Pci - Subject Matter Jurisdiction And Personal Jurisdiction (Wk2)

Front 1

Justiciability Issues

What is a case or controversy?

Back 1

no difference between what is a case or what is a controversy

Front 2

What do the elements of justiciability address?

Back 2

Standing = who can sue (injury in fact, causation, redressibility)

Ripeness = says you can't sue to early (injury cannot be contingent or remote - must have occured or is likely to occur)

Mootness = says you can't sue too late. (no longer a live controvers- oppositie of ripeness)

Front 3

What is an exception to the mootness doctrine?

Back 3

when something is "capable of repetition yet evading review"

you need:

1. the EVENT lasts not as long as the litigation proces AND
2. It could happen to the same plaintiff again.

Front 4

So what is the distinction when we say something is not jsuticiable?

Back 4

We say that the court lacks SMJ on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds. Not by statute. - the decision of any court that does not have SMJ on const. grounds is VOID. Like it never happened.

Front 5

How can we have decisions determining SMJ in a court that doesn't have SMJ?

Back 5

A court ALWAYS has jurisdiction to o decide its jurisdiction.

Front 6

Texas Courts SMJ

What Jurisdiction to Texas District Courts Have?

Back 6

Texas Disrict Courts have general subject matter jurisdiction over everything. THe statute is pretty broad, but then there are tons of other statutes that strip away at that jurisdiction.

Front 7

What about courts beyond the district court?

Back 7

They are all courts of limited jurisdiction. They do not have jurisdiction unless a statute says so.

Front 8

What about when a statute gives a court besides the district court jurisdiction?

Back 8

The district court is divested of EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction but not of Original jurisdctoin.

Front 9

What is primary jurisdiction?

Back 9

Doctrine of abstention, whereby a court that has jurisdiction over a matter nonetheless defers to an administrative agency for an initial decision on questions of fact or law within the peculiar competence of the agency.

Front 10

ex. of primary jurisdiction:

: Must the DC abate the negligence trial pending a final decision by the Worker’s Comp Commission?

Back 10

On its face, the DC had dominant jurisdiction over this negligence claim. However, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the DC is supposed to wait until the Worker’s Comp Commission makes a determination as to coverage.

Front 11

What is the amount in controversy for Texas District Courts?

Back 11

There is no top end for the district courts.

on the low end it is either 200 or 500. TX SC says they don't know which one it is either.

Wren says it is 200 because the Justice Courts have exclusive for anything under 200.

Front 12

Amount in Controversy for Texas Jurisdiction

How must you plead the amount in controversy?

Back 12

Rule: What is pled is assumed to be true. However, a mere unfounded claim will not serve to place the case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the district court.

Pleadings must have a statement that the damages are within the jurisdictional limit of the county court. However, you cannot plead unliquidated damages amount (in place to avoid publicity)

But Defendant can file a special exception and force the plaintiff to ammend pleading with amount.

Front 13

Can parties aggregate their claims to meet the Amount in Controversy requirement?

Back 13

Yes. If two or more persons originally and properly join in one suit, the suit for jurisdictional purposes is treated as if one party is suing for the aggregate amount of all their claims added together, excluding interest and costs. This section does not prevent jurisdiction from attaching on any other ground.

Front 14

What if the plaintiff fails to state a jourisdictional amount in his pleadings?

Back 14

Rule: Failure of the plaintiff to state a jurisdictional amount in controversy in its petition, without more, will not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Unless the petition affirmatively demonstrates that no cause of action exists or that the plaintiff’s recovery is barred, the plaintiff must be given an opportunity to amend before granting a motion to dismiss or sum jud

As long as plaintiff doesn't plead himself out of court on the AIC requirement, he is OK. He must be given the oportunity to ammend his petition.

Front 15

What if a plaintiff met the AIC in a lower tex court by pleading up to the AIC, but then ammends her pleadings to go above the AIC?

Back 15

It has to be due to the passage of time - will divest if it is not due to the passage of time.

Front 16

Does the aggregation rule apply to defendants?

Back 16

Counterclaims must independantly establish their own SMJ.

Rule: Counterclaims may not be aggregated under TGC 24.009. So each D has SMJ = ex. 100k X 3 defendants = OK.

Rule: A counterclaim, whether permissive or compulsory, must be within the court’s jurisdiction. A counterclaim is not within the court’s jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeds the maximum jurisdictional limit of the court.

(4) Smith v. Clary Corp.:
(a) Aggregate AIC of multiple properly joined πs (Gov’t code 24.009)
(b) Each counterclaim must satisfy the AIC individually (within max)
(c) A court can exercise jdx over counterclaims BELOW jdx limits
(d) But, do not aggregate the counterclaims of multiple Δs

Front 17

What if the plaintff is non suited and the defendant fails to meet the minimum AIC?

Back 17

A prudential decision will be made and according to the case, the defendant will not be lacking in SMJ if he cannot meet the jurisdictional requirements.

Rule: Compulsory counterclaims raise an exception. Where a court by the plaintiff’s pleading obtains jurisdiction over the case, a defendant may assert a compulsory counterclaim in an amount that is below the minimum jurisdiction of the court where the case is filed.



Rule: Once the plaintiff properly invokes the jurisdiction of the district court, dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim does not deprive the court of jurisdiction of the compulsory counterclaim.

Front 18

Back to Pol Qu and Eclesiastical SMJ

Back 18

When you do IRAC and the R is a religions doctrine or rule, there is not SMJ based on the seperation of church and state

The court will also not hear political questions. only a list of cases. no real doctrine. The court will refuse to question an act assigned by the court to another branch of government.

Front 19

Back to Texas Court SMJ

What does the constitution require?

Back 19

That each COunty have a county court.

Front 20

How is the amount in controversy determined in TX courts?

Back 20

By the amount pled in good faith.

Front 21

PROBATE COURTS

How is probate jurisdction established in TX

Back 21

1. TPC § 5(b) → No SPC or SCC = CCC
2. TPC § 5(c) → No SPC, but SCC = CCC and SCC
3. TPC § 5(d) → SPC = SPC

Front 22

Is the authroity to issue an injunction free standing?

Back 22

NO. Must establish jurisdiction over the case first, then issue an injunction. If you do not have jurisdiction over the case, then you can't issue an injunction over it.

Front 23

Does the establishement of jurisdiction satisfy venue?

Back 23

NO.

ex. Hidalgo county has exclusive jurisdiction over a probate matter. can they join a wrongful death claim?

not if they don't have venue.

Front 24

What is dominant jurisdiction?

Back 24

deciding between 2 courts that have jurisdiction. THe court where the case was filed first filed. BUT remember = dominant jurisdiction presuposes that we have 2 proper courts. in the Hidalgo case, we did not have 2 proper courts

Front 25

What is the general monetary jurisdiction of statutory county courts?

Back 25

From $500 to $100,000. (TGC § 25.0003, concurrent with district courts) But HB79 will raise it to 200k

Front 26

Can each county set its own monetary limits?

Back 26

Yes – “If a provision of this subchapter conflicts with a specific provision for a particular court or county, the specific provision controls.” (TGC § 25.0001) For example, Dallas County has no monetary limit. Tarrant County has the same limits as the default.

Front 27

Do statutory county courts have appellate jurisdiction?

Back 27

Yes.

Front 28

Who has the default jurisdiction?

Back 28

Note: District Court has the default jurisdiction. If exclusive jurisdiction is not expressly placed in another court, go to the District Court.

Front 29

What is the difference between a statutory county court and a statutory probate court?

Back 29

A statutory county court can only exercise probate jurisdiction if there is no statutory probate court in the county. Statutory county courts do not have the same probate jurisdiction as statutory probate courts.

If an estate is pending in a probate court, it has dom. jdx over subseq.-filed suits “incident to” that estate.

viii) Matters Incident to an Estate:
(1) General:
(a) probate wills,
(b) issue letters testamentary,
(c) determination of heirship,
(d) claims by or against the estate,
(e) trial of title to land,
(f) enforcement of liens,
(g) right of property,
(h) construction of wills,
(i) “all matters relating to the settlement, partition, and distribution of estates”

Front 30

Can an SPC snatch a case?

Back 30

(4) “Reach out and grab it” power: This power is unique to statutory probate courts – can take a case pending in another court and transfer it to the SPC if the case is incident to an estate pending in the SPC or involves a cause of action in which a PR is a party
(a) Limitation: venue must be proper in the SPC
(b) If the interest of the estate or the PR is too attenuated, this will not support the reach out and grab it power

Front 31

what are matters "incident to an estate?"

Back 31

Rule: Matters “incident to an estate” are those in which the controlling issue is the settlement, partition, or distribution of an estate.

Front 32

Hypo: Wrongful death claim can potentially be brought in two counties. Plaintiffs sue in County A. Defendant dies, so that an estate is opened for the Defendant in County B. Could the SPC in County B say, “I think I would like to have that WD case. I’ll reach out and take it”?

Back 32

As long as venue is proper, the SPC can reach out and take it (on its own motion or motion of party).

Front 33

What is the jurisdiction of the constitutional justice courts?

Back 33

They have original jurisdiction in criminal matters of misdemeanor cases punishable by fine only, exclusive jurisdiction in civil matters where the amount in controversy is two hundred dollars or less, and such other jurisdiction as may be provided by law. (Tex. Const. art. 5, §19)

Front 34

What is the effect of adjudication in a lower court?

Back 34

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. 31.004: A lower court’s determination is not res judicata except as to those issues already heard and decided.

meaning: If you could have litigated it in the lower court, but you did not, that does not matter. It is not res judicata.

A. If the claims are distinct and require different proof of damages, even if the damages will be the same, that is not res judicata.

Only bars SPECIFIC COA that was tried in lower court. Not all of the COAs that COULD HAVE BEEN brought based on those facts (Claim).

Front 35

SMJ IN FEDERAL COURT

Federal Question Jurisdiction.
What constitutes a "federal question"

Back 35

18 U.S.C. § 1331: “A civil action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the U.S.”


Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule: Federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Front 36

If a plaintiff sees that a federal question will arise based on the defendant's defense is that a federal question?

Back 36

An element of the plaintiff’s cause of action must turn on a federal question.

A defense is not part of a plaintiff’s properly pleaded statement of his or her claim.

You can’t just “anticipate” a federal defense to get federal question jurisdiction.

Front 37

How do you "arise under" the consitution of the United States?

Back 37

2 ways under 1331

1. Federal Law creates the COA being pressed . (99%)

2. GRABLE WAY-

Rule: The federal court has federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim if it :
• necessarily states a federal issue
• actually disputed and substantial
• which the federal forum may hear without disturbing the federal/state balance

In Grable the court said:

Former landowner brought an action to quiet title in state court against a tax sale purchaser, alleging the IRS had given him inadequate notice of sale (under the Tax Code). Defendant removed to DC.

Court: The meaning of a fed. tax provision is an important federal law issue that belongs in fed. court

Front 38

Who grants the federal courts power to hear cases?

Back 38

Congress. DC Constitutional Power lies dormant until it is granted by congress. Congress grants SMJ under 1331 and 1332.

Front 39

Motley says:

Back 39

if you see a fed COA its a slam dunk.

less hatn one percent of cases are a state COA with a fed issue as an element of that COA

Front 40

What must a FED element be in a state claim to give 1331 Jursd.?

Back 40

Must be Necessary and Disputed

Front 41

Merril Dow

Back 41

THe fed q was disputed, but it wasn't necessary becasue the COA was one out of 6 and the clim coud be decided on other grounds.

Front 42

What is complete preeemption?

Back 42

when fed law preeempts state law, for example collective bargaining agreements.

Artful Pleading Doctrine: A plaintiff may not defeat federal jurisdiction by omitting to plead necessary federal questions.

Can't do this if area of law is preempted by fed law.

but remeber not all fed COA premept state coas (ex. title 7 does not prempt all state discr. claims)

Front 43

What happens in a declaratory judgement action?

Back 43

The court hypothesises what the COA would be if the plaintff had brought it to determine whether it has SMJ (this is the case if the D asks for a dec judgment).

Front 44

DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP

1331 abc and 13332d

Back 44

Used to require complete diversity of citizenship.

Now in class actions, 1332d only requires minimal diversity. as long as one party on each side is diverse form another party, everyone has diversity for fed jurisdictional purposes.

Front 45

What is complete diversity of citizenship?

Can a claim be removed if a D is a citizen of the forum state?

Back 45

where no party on a side shares diversity with anyone on the other side.

i) Diversity and Alienage Jurisdiction: §1332
(1) Note: Can’t remove under § 1441 if any Δ is a citizen of the forum state

Front 46

How many different kinds of "persons" does fed law recognize?

Back 46

2 : natural persons and corporations.

Front 47

How do we determine the citizenship of a non-corp entity?

Back 47

The entity shares citizenship with ALL of their members.

Front 48

What is the general requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction?

Back 48

Complete diversity + $75,000 amount in controversy. Is this a constitutional requirement? No. It’s a statutory requirement. Article III of the Constitution requires only minimal diversity (diversity of citizenship between two or more claimants) – complete diversity is a creature of statute/common law.

Front 49

With regard to class actions, what are the requirements for diversity jurisdiction?

Back 49

$5,000,000 minimum amount in controversy and minimal diversity.

Front 50

With regard to interpleader actions, what are the requirements for diversity jurisdiction?

Back 50

$500 minimum amount in controversy plus minimal diversity.

Front 51

Is complete diversity a constitutional requirement?

Back 51

No

Front 52

What is the test for determining a corporation’s citizenship?

Back 52

For jurisdiction purposes, a corp is a citz of two places.

It’s either the principal place of business or the state of incorporation (§1332(c)). This wasn’t always the rule. It has evolved over time.

Front 53

What about unincorporated entities (i.e. LPs)?

Back 53

This court adhered to the general rule that diversity jurisdiction in a suit by or against the entity depends on the citizenship of all the members. The court said that changing this rule is the province of the legislature.

Front 54

Gas seller and parent (Delaware corp.) brought action against buyer (Kansas corp. with principal place of business in Colorado) in Colorado DC to recover for breach of contract. Gas seller assigned contract to an LP and added the LP as a plaintiff. Limited partners included citizens of Kansas and Colorado.

Did the assignment of the contract to the LP destroy jurisdiction?

Back 54

No! Diversity is determined at the time of filing. Why is this the rule? Litigation takes time. If this were not the rule, it would have a chilling effect on business transactions.

Front 55

How is human citizenship determined?

Back 55

1. To be a citizen of a State, one must
a. Be a United States citizen; and
b. Be domiciled in the United States
i. Init. domicile = birthstate; New domicile = resides + intent to remain indefinitely
ii. Until you meet req’s to change domicile, you keep the old one.

c. OR be deemed a citizen of a State by statute (e.g. § 1332(a)):
i. Permanent Resident Aliens: “An alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such an alien is domiciled.”

ii. A deeming provision gives the person dual citizenship: (e.g. alien and State citizen)

2. One is an alien if they are a citizen or subject of a foreign state.

3. One is a citizen of ‘Nowhere” (an “Elizabeth Taylor”) if he is:
a. A United States citizen; and
b. Domiciled outside of the United States
c. Note: always destroys diversity, they do not satisfy any prong of § 1332

4. In class actions, only citizenship of the named class representatives counts

Front 56

What is the process for Federal SMJ determination?

At what state of the proceedings do we look for citizenship?

Back 56

(2) Alienage and Citizenship Basic Process: (of § 1332)
(a) Check Amount in Controversy:
(i) Must exceed $75,000 (as of 1/1/2008, subject to change)
(ii) Incl. comp. dmgs, punitive dmgs, and statutory att’y’s fees
(iii) Does not include interest or costs

(iv) If Π files in federal court:
1. Good faith pleading controls. We presume Π can recover what she pleads:
2. To remand b/c of AIC, Δ must prove to a legal certainty that Π can’t recover more than the jdxal amt ($75,000)

(v) If Π files in state court and Δ wants to remove:
1. Generally, state court rules forbid pleading of AIC
2. So Δ must prove AIC by a preponderance of the evidence

(vi) Aggregation (to meet the AIC req via multiple claims):
1. Aggregate AIC for claims by a single Π against a single Δ, even unrelated.
2. Do not aggregate counterclaims.
3. Do not aggregate claims by multiple Π’s.
a. UNLESS Πs seek to vindicate a joint and undivided interest


Fed SMJ is determined at the time the complaint is filed. Based on the facts at that time.

Front 57

what if a later adeed party is non diverse?

Back 57

As ageneral rule, later added parties will not destroy citizenship. (as long as later added party is indispensible).

Front 58

Texas LP with two Mexican citizens as members brought a diversity BOK action against a Mexican corporation. Following removal of the Mexican citizens from partnership, a jury trial was held, and a verdict was reached for the LP. what gives?

Back 58

District Court then granted corporation’s motion to dismiss for lack of SMJ.

Originally, these parties were non-diverse. They didn’t realize this fact until later. Before trial, the two non-diverse Mexican citizens of the Texas LP dropped out of the LP. The Texas LP then argued that jurisdiction was cured.

Front 59

what is the exception to curing a defect in diversity after the time of filing?

Back 59

Rule: A defect in diversity jurisdiction that exists at the time of filing may be cured in one situation – If a dispensable non-diverse party drops out of the case and no one brings it up. Otherwise, diversity is determined at the time of filing.

Front 60

AIC - When is amount in controversy determined?

Issue: When a plaintiff amends his complaint, such that the amount in controversy is below the jurisdictional limit, is diversity destroyed?

Back 60

Rules:
1. The sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.

2. It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.

3. The inability of the plaintiff to recover an amount adequate to give the court jurisdiction does not show his bad faith or oust the jurisdiction. But if, from the face of the pleadings, it is apparent, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount claimed or if, from the proofs, the court is satisfied to a like certainty that the plaintiff never was entitled to recover that amount, and his claim was therefore colorable for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, the suit will be dismissed.


So the general rule is: Look to the original petition. Subsequent events will not defeat jurisdiction which has already attached

Front 61

So what is the general rule?

Back 61

So the general rule is: Look to the original petition. Subsequent events will not defeat jurisdiction which has already attached.

Front 62

What is the rule for determining the amount of controversy in declaratory judgment actions?

Back 62

The amount in controversy is “the value of the right to be protected, or the extent of the injury to be prevented.” In other words, what amount could the insurance company potentially lose?

Front 63

OUT OF PLACE

caterpillar exception to diversity determined at time of filing

Back 63

If
1. an action is filed or removed and citz is not met
2. the defect is cured befor a verdict is rendered
3. no one (judge or parties) has raised the issue until after a jury verict has been rendered. then the post time of filing lack of citz is cured.

GEneral limiting rule: if at any point prior to the verdict or ruling the issue is raised, the court must apply the general rule and dismiss regaflessof subsequent changes in citizenship.

Front 64

is there aggregation for AIC in federal court?

Back 64

Rule: For purposes of satisfying the amount in controversy requirements, there is no aggregating statute in federal court.

Front 65

EFFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION

STATE

Back 65

Vale v. Ryan
Plaintiff brought an action in state court after dismissal of her claims from federal court.

TCPRC § 16.064: Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction
(a) The period between the date of filing an action in a trial court and the date of a second filing of the same action in a different court suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations for the period if:
(1) because of lack of jurisdiction in the trial court where the action
was first filed, the action is dismissed or the judgment is set aside
or annulled in a direct proceeding; and
(2) not later than the 60th day after the date the dismissal or other
disposition becomes final, the action is commenced in a court of proper
jurisdiction.
(b) This section does not apply if the adverse party has shown in abatement that the first filing was made with intentional disregard of proper jurisdiction.

Front 66

EFFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION

FED

Back 66

Rule: For purposes of 16.064, a federal court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction over a pendent state claim (“as a matter of judicial discretion”) is tantamount to a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. A litigant who chooses the federal forum in good faith should not suffer a penalty merely for having made that selection!

Note: Defendant argued that because Vale didn’t file her state court action within 60 days of the federal district court’s dismissal, she missed her chance. But this court says – The plaintiff’s 60-day time period did not start running until the appellate court’s dismissal of the pendent claims. Understand this distinction!!

Front 67

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

What is supplemental jurisdiction?

Back 67

28 U.S.C. 1367: Where the district court has original jurisdiction, it has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related that they form the same case or controversy.

Front 68

What type of Federal Jurisdiction is covered by supplemental jurisdiciton?

Back 68

(2) Requirements of § 1367(a): It grants federal jdx to the constitutional limit
(a) A civil action – not criminal

(b) A jurisdictional hook – claim by Π over which the court has original jdx
(i) Contamination: Incomplete diversity destroys original diversity jdx of all claims.
1. i.e. you cannot have a jdxal hook based on diversity unless there is complete diversity and at least one claim meeting the AIC requirement.
2. e.g. Π(TX) v. Δ(OK), state claim, $100k AIC. Can’t add a supplemental claim by Π(OK) b/c it would contaminate the jurisdictional hook.

(c) A non-federal claim – one over which the courts would otherwise not have jdx
(i) Note: Don’t forget aggregation of diversity claims rules for satisfying § 1332.

(d) “Gibbs”-related – part of the same constitutional “case or controversy,” Transaction/occurrence req
(i) Common nucleus of operative fact
(ii) Claims ordinarily expected to be litigated in a single proceeding

(e) NOT carved-out under § 1367(b)

(f) NOTE: § 1367(a) explicitly grants jdx over claims that involve additional parties.

Front 69

What does arising under the same case or controversy require?

Back 69

1. You have to have a jurisdictional hook. A claim or controversy that already has jurisdiciton.

2. Same case or controversy - does it arise out of the same facts? Same nuceus of operative facts?

3. Not subject to any of the exceptions.

Front 70

What do the 1367 exceptions to supp in div cases mean?

Back 70

Remember that the exceptions only apply in cases based on DIV!!

Think of it this way. No jurisdiciton on claims that the ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF WOULD ASSERT.

and second part claims by two other kinds of plaintiffs
1. claims by Plaintiffs required to be joined and
2. plaintiffs seeking to intervene

Front 71

What does 1367c do?

Back 71

gives the court discretion not to exercise jurisdiction under the general rule when:
1. the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law
2.the state claim substantially predominates over the federal claim
3. the district court has dismissed all federal claims
4. other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction

Front 72

What does Exxon say?

When one plaintff makes the AIC but another doesn't, can they exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim?

Back 72

Yes you can do this only for AIC not for diversity.

YOU STILL NEED COMPLETE DIVERSITY ON EACH SIDE. BETWEEN ALL PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS. IF DEFENDANTS ARE SUING EACH OTHER AND NO BAR UNDER 1367 THEN YOU CAN HAVE NON DIVERSE PARTIES SUING EACH OTHER (ONLYON ONE SIDE).

Front 73

PERSONAL JURISDICITION

What is the starting point for personal jurisdction?

Back 73

Do MINIMUM CONTACTS exist with the forum state, such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant comports with the due process clause? The exercise of PJ must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Front 74

What are the two types of jurisdction in the presenCe analysis?

Back 74

Specific and general.

Front 75

What are purposful contacts?

Back 75

an act
1. by the deendant himself
2. that proximately results in a SUBSTANTIAL CONTACT ith the forum state.

Front 76

What is the minimum contacts test in texas for a product that is placed in the stream of commerce?

Back 76

In fed courts in Texas, it is stream of commerce plus.

What is stream of commerce plus?

putting something in the stream of commerce and then doing something extra. like modifying a product, advertising, etc.

Front 77

JUrisdiciton from the revell case

What is general and specific in regard to websites?

Back 77

• General Jurisdiction requires a finding of substantial, continuous and systematic contacts.
• “passive” website – one that merely allows the owner to post information on the internet is not sufficient to establish PJ
• interactive website: who owners engage in repeated online contacts with the forum residents over the internet, and in these cases PJ may be proper.
• in this case, though the maintenance of the website is, in a sense, a continuous presence everywhere in the world, the cited contacts of Columbia with TX are not in any way substantial.
• Specific Jurisdiction requires looking at the specific contact in question from which the c/a arises to determine whether the one isolated contact is enough to grant PJ
• Effects Test for Specific Jurisdiction - look at whether the forum State was the focal point of both the story and of the harm suffered
• in this case, the article written contains no reference to TX, does not refer to TX activities of Revell, not directed at TX readers, and TX was not the focal point of the article or the harm suffered.
• 5th Cir says we don’t use Zippo to determine general jurisdiction but its ok for specific jurisdiction.

Front 78

How do we deal with Internet companies? There are three basic situations (Zippo test): only for specific jurisdicion in the 5th circuit

Back 78

1. Defendant clearly does business over the internet by entering into contracts with residents of the other state which “involve a knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet.”
a. In this case, PJ is proper.
2. Defendant merely establishes a passive website that is nothing more than advertising on the Internet.
a. In this case, PJ is improper.
3. Defendant has a website that allows a user to exchange information with a host computer.
a. In this case, “the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the website.”

Front 79

How do you show jurisdiction for multiple claims?

Back 79

if it’s a specific jurisdiction inquiry → you need to show sufficient contacts for each claim

if its general jurisdiction → shows sufficient contacts in the aggregate

Front 80

What is the deal with jurisdiciton fo parent companies?

Back 80

Acts of a subsidiary can be construed as acts of the parent → appears to be the same alter-ego analysis from PHC-Minden and controls both general and specific jurisdiction

Front 81

SPECIFIC JURISDICTION

Specific Jurisdiction vs. General Jurisdiction

Back 81

• specific jurisdiction:
o when asserted, the cause of action must arise out of or relate to the nonresident D’s contact with the forum state in order to satisfy the minimum contacts requirements.
o However, the contact must have resulted form the nonresident D’s purposeful conduct and not the unilateral activity of the Ps or others
o the minimum contacts analysis focuses on the relationship among the D, the forum and the litigation

• general jurisdiction
o may be asserted when the c/a does not arise from or relate to the nonresident D’s purposeful conduct within the forum state but there are continuous and systematic contacts between the nonresident D and the forum state
o the minimum contacts analysis is more demanding and requires a showing of substantial activities in the forum state

Front 82

Quality vs. Quantity

Back 82

Not concerned with quantity for continuous/systematic purpose of general jurisdiction → we’re concerned with quality, was there purposeful availment? or have they taken steps to avoid benefits of a certain state?

Front 83

MOKI MAC TEST - be careful how you pitch your case

Back 83

• purposeful availment – Prong 1
o a nonresident who places products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be sold in the forum state is subject to the forum’s jurisdiction
o the facts alleged must indicate that the seller intended to serve the TX market
o look to conduct beyond the particular business transaction at issue: additional conduct of the D may indicate an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum state

• relatedness requirement – Prong 2 (different tests)
o but-for relatedness: a cause of action arises from or relates to a D’s forum contacts when, but for those contacts, the c/a would never have arisen; considers jurisdictional contacts that occur over the entire course of events of the relationship between the D, the forum and the litigation (TX says “too broad”)
o proximate cause: requires the D’s conduct to be both the cause in fact and the foreseeable cause of injury; the purposeful contract that is a proximate cause of injury is an essential liability element and is thus substantively relevant to a P’s claim of harm (TX says “too strict)
o sliding scale: examines the relationship between forum contacts and the litigation along a continuum. As the extent of forum contacts goes up, the degree of relatedness to the litigation necessary to establish specific jurisdiction goes down, and vice versa. (TX says “this approach blurs the distinction between general and specific jurisdiction that our judicial system has firmly embraced)
o SUBSTANTIAL CONNECTION TO OPERATIVE FACTS: specific jurisdiction’s relatedness element does not require that the c’a formally arise from D’s contacts with the forum but instead requires that the c/a, of whatever type, have a substantial connection with the D’s instate activities. (TX TAKES THIS ONE)
o TX rule: for a nonresident D’s forum contacts to support an exercise of specific jurisdiction, there must be a substantial connection between those contacts and the operative facts of the litigation

Be able to explain the difference between substantive relevance/proximate cause test and the substantial connection to operative facts test that we use in TX!

P’s attempts need to avoid going to day of event – use the negligence on the company in hiring, the business making a decision to misrepresent safety standards from the company in the brochures → now we might have the connection between the misleading action and the harm we need for PJ

Front 84

Long Arm Statute Analysis

Back 84

1. ID long arm statute
-in fed it is long arm of the state the fed court is sitting in (some fed COAs have own LA statutes)
2. Does long arm statute authorize excersize of Jurisdiction?
3. are you exercising jurisdiction consistent with DP clause?
--tx sets out scenarios, but it means to excersise to the fullest extent of DP


in many cases #2 is answered by #3

Front 85

Burden shifting with regrd to PJ

Back 85

iii) Burdens:
(1) Texas:
(a) Must adequately plead TJ/Contacts: Hotel Partners v. KPMG Peat Marwick
(i) Π has the burden of pleading the elements of general or specific jurisdiction

(b) Δ then has the burden to refute/negate all asserted bases of TJ in π’s pleadings.
(i) e.g. π pleads general jdx, Δ must prove no contacts, or not continuous/systematic.

(c) If π does not plead any facts or basis regarding contacts,
(i) Δ need only prove non-residence of the forum state (Seiferth)
(ii) General allegation that TJ exists can be overcome by Δ showing non-residence

(d) If π pleads contacts,
(i) Δ has to show why those contacts don’t give rise to TJ

(2) Federal:
(a) Π has the burden of proving TJ over Δ.

Front 86

OUT OF PLACE CARDS

What if a plaintff pleasd a COA within jurisdictional limtis, but then ammends his pleadings to assert a new COA that is outside the jourisdicitonal limits?

Back 86

(5) Continental Coffee Products Co. v. Cazarez:
(a) If AIC at the time of filing is w/in jdx limits, an amendment that increases AIC outside court’s jdx limit will not destroy jdx if the increase is due to the passage of time
(b) W/o evidence of bad faith in π’s dmg pleading, any evid that dmgs increase was due to passage of time will support continued jdx

(7) Garza v. Chavarria, 155 S.W.3d 252 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2004)
(a) if new COAs in amended petition exceed jdx limit, TC retains jdx of ONLY the original COA
(b) but if we find that AIC has ALWAYS exceeded jdx limits, jdx never attached, and we must dismiss

Front 87

OUT OF PLACE

When does Fed SMJ attach?

Back 87

ii) Fed. SMJ is determined by the state of things at the time of filing the action
iii) Fed. SMJ, once attached, is not divested by subseq. events.
(1) Conversely, if SMJ does not exist at filing, it cannot be created by subseq. events.

(2) But, amending pleadings is not an “event” that won’t affect jdx.
(3) Amendment to add a non-diverse party can destroy diversity jdx