns that the it did not reach the one being served.
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
-In contract case in order to determine whether a defandant purposefully established minimum contacts witht the forum court the court must consider;
1. Prior negotiations- Fraud or bargaining power
2. Contemplated future consequences-payment stream
3. Terms of contract; i.e choice of law clause
4. Parties Actual course of dealing
"Minimum contacts"- Fairness Factors
1. Convenience of defendant
2. Forum state’s interest McGee
3. Plaintiff’s interest in effective relief Kulko (suit for child support payments)
4. Shared interests of several states
5. Judicial system’s interest.
**Fairness arises from defendant’s enjoyment of the benefits that are offered by the state.
General Jurisdiction- "Perkins"-Contacts
o GM of Philippine miming corporation had office in Ohio, where did shit on behalf of company, files there office meetings there…
o Distributed salaries checks drawn on an Ohio accounts
o Supervised policies dealing with rehabilitation of the corps properties in the Philippines
o “had been carrying on in Ohio a continuous and systematic, but limited part of its general business” So general jurisdiction “reasonable and just”
General Jurisdiction-Contacts-"Rosenberg"
 D suit shop owner OK
 D only connections with NY he bought suits from New York in large portions, and went there sometimes to buy suits.
 “Visits on such business, even if occurring at regular intervals, would not warrant the inference that the corporation was present within the jurisdiction of New York.”
General Jurisdiction-Contacts-"Helicopteros"
a. One negotiating session with president of D and officials of Consorio-not “continuous and systematic”
b. Chief executive officer to TX
c. Spent $4,000,000 in TX (80% of helicopter fleet)
d. Payments to Helicopteros drawn on TX bank.-Held as “unilateral activity of 3rd party”
e. Pilot and maintenance sent for training in TX.-not much significance it was considered “part of the package of goods and services purchased by D” Just like trips to suit store by Roseberg
Is General Jurisdiction available only in the corporations state of incorporation or principle place of business?
In some districts courts have held this to be so. ("Wallmart" case)
Is State of Incorporation enough to establish jurisdiction?? (3 views)
1. Perkins- Said only contacts no fairness
2. Some courts think have to view in light of fairness factors
3. General jurisdiction only available in “principle place of business” and “incorporation”
Personal Jurisdiction- "Calder"
1. Even though the activity took place in Florida – it was aimed toward CA and it was activity in which the petitioners could “reasonably anticipate being haled to court there.”
2. Center of gravity in CA
3. Effect felt in CA (harms)
a. Effects test
b. Some courts have limited and require targeting of the state.
4. CA is focal point.
5. Calder may be limited to defamation cases- not decided yet.
Personal Jurisdiction- "Keeton v. Hustler Magazine"
1. Suit alleged defamation in one issue of Hustler that was distributed nationwide.
2. Supreme court found jurisdiction not only as to her injury suffered in New Hampshire, from copies of the magazine distributed there but also for her injury suffered in all other states as a result of the copies that were distributed there.
a. New Hampshire had “substantial interest in cooperating with other states to provide a forum for efficiently litigating all issues and damages claims arising out of a single libel unitary proceeding.
3. *Respondent is carrying out part of its general business in New Hampshire, and that is sufficient to support jurisdiction when the cause of action arises out of the very activity being conducted, in part, in New Hampshire.*
4. Plaintiff does not have to have “contacts” with the forum state
a. P’s lack of contacts may be considered in fairness factors.
Making Service of Pleading
Rule 5
1. Give to person
2. If unable to give to the person, then mailing to last known address
3. If no known address, then leave a copy with the clerk of the court.
4. The person being served may authorize electronic delivery, but this is not effective if the person attempting service learns that the it did not reach the one being served.
General Jurisdiction: Do fairness factors need to be addressed in general jurisdiction cases?
No guidence on issue from Supreme Court.
1. Perkins/Helicopteros didn’t discuss fairness
2. Lower courts split on this because of lack of guidance on issue.
Tests for Specific Jurisdiction- "arises out of" vs. "relates to"
1. claim “arises out of” contacts – the injury is caused by the contact.
2. claim “relates directly to” the contacts
a. But for the contact would you have continued and been injured?
b. More flexible then arising out of
Can consent to personal jurisdiction be manfested by an agreement contained within a contract?
Can personal jurisdiction be aquired over a corporation of one state in another state or district in which it has no place of business and it not found, merely by serving an executive officer temporarily therein, and he is there on business of the company" (transient)
NO- James-Dickson Farm Mortgage v. Harry (1927) Supreme Court
In-state agent for service of process- Sufficient to confer jurisdiction?
; Courts have generally held that service on an in-state agent for service of process is constitutionally sufficient to confer jurisdiction, even for claims unrelated to corporations in-state activities. Scalia supports this.
i. Usual explanation is consent. But how broad is that consent, does it mean they consent to specific or general jurisdiction?
Calder- "Effects test"- what were facts of Calder
 Story concerned CA activities of a CA resident
 Article drawn for CA sources
 Brunt of harm, (emotional distress, and injury to career) was suffered in CA
 **”CA is the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered.”
o They had “expressly aimed” toward CA
o In sum, CA is the focal point both of the story and the harm suffered.
o National enquire had 600,000 copies in CA, more then anywhere else. This indicates that they knew the harm of their alleged tortuous activity would be felt there.
Does Due Process require states to provide for special appearance?
No, but all states allow it
In a "special appearance" state does raising PJ and notice to remove case to federal court equal a "general appearance"?
What are the 7 defenses in Rule12(b)
12(b)(1)-Subject matter jurisdiction
12(b)(2)-lack of personal jurisdiction
12(b)(3)-improper venue
12(b)(4)-insufficiency of process
12(b)(5) insufficiency of service of process
12(b)(6)failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted
12(b)(7) failure to join a party under Rule 19.
What imposes requirements of reasoanble notice?
Due Process Clause of 5th and 14th amanedment
What is the rule for notice from "Mullane v. Cenrtal Hanover Bank & Trust'?
a. The means employed to give notice must be a form that is not substantially less likely to bring home notice than other of the feasible and customary substitutes.
Due process requires reasonable calculation to give notice and does NOT require actual notice.
Service Proper? If fruad is used to keep someone in state in order to serve them?
There are divided decisions
Can you mail service under Rule 4?
They allow for the mailing of a waiver of the service of process. But don’t confuse this with service of process. The ∆ gets longer to answer and they don’t have to pay for the costs of service of process later on.
- The sending of waiver doesn’t hold a statute of limitations
Notice: what is the holding in "Mullane".
 “The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonable adopt to accomplish it. The reasonableness and hence the constitutional validity of any chosen method may be defended on the ground that it is in itself reasonably certain to inform those affected, or, where conditions do not reasonably permit such notice, that the form chosen is not substantially less likely to bring notice than other of the feasible and customary substitutes”
Rule 4(e)(2)-
i. 1. Service by personally delivering the summons and complaint to the defendant
ii. 2. Leaving copies of the summons and the complaint at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with a persons of suitable age and discretion residing therein—(National Dev. V. Triad Holding- “dwelling house or usual place of abode”)
iii. 3. by delivering papers to an agent appointed by the D to receive service of process on his behalf.
How do we know that the plaintiff must properly plead that SMJ exists
Rule 8(a)(1)
Residience + intent to stay
P(CA ) v. D(AZ) in (NY) Fed. Ct. Diversity jurisdiction?
What are reasons behind diversity Jur?
Local Bias
Encourage investment
P(Egypt) v. P(France); Alienage jurisdiction?
No, 1332 doest allow. Becouse to be citizen of a state you have to be citizen of the U.S.
1332(a)(4)- Used to limit jurisdiction NOT expand it
P(NY) v. D(U.S. citizen, domiciled in New Zealand)
D is not a "citizen of a state" or a "citizen or subject of a foriegn state"
P(Spanish, Green card alien living in FL) v. D(Canadian living in Canada)Diversity?
1. Majority: No; Saying congress did not intend to grant diversity in suits in which all parties are aliens.
2. Minority: Yes: Literal reading says yes:
P(Green card Alien, CA domicile) v. D(CA)
Diversity alienage?
No, 1332(a)(4)
P(Green card Alien, CA domicile) v. D(CA)
No, 1332(a)(4) meant to limit not expand diversity
P(NY) v. D(U.S. citizen, domiciled in New Zealand)
No, 2. D is not a “citizen of a state” and is not a “citizen or subject of a foreign state”
3. We use Domicile at time of filing, subsequent changes are only important insofar as they may show “intent” or lack there of. What is the exception governing removal?
a. *Exception governing removal: P(OK) v. D(OK) in TX state court.
b. P moves to (TX) after filing;
c. D can remove if in timely manner to federal court.
If you change your citizenship for the sole purpose to create or destory diversity, how is that relevent?
Your motive is irrelevent as long as you change it before filling, however it may be used to determine intent or lack there of.
ii. §1332(c)(1)- “a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has incorporation and the State where it has it's principal business”
What does "any" mean here?
1. “Any” place of incorporation
a. Majority says any=every (docket control)
b. Minority says= only one place:
Subject Matter Jurisdiction: What is the "total activity test"
i. 1.) If possible, use the place where the bulk of the day-to-day activities take place.
ii. 2.) When there is far flung activity look to the place that has the predominance of the activity (does not have to be a majority).
iii. 3.) When activity is far flung and there is no predominance then look to the nerve center (corporate headquarters).
iv. In J.A. Olson court said MI was the place where the corp is “most visible” and has “contact with the local community as employer and consumer”
What is the test from Grable for "Arising under": Federal subject matter jurisdiction
i. 1) state-law claim necessarily raise a federal issue actually disputed
1. (Grable premised the superiority of his claim on the failure by the IRS to give notice within the meaning of a federal statute. So its an essential element to the quit title claim.)
ii. 2) and substantial- (Feds interest) In Smith and Grable $$$
1. The meaning of the fed tax provision is an important issue of federal law that sensible belongs in a federal court. –Gov interest in collecting debt. Gov has a direct interest in the availability of a federal forum to vindicate its own administrative action.
iii. 3) Which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. Congress intended division of labor. (where creation comes into playas a factor.)
What is the Gibbs holding
Supplemental jurisdiction when we have common nucleus of operative facts