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;
58 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is PJ?
|
the power/ability of the court over A PARTICULAR DEFENDANT(s) to enter an order/judgment that binds her
|
|
|
Full Faith and Credit Clause
|
Article IV, § 1
valid judgments in the courts of one state are entitled to enforcement in the courts of another state |
|
|
Due Process Clause requires...
|
(1) d sued in an appropriate forum (she must have such contacts that exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable)
(2) satisfy notice and opportunity to be heard requirements |
|
|
Valid Judgment creates...
|
(1) personal obligation on the defendant; and
(2) entitled to FF&C |
|
|
In Personam Jurisdiction
|
court's power of the person herself because she has some appropriate connection with the forum
|
|
|
General In Personam Jurisdiction
|
defendant can be sued in a forum on a claim that arose anywhere in the planet if d has continuous, systematic and substantial contacts (Goodyear) with the forum state
Purpose - it's useful to have at least one place for a defendant where she could be subject to suit on anything Abundance of connections in that state means it won't be unfair for defendant to defend there |
|
|
Specific In Personam Jurisdiction
|
claim itself that arises in that forum is related to defendant's activities in that forum
issue of relatedness |
|
|
PJ - statutory requirement
|
must have state statue that gives the court power to hear the case
Long Arm Statutes: try to get a nonresident to litigate in a state Unlimited LAS (california) - we have jurisdiction to the full extent of the constitution; if it's cool with due process, it's cool with us Limited/Specific LAS (laundry list LAS) - specifies certain situations in which courts can exercise jurisdiction |
|
|
Traditional Bases of Jurisdiction (Pennoyer)
|
basically, pick the right and fair state:
P-CAD Presence - state has i.p. jurisdiction over defendant found within the state Consent - defendant can appear in court in any state Agent - serve d's agent within the forum state Domicile - courts have pj over those who are domiciliaries of the state |
|
|
In Rem
|
involve dispute over ownership of a property to determine the ownership interest as to every person in the world
|
|
|
QIR1
|
adjudicate ownership of property to determine ownership as between and among the parties to the case
|
|
|
QIR2
|
dispute between parties has nothing to do with who owns property, but jurisdiction is permitted based on presence of d's property in the forum
|
|
|
Pennoyer
|
set up the 4 traditional bases of jurisdiction
|
|
|
Balk
& Milliken |
expanded Pennoyer
Balk - QIR2 jurisdiction can be exercised over intangible property (debt) Milliken - court found i.p. jurisdiction over domicile even though d was not personally served in forum |
|
|
Domicile
|
when one takes domicile in a state, she gets certain privileges and benefits from that state; in return she is amenable to jurisdiction in the state's courts
requires: (1) physical presence (2) subjective intent to remain there 2a - prove that subjective intent by objective factors such as...taxes, mortgage, drivers license, etc. |
|
|
Hess v. Pawloski
|
- pa citizen escaped personal service in forum state but was served through statute-created agent in forum state
-expanded consent to implied consent (nonresidents who enter a state's borders and use its highways consent to the appointment of a third party as agent for service of process for actions arising from the use of its highways - state a can say this because it's entitled to protect its borders |
|
|
International Shoe
|
minimum contacts test (alternative to pennoyer when traditional bases don't work)
a court may subject a defendant to judgment only if she has certain minimum contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice |
|
|
Minimum Contacts Test
(contacts part) |
Contacts
(1) Purposeful availment - d must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws (Hanson - de/fl bank case) (2) foreseeability - it must be foreseeable that d's conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there |
|
|
Minimum Contacts Test
(fairness/reasonableness) |
Fairness/Reasonableness
-does the exercise of jurisdiction comport with the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice? 5 factors - defendant's burden (like in bk, rises to the level of being unconstitutional, not merely inconvenient) - forum state's interest (McGee - state has a manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents) - p's interest (if she's injured) - efficiency (Kulko) - shared substantive policies (Kulko) |
|
|
McGee v. International Life Insurance
|
- CA/TX insurance life policy case
- 1 contact - tx reached out to ca for this 1 insurance contract - CA had a manifest interest in providing an effective means of redress for its residents - balance of inconvenience between parties; more burdensome for p and all witnesses to leave cali. |
|
|
WWV
|
- no pj in okla, claim arose
- no purposeful availment (car got there through unilateral act of p) -simple foreseeability that product get there is not enough; must be foreseeable that d could get sued there -fairness/reasonableness only relevant after finding of contacts -"seeks to serve test" - another way to determine purposeful availment Brennan dissent - sliding scale; if a showing of fairness/reasonableness is overwhelming, there can be a finding of jurisdiction even with a lesser showing of contacts |
|
|
Calder v. Jones
|
- cali upheld pj over fl. d for defamatory article
Calder Effects Test - relevant contact between d and the forum state can be established not only by d's purposeful availment, but by intentionally causing an effect there such that she anticipates being haled into court there |
|
|
BK
|
- upheld fl jurisdiction over 2 MI defendants
- contacts - d can engage in purposeful availment without physically entering forum state ; this is enough to reasonably anticipate being haled into court there fairness/reasonableness - must have contact first, before this becomes a factor - relative wealth of parties do not matter |
|
|
Asahi
|
Stream of Commerce
- d's valve maker ended up in x state and was sued there; no pj 4/4 split on contact: Brennan - there's contact if you put product in stream of commerce and you have awareness that it will get to x state(s) O'Connor - need more than Brennan; you also need additional conduct to show that you WANT/INTEND to have your product there (ex: hire employees, billboards, etc) |
|
|
McIntyre
|
- no pj for uk manufacturer sued in nj
4-2-3 split on contacts kennedy/plurality - adopted O'Connor in asahi; "must show intent to serve the forum" Breyer - unsure Ginsburg - adopted broader brennan theory in asahi; "if you target the US, you can be sued in any state where product causes injury" |
|
|
Burnham
|
4-4 split when traditional basis met
Scalia - presence when you're served is good by itself (basically, meeting traditional basis suffices) Brennan - still must meet int shoe test |
|
|
Perkins
& Helicopteros |
Perkins - upheld GJ in Ohio since corp maintained an office there, kept files there, and supervised activities there (PPB)
Helicopteros - columbian corp. did not have enough to constitute continuous and systematic general business contacts in texas to be amenable to suit there |
|
|
Goodyear
|
- no pj in nc for bus accident in paris
there is gj where corp's activity is continuous and systematic to render it "essentially at home" in the forum state "essentially at home" is very narrow; suggests that PPB and state of incorporation are places where you could get gj |
|
|
PJ and Internet
|
- internet is everywhere and nowhere
Revell case -use Zippo sliding test to assess website's connections to forum state passive site - no pj repeated online contacts with forum residents over internet - pj may be proper sites in between with interactive elements - must examine extent of interactivity and nature of forum contacts extent of interactivity - use calder effects test - focal point of story/harm - where will effects be felt |
|
|
Shafer
|
-overruled part of pennoyer
-existence and attachment of property in a forum state is not enough anymore - must also analyze under shoe |
|
|
Constitutional Standard for Notice
|
Mullane
(1) notice must be reasonable calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of proceeding (2) must reasonably convey the required information (3) must afford time for those interested to make their appearance Dusenberry - constitution does not require d to receive notice; due process requires 'attempt' to provide actual notice, not 'provide' |
|
|
Opportunity to be heard
|
- full blown trial not required
- d just must have sufficient warning to allow time to prepare an adequate defense - R65 - restraining orders Connecticut v. Doehr: Matthews test (1) consideration of private interest that will be affected by judgment (clouded title) (2) examination of the risk of erroneous deprivation (3) principal attention to the interest of the party seeking prejudgment remedy |
|
|
Osborn
|
- federal issue need only be a an ingredient of the case
|
|
|
American Well Works
|
ask: what created the cause of action?
no fqj for state law claim brought into federal court because it did not arise under federal law |
|
|
Smith
|
- state law claim met "construction or application" of the constitution, thus court found fqj
|
|
|
Moore
|
failed Am. Well Works test, but met Smith test, but court found no fqj
|
|
|
Merrell Dow
|
-no fqj for state law claim
if congress creates a "private right of action" claim is of substantial federal interest; if of substantial federal interest, state claim can invoke fqj |
|
|
Grable
|
upheld fqj in state law claim with fed law. ingredient
state law claims arise out of fed law if: 1 - the case necessarily raises a federal issue 2 - federal issue is actually disputed and substantial (substantial -- see dow) 3 - fj will not disturb the balance of state and federal judicial responsibilities if all 3 are met, centrality requirement is met -also, unnecessary to have private right of action to get into federal court, but it is helpful |
|
|
private right of action
|
any private citizen may sue
|
|
|
Removal
|
Takes the case from state court to federal court
Gives defendant a role in deciding whether the case proceeds in state or federal court |
|
|
1441(a)
|
civil actions brought in state court of which US district courts may be brought to the federal court that embraces the place where such actions are pending
|
|
|
1441(b)(2)
|
In state defendant rule - No removal of diversity cases where any defendant is a citizen of the forum
|
|
|
1446(a)
|
d files with fed court, notice of removal with short and plain statement of grounds for removal + copies of all documents from state court
|
|
|
1446(b)(1)
|
d must file removal within 30 days of service
|
|
|
1446(b)(2)(A)
|
Law of Unanimity
all Ds who have been properly joined and served with process must consent to removal |
|
|
1446(d)
|
must give notice of filing of removal to all adverse parties and state court
|
|
|
1447(c)
|
p has 30 days to file a motion to remand for any defect other than lack of smj
|
|
|
28 U.S.C § 1391
|
Venue - federal court!
2 venue options: -defendants' residence -where claim arose |
|
|
1391(b)(1)
OR (b)(2) |
civil action may be brought it:
(b)(1) - venue in district where d resides, if all defendants are residents of the state in which district is located OR (b)(2) - venue in district where substantial part of the claim arose |
|
|
Residency
|
individuals - domicile - 1391(c)(1)
corporations - in all district courts where it is subject to pj - 1391(c)(2) |
|
|
Transfer of Venue
|
Transfer from one judicial system to another
usually, d's doing, by filing a motion to transfer once court is transferred, transferor has NO pj over case; transferee takes over case at its present state no ned to start litigation over |
|
|
§ 1404
|
-proper venue to proper venue
-transfer is permitted "for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice" -court weighs factors in each forum to determine whether d meets her burden to show that transfer is warranted (convenience for witnesses, work load of both systems and other's familiarity with applicable law) transferee must be a proper venue under 1391 and must have pj over d (hoffman - these requirements must be met independently, and must not be waived) transferor law is used to determine what law governs the dispute -court on its own can order 1404 transfer as long as all parties agree |
|
|
§ 1406
|
- improper venue to proper venue
- transfer is permitted "in the interest of justice" - since we started in an improper venue, d, who usually files these motions to transfer, will also file a motion to dismiss for improper venue as an alternative 12(b)(3) transferee law is used to determine what law governs the dispute |
|
|
Forum Non Convenience
|
- doctrine of dismissal because it cannot transfer
"convenience of parties and the ends of justice would be better served if brought in another forum" more appropriate forum is in a different judicial system, thus we cannot transfer. must dismiss and let the parties litigate in that country |
|
|
Piper v. Reyno
|
supported dismissal because showing was strong enough that case was better suited in scotland;
-litigation already going on in scotland -case would be difficult in PA; scottish law applied to claims, would need scottish law experts -there were 2 key people who did not have pj in US |
|
|
Procedure for Forum Non Convenience
|
starting point: p's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed
-party must demonstrate that an alternative forum is clearly more appropriate for there to be a dismissal party seeking dismissal has a tougher burden than one seeking a venue transfer other court must not only be available, but also must be adequate -FNC dismissals are often conditional - the court will grant the motion to dismiss conditioned upon waiver of certain defenses or agreeing to certain things |
|
|
FNC - weighing of public interest factors
|
-administrative difficulties of keeping the case
-local interest in having localized controversies decided at home -desire to have a case tried in a forum versed in language that will apply -avoiding undue problems with conflict of laws or in the application of foreign law -unfairness of burdening citizens with jury duty in a case unrelated to the forum |
|
|
FNC - private factors
|
(focus on convenience and expeditious/inexpensive trial)
-relative ease of access to evidence -ability to compel attendance of witnesses at trial through subpoena -expense of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses - |
