Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Civil Procedure - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Requires that: 1) the defendant is present in the forum state at the time of service 2) is domiciled in the forum state 3) has given express or implied consent to the jurisdiction; or 4) meets the requirements of the forum state's long arm statute.
      - An unlimited long arm statute authorizes jurisdiction over any person or property to the extent that is constitutionally permissible. A limited long arm statute specifies in detail the situations in which their courts can exercise personal jurisdiction (e.g., a typical limited long arm statute will authorize the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant when he commits a tort that causes injury within the jurisdiction).
      - For jurisdiction to be valid under a state’s long arm statute, the Due Process Clause requires that notice of the pending action be provided. In addition to the requirement that the defendant have such minimum contacts with the forum to render the exercise of jurisdiction there fair and reasonable, federal due process also requires that a reasonable method be used to notify the defendant of a pending lawsuit so that she may have an opportunity to appear and be heard. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 4) and state statutes require service using particular methods so that the defendant is notified of the suit, they do not replace the federal constitutional requirement that notice be provided for jurisdiction to be valid. To be constitutional, the method used for service, even if authorized by a federal rule or state statute, must be reasonably calculated to notify the defendant of the pending lawsuit
    - - Contacts between D and forum state
        
        Purposeful Availment: voluntary act which means that D must have reached out to the forum, and the contact must result from targeting that forum. Actual physical presence not required.
        
        Foreseeability: is it foreseeable that the Defendant could be sued in the forum?
      - Relatedness: does plaintiff's claim arise from or relate to DEfendant's contact with the forum?
        
        TEST: Whether Plaintiff's claim against Defendant "arise out of or relates to" defendant's contact with the forum. It clearly arises out of the contact if Defendant's contact caused the harm to Plaintiff
        
        If yes, the case involves specific PJ-->go to fairness prong
        
        If no, the case involves general PJ: D can be sued in the forum on a claim that arose anywhere in the world. Must be at home-->where domiciled
      - Fairness
        
        State's interest: the forum state may want to provide a courtroom for its citizens who are allegedly being harmed by out of state defendants.
        
        Plaintiff's interest: the plaintiff is maybe injured in the forum state and/or wants to sue at home
        
        Burden on the defendant and witness: even if it's hard for the defendant to travel to the forum and to get her witnesses to the forum, the forum is constitutionally OK unless the defendant can show that it puts her at a severe disadvantage in the litigation. This is a difficult burden to meet.
        
        The interstate judicial system's interest in efficiency; and
        
        The shared interest of the states in furthering social policies.
- - - - 1) Case 1 needed in final judgment on the merits 2) the same issue was actually litigated and determined in case 1 3) issue was essential to judgment in case 1 4) is issue preclusion being asserted against somebody who was a party to case 1? 5) is it being asserted by someone who was not a party in case 1? 5) nonmutual offensive: the person using preclusion was not a party in case 1 and is the plaintiff in case 2
      - Issue preclusion can only be used against previous party
    - - Generally, a claimant is required to assert all causes of action arising out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the claim. In the situation of installment payments, the claimant is required to sue on all installments due at the time of the suit. If there is an acceleration clause, the claimant must sue for all installments.
      - 1) Same plaintiff vs. same defendant 2) final judgment on the merits (unless the court said that judgment was without prejudice when it was entered, any judgment is deemed on the merits unless based n lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join an indispensable party) 3) must be asserting the same claim: same transaction or occurrence. Minority view: separate claims for perosnal injury and property damage.
      - Compulsory counterclaim rule: not claim preclusion but gets case dismissed because should not have been raised.