Civil Procedure !
Jurisdiction
A) Personal Jurisdiction
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Erie Doctrine
Joinder
1) Constitutional Limits
General
a) Origins; the old rule
Pennoyer v. Neff
Rule: grab the person or grab the property b/f the lawsuit begins
b) Evolution of the tests, culminating in the current test
c) Changes to In Rem jx
A) Joinder of Claims
Generally, FRCP 18
2) By defendant
1) By Plaintiff
B) Joinder of Parties
FRCP 19
FRCP 20
1) By plaintiffs
2) By defendants: third party claims
3) Complex Litigation
4) Compulsory Joinder
FRCP 13
C) Intervenor
FRCP 24(a)
D) Interpleader
d) Development of the modern rule: types of prsn jx
1) Specific jx
2) Gen jx
3) Transient Jx
2) Long-Arm Statutes
3) Can a D consent to jx?
4) Other matteres rel to prsn jx
a) Venue
---28 USC 1391
b) Forum non Conveniens
(situation where there's a foriegn D)
Sec 1404
c) Transfer
5) The notice req
(FRCP 4 deals w/ service)
1) Two Types of original jx
a) Fed question:
An issues based on US con or a fed law (ex. stats, reg, treaties, exec orders_
b) Diversity:
----You must have citizens of different states on both sides of the "v."
---The amount in controversy EXCEEDS 75K.
2) Supplemental Jx
(28 USC 1367)
3) Removal
Framework for P jx
1) Does the long arm apply
Framework for Sub jx
click to edit
2) is there constitutional jx (general, prsn, tras)
Prsnal jx is based on Due process clauses in 5th and 14th ammend
Orig jx is based on Art. 3 of con
Based on DP clauses
Remember that when you ana for prsn jx, you ana for D, b/c D would be making motion to dismiss.
Two part test:
1) Long arm (in state where suit is taking place) must apply; and
2) Jx must be constitutional through either transient, specific, or general.
Grab prsn=serving process while D is in forum.
---This part still exists under trans jx.
Grab prop was attaching prop b/f lawsuit exists.
---This part is no longer good law
Four part test:
1) State needs an interest
2)Reasonableness
3) Purposful Availment=intent
4) Arising out of
Interest can be met by any factual connection.
----low bar
----only time when no allowed is when there is zero factual connection
Resonableness= can you physically get there.
---Note: this is a stupidly low standard. Almost always satisfied.
Purposeful availment
Must be some intentional act directed at the state by D
Intentional activity could even be as a simple as driving through the state
Note: This is not a question of forseeablilty, so stuff like stream of commerce theory no matter.
click to edit
Arising Out of=D's conduct arises out of activity in the forum
Rule; there must be continuous and systematic contacts for D to have gen jx.
For an individual, where they are domiciled always equals gen jx.
Note: Unless you spend equal amount of time in multiple places, you can only be domiciled in 1 place.
Rule: Jx exists when D served w/ process while physically present in the state.
For corporations, domicile exists anywhere where they have continuous and systematic contacts.
These are statutes that restrict f personal jx.
Often, LA stats are just up to constitutional limits.
If D is sued in a place, and is sued in place b/c she signed K saying she'd be sued there, then con jx. is met
This is called a "choice of forum" clause
Note: for suit to continue, the long arm still has to apply.
Under Rule 12, improper venue can get case dismissed
Venue is proper when:
1) if all D's are from same state and suit is in that state or
2) jx is good where sub amount of events arise out of.
3) If neither of the first apply, Venue proper anywhere where any D is subject to jurisdiction.
Based on 28 USC 1040
Changing venue is done based on motion, consent, or stipulation
Suit can be transferred to any fed district ct. anywhere in the US.
D could arg venue not proper or that: even if venue is proper, but due to convenience reasons based on witnesses, evidence, forum should be somewhere else
Rule: Notice has to be proper or case is dismissed
Notice you have to give is proportional to how much information you have.
Ex. if you don't have name or address, then notice in a newspaper may be sufficient.
No jx minimum
Fed issues must be pleaded in the complaint (can't be anticipated as a defense.
Ex. of no diversity if 4 Virginia P's and one NY P's vs. 5 Maine D's and 1 Virginia P's.
Single P w/ two or more unrelated claims against a single D may aggregate claims to real 75K threshold
If two P's, each needs claim over 75K. They can't combine in terms of math.
Citizenship is limited
For individuals, we look at domicile.
---If US, then we look at state
For Partnerships, we break partnership and look at where each is in.
For corporations: there are two residences:
1) State it's incorporated and
2) principal place of business (think nerve center test).
Only comes up when there's a joinder
Is jx when new claim is being added that wouldn't have independent sub matter jx, then ct. can adjudicate it if arises out of same case
Exceptions:
1) No Supp If diversity is destroyed by P adding new, non-diverse D.
---Note: D can add a party even if it destroys jx. Only P is barred based on 28 USC 1367
2) part c: where based on ct.'s discretion based on four factions
1367(c) factors:
Taking case from state to federal ct. based on subject matter jurisdiction
Only proper if case could have been brought to fed ct's originally
Generally P can ad as many claims as they want per FRCP 18.
Remember, that if not all required parties are joined in case, the case can be dismissed by 12(b)(7)
Rule 42 allow ct to dismiss case based on their discretion
Counter is compulsory (Rule 12(a)) when claim arises out of the same trasaction or occurrence
No min amount needed
Counter is permissive when it doesn't arise out of the same same transaction or occurrence.
D's are incentized to counterclaim, b/c if CC is compulsory, then D can't bring that claim ltr on after suit is finished.
Supp no apply here, so sub jx has to be met the old fashioned way.
Impleader: third party can be joined by D if there is a legal connection. (FRCP 14)
Is not used to shift liability (not me but him). Rather, it's used to shift damages through contribution or indemnification.
Only case here is when someone on the outside that neither side has pulled in and they are pulled in b/c nobody is adequatetely representing that interest
Compulsory: When thr
There's a need to intervene, b/c they'll lose it right to sue ltr.
Permissive Intervenor
To get this you need:
1) prsn who has something they know isn't there's
2) they know who it might be and they bring them in suit to fight over it
Rule: Fed Ct will use their own procedural rules, but will use substantive laws of the states where it sits
Something is sub when it is state law.
Something is procedural if it is about the process
Three tests for sub vs proc
1) Purpose test: what is the purpose. If for procedural purpose, then use fed law
If the purpose of the law in question is to do something more than regulate procedure, then the issue is SUBSTANTIVE.
If the purpose of the law in question is to regulate procedure, then the issue is PROCEDURAL
2) Outcome Determinative: will the outcome effect the result of the test?
If yes, then the issue is substantive
If no, then the issue is procedural
Balancing Test
If there is NOT a strong federal interest in having federal law apply, and using federal law would lead to forum shopping and unequal administration of the laws, then state law should apply.
If there IS a strong federal interest that outweighs the concerns of forum shopping and unequal application of the laws, then federal law should apply.
Hometown Exception: D can't remove from st. to fed based on removal if D is already being sued in D's home state.
Specifically, venue could be moved for purposes of:
1) convenience for parties
2) convenience for witnesses; or
3) in the interest of justice (ie a fairer place for the case to be judged).
1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
Only applies to federal ct.'s, when they are adjudicating STATE LAW CLAIM.
Erie doesn't apply to Fed Question situations.
This is called Strawbridge diversity
SN: This only for diversity-only cases. If Fed question claim, then removal allowed.
Specifically where they are incorporated and where they have their nerve center (ex. administraive/executive offices)
SN: if you have multiple D's from different states, then you can't remove to either of their respective fed ct's.
To remove, the removing party must file a notice within 30 days. 28 USC 1446 (b)
The actual removal can happen at any point up to 1 year after the commencement of the suit.
If means of giving notice are reasonable under circumstances, then it doesn't matter if D receives the notice.
Note: some provisions of Rule 4 defer to local or international summons standards.
Factors that determine when intervention is required:
1) Interest must be timely
2) there must be interest in the suit
3) The interest must be at risk
4) the interest is not adequately represented in the case.
When not all are fulfilled, but some are, so judge may allow you to intervene.
Under this, the court has the discretion of whether to allow intervention or not. It creates a second option for a party that might not be able to meet all four requirement elements of 24(a).
Factors To Determine Timeliness:
(1) how long the applicant knew of his interest before making the motion;
(2) prejudice to the existing parties from any such delay;
(3) Prejudice to applicant if the motion is denied;
(4) other unusual circumstances.
Con basis in Art 3 Sec. 2;
Stat basis in 28 USC 1331
As many parties as they want, so long as they arise out of case or contra.
Generally, D can add as many counter/cross claims as they want per FRCP 13