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

1/38

Click to flip

38 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Personal Jurisdiction – Analysis Flow
PJ- Definition
Traditional Basis for PJ
Statutory Basis for PJ
Constitutional Basis for PJ
Minimum Contacts
Purposeful Availment
Foreseeability
Fair Play & Substantial Justice
Systematic or Continuous Contact
Related to the defendant’s contact w/the forum state?
Court’s Interest
Plaintiff’s Interest
Relative Burdens
PJ – Definition
PJ refers to a court’s power to exercise its judicial authority over particular defendant. There are three basis from which a court can derive this authority: traditional, statutory, and constitutional.
PJ – Traditional Basis for jurisdiction
Traditionally, courts had automatic jurisdiction when the defendant resided in the forum state, consented to jurisdiction in the forum state, or was served in the forum state.
Personal Jurisdiction – Statutory Basis for /j
Modernly, most states have adopted long arm statutes, which have incorporated the traditional basis and identify the precise circumstances under which a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Because states have the ultimate power to decide over whom their courts may exercise /j, if the state has a long arm statute, the statute will govern this issue.
Note: if they apply, is there a statute?
Personal Jurisdiction – Constitutional Basis for /j
Minimum Contacts
A defendant is said to have minimum contacts when there is purposeful availment of the laws of the forum state, such that it is reasonably foreseeable that she will be “haled into court” there.
Personal Jurisdiction – Constitutional Basis for /j
Minimum Contacts – Purposeful Availment
Purposeful availment occurs when the defendant, through her contacts with the forum state, has availed herself of the “privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”
Personal Jurisdiction – Constitutional Basis for /j
Minimum Contacts – Foreseeability
This is a factual discussion.
Personal Jurisdiction – Constitutional Basis for /j
Fair Play and Substantial Justice
Courts have held that the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice are not offended when: 1) the defendant has systematic or continuous contact with the forum state, or 2) the claim is related to the defendant’s contact with the forum state. Courts will also consider the state’s interest, the plaintiff’s interest, and relative burdens of the parties.
Personal Jurisdiction – Constitutional Basis for /j
Fair Play and Substantial Justice –
Systematic or Continuous Contact
If the defendant does not have systematic or continuous activity in the forum state, the instate activity can be the basis for the lawsuit.
Note: the following factors are individual factual discussions: 1) Related to the defendant’s contact with the forum state?(short discussion) 2) Court’s interest, (short discussion) ) Plaintiff’s interest,4) Relative Burdens
Civ Pro

Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Analysis
Subject Matter /J – Definition
Federal Question
Diversity
Amount in Controversy
Aggregation
Value of Equitable Relief
Citizenship
Physical Presence
Intent to Reside
Citizenship of a Corporation
Supplemental /j
Ancillary /j
Pendent /j
Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Definition
SMJ refers to the court’s authority to exercise its discretion over particular controversy. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and therefore only have SMJ over: 1) cases involving diversity of citizenship; and 2) cases involving a federal question. There is generally a presumption against federal /j.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Diversity
Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction exists when the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 and the parties involved are citizens of different states. In order for diversity of citizenship to be present, all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.
Civ Pro

Subject Matter Jurisdiction –
Diversity- Amount in Controversy
The amount in controversy is generally determined by looking at what is pled in the complaint by the plaintiff. The plaintiff need only make a good faith estimate of his or her damages to meet the requirement.
Civ Pro

Subject Matter Jurisdiction –
Diversity – Amount in Controversy – Aggregation
In order to meet the requisite jurisdictional amount, a plaintiff my aggregate two or more claims against single defendant or aggregate a joint claim against different defendants (as in the case of joint tortfeasors).
Civ Pro

Subject Matter Jurisdiction –
Diversity – Amount in Controversy –
Value of Equitable Relief
In situations where the plaintiff is seeking equitable relief (such as an injunction) as opposed to monetary damages, courts will look either to: 1) the value of the harm suffered by the plaintiff; or 2) the cost of compliance with the order for equitable relief.
Civ Pro

Subject Matter Jurisdiction –
Diversity – Citizenship
Citizenship refers to person’s domicile, which is determined by: 1) physical presence in the state; with 2) intent to permanently reside there.
Note: Now individually discuss 1) physical presence; 2) Intent to reside = they are both factual discussions
Civ Pro

Subject Matter Jurisdiction –
Diversity – Citizenship –
Citizenship of a Corporation
For the purpose of diversity, corporations have dual citizenship. They are citizens of: 1) the place of incorporation; and 2) their principle place of business.
Civ Pro

Subject Matter Jurisdiction –
Supplemental /j
Supplemental /j refers to the court’s authority to hear a claim that does not otherwise have an independent basis for SMJ but is joined in a single suit with a jurisdictionally sufficient claim. There are two types of supplemental /j – ancillary and pendent.
Civ Pro

Subject Matter Jurisdiction –
Supplemental /j – Ancillary /j
Ancillary /j allows a federal court to assert /j over claims brought by a defendant that arise from the same transaction and occurrence as an action properly within the court’s SMJ.
Civ Pro

Subject Matter Jurisdiction –
Supplemental /j – Pendent /j
Pendent /j allows a plaintiff who has a jurisdictionally sufficient federal claim to join, in the original complaint, related claims that otherwise would not have SMJ.
Civ Pro

Erie Doctrine – Analysis
Erie Doctrine – Definition
Federal Law on Point?
Substantive v. Procedural
Outcome Determination
Balancing of Interests Tests
Forum Shipping Deterrence
Civ Pro

Erie Doctrine – Definition
Under the Erie Doctrine, federal courts exercising diversity /j are required to apply the substantive law of the state in which the court is located and federal procedural law. However, the Erie doctrine does not require application of state substantive law where there is a federal law directly on point.
Note: First discuss whether there is a federal law on point. Then go on to the Substantive v. Procedural discussion.
Civ Pro

Erie Doctrine – Substantive v. Procedural
Where there is no federal directive on point, courts must next look to whether the issue being decided is procedural or substantive in nature. Given that this determination is often difficult to make, courts have developed a variety of tests to address this problem. The three tests generally used are: 1) outcome determination; 2) balance of interests; and 3) forum shopping deterrence.
Civ Pro

Erie Doctrine – Substantive v. Procedural –
Outcome Determination
The “outcome determinative” test provides that an issue is substantive where it directly affects the outcome of case. Discuss
Civ Pro

Erie Doctrine – Substantive v. Procedural –
Balancing of Interests Test
The balance of interests tests requires the court to weigh the interests of the state versus the federal system in having its own rule applied. Discuss
Civ Pro

Erie Doctrine – Substantive v. Procedural –
Forum Shopping Deterrence
Under the forum shopping deterrence test, the court must follow state law on the issue if failing to do so would cause litigants to flock to federal court. Discuss
Civ Pro

Joinder – Analysis
Joinder – Definition
Compulsory Joinder
Needed for Just Adjudiciation
Complete Relief Cannot be accorded in the party’s absence
Absent Party’s Ability to Protect Her Own Interest is Impeded
Multiple or Inconsistent Obligations
Amenable to Service of Process
Joinder destroys diversity?
When Joinder is Not Feasible
Prejudicial Effect of Judgment Rendered
Court’s Ability to Lessen Prejudice with Judgment
Judgment in Person’s Absence will be Adequate
Plaintiff’s Remedy Upon Dismissal
Civ Pro

Joinder – Analysis Continued
Permissive Joinder
Same transactions or occurrences
Common question of law or fact
Impleader
Intervention
Intervention as of right
Permissive Intervention
Civ Pro

Joinder – Definition
There are two types of joinder, compulsory and permissive. Compulsory joinder refers to the joining of a party into an existing lawsuit who must be brought in if feasible. Permissive joinder refers to the joining of a party who may be brought in if feasible.
Civ Pro

Joinder – Compulsory Joinder
Under Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party will be ordered to join a lawsuit if that party is: 1) needed for just adjudication; 2) amenable to service of process; and 3) joinder will not destroy diversity.
Civ Pro

Joinder-
Compulsory Joinder – Needed for Just Adjudication
A party is needed for just adjudication when: 1) in the person’s absence, complete relief cannot be accorded among those already in the lawsuit; or 2) the disposition of the action in the person’s absence may impeded the missing person’s ability to protect his or her interest; or 3) the disposition of the action in the person’s absence may expose the existing parties to the risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations.
Note: Now discuss the items individually then go back and discuss amenable to service of process and joinder will not destroy diversity
Civ Pro

Joinder- When Joinder is not Feasible
Under Rule 19(b), when a person needed for just adjudication cannot be made a party, or objects to venue, the court shall determine whether the action can proceed with just the parties before it, or should be dismissed because the party sought to be joined is indispensable. The factors to be considered in determining whether a party is indispensable include: 1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to the existing parties; 2) the extent to which the court can lessen such prejudice in the judgment; 3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; and 4) whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.
Note: discuss individually then go into Permissive Joinder.
Civ Pro

Joinder – Permissive Joinder
Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for permissive joinder of defendants if: 1) there is some claim made by each plaintiff and against each defendant relating to or arising out of the same series of transactions or occurrences; and 2) if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. Under Rule 20, plaintiff or defendant need not be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. Judgment may be given for one or more of the plaintiffs according to their respective rights to relief, and against one or more defendants according to their respective liabilities.
Civ Pro

Joinder – Impleader
Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a defendant can bring in third party defendant who is liable to her for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant. The rule is not mandatory; defendant may refrain from impleader and assert her claim instead in an independent action if she prefers. However, in order to satisfy Rule 14(a), any liability of the third-party defendant must be secondary or derivative to the liability of the original defendant.
Civ Pro

Joinder – Intervention
Intervention is the procedure that permits someone who is not a party to an action to enter the lawsuit in order to protect his interests. Rules governing intervention seek to balance the interest of the legal system in insuring adequate representation to those who are not parties to an action but who have an interest that may be affected by its outcome with the interests of the initial parties in the prompt disposition of their claims and defenses.
Civ Pro

Joinder – Intervention – 2 types
There are two types of intervention:

Intervention as of right and
Permissive Intervention
Civ Pro

Joinder – Intervention – 2 types –
Intervention as of Right
When intervention is of right, there is an implicit judgment that the nonparty’s right to participate should predominate.
Civ Pro

Joinder – Intervention – 2 types –
Permissive Intervention
When intervention is permissive only, the court first must ascertain whether the interests of the original parties will be prejudiced by allowing the outsider access to the litigation.