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;
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.
|
