I. (PJ) ANALYSIS — courts courts power over a 1. Long-Arm Statute — for for states it’s ―fulfilled‖ (federal uses this) Int’l Shoe constitutional due process analysis ―due process requires only that in order to subject a to a judgment in personam, if he be not present w/in the territory of the forum, he ha ve certain minimum contacts w/ it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play & substantial justice.‖ 2. Minimum Contacts = Purposeful availment ( (general general & specific-specific-relatedness); physical presence (domicile) in the state & a n intent to remain indefinitely 3. Whether maintenance of the lawsuit would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Factors 2 and 3 will outweigh a serious # 1. Burden on the --been to the forum before not likely inconvenient Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute -- citizen of the state/did the issue happen in that state? interest in obtaining convenient & effective re lief — ’s interest in obtaining convenient & effective relief Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies — where where is the evidence located? Shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies — is is there a conflict of state laws? A. Sufficient, Insufficient, Maybe Minimum Contacts Sufficient minimum contacts of purposeful availment: 11-13 employees [International Shoe] direct mailing sent to 1 customer w/ continuing obligations [McGee* compare a single transaction/event w/ this; how alike or different] 20 year business K [Burger King] Haggling over prices/negotiations [Burger King] Interactive website where you can fully enter into a K [Zippo] If operating as a director/officer of a co. in a given state, you are taking ―invoking the benefits & protections of the laws‖ & should be held accountable there [Justice Brennan in Shaffer] Likely exist over a manuf. & nat’l distributor [WW Volkswagen Corp.] *Single contact is not enough to give rise unless there are special circumstances Insufficient minimum contacts for purposeful availment ―The unilateral activity of who claims some relationship w/ a nonresident cannot satisfy the requirement of contact w/ the forum state. There must be some ac by which the purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities w/in the forum state, thus trust invoking the benefits & protections of its laws.‖ [Hanson — trust created in PA, moved to FL continued to make payments; Volkswagen = drove car to OK although purchased in NY] Having stock in a company unless lawsuit concerns the actual stock [Shaffer] Choice-of-law clause is relevant, but by itself, not enough. [Burger King] ―Mere purchases made in the forum state, even if occurring @ regular intervals, are not enough to warrant a State’s assertion of jurisdiction over a non-resident corp. in a cause of action not related to those purchase transactions.‖ [Helicopteros] Mere awareness/knowledge that your conduct would affect another state is not enough Maybe minimum contacts for purposeful availment stream-of-commerce [Asahi, Nicastro] Breaking or obstructing the law [Calder Effects Test — Reporter Reporter in FL wrote a defamatory article about an actress living & working in CA]
Sliding test for websites aka Zippo Test: purely informational = NO [Pavlovich]; somewhat interactive sites-degree of interactivity-email address only = NO, price quotes = more likely; highly interactive site Stream-of-commerce Analysis — no controlling test — no Mere awareness/foreseeability ―of a stream‖ enough for PJ not an eddy — Justice Justice Brennan [Asahi] Foreseeability plus test: designing a product specifically for the market in the forum state, advertising, establishing cust. serv. channels, marketing thru a dist. who has agreed to serves as the sales agent in the forum state —Justice O’Connor [Asahi], Justice Kennedy [Nicastro] Through regular course of dealing the volume, value, & ha zardous nature of the components — Justice Justice Stevens [Asahi] Single, isolated sale not enough — Justice Justice Breyer [Nicastro] Possible w/ just a few sales in the forum state where product causes a harmful injury — Justice Justice Ginsburg [Nicastro] Asahi — tire tread made by Japanese co./Taiwanese c o. on motorcycle; wife — tire died in accident. Nicastro-- injured by 1 of 4 metal-shearing machines manuf. in England by J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. **Stream-of-commerce cases usually don’t satisfy PJ [Goodyear bus case] Casual or B. General or Specific Jurisdiction No contacts = no PJ; Casual isolated = no PJ; Single act of special nature or quality = Specific; Substantial or pervasive = General GENERAL: Reynolds-- living in Philippines developed cancer abroad & submitted claim in WA; had extensive contacts w/ WA advertising, political lobbying, license license to do business, etc. Perkins — Philippine Philippine mining corp. ceased activities there during WW; conducted all business thereafter in OH; claim didn’t arise in OH, but only forum available. Burn ham — husband & wife getting a divorce; served in CA although husband lives in NJ. SPECIFIC: relatedness requirement; claim-by-claim analysis. [Burger King] C. Consent Voluntary; Domicile or citizenship; Pineapple Express tagging; Minimum contacts; choice-of-law, consent-to-jurisdiction; choice-offorum (establishes PJ and venue) 1. Bad faith — does does the location have ties to the parties or the transaction that took place 2. Whether there was appropriate notice 3. If it was done under fraud ―Forum selection clauses aren’t enforceable if they were not freely bargained for, create add’l expense for one one party, or deny one party a remedy.‖ [Justice Stevens-Carnival Cruise] courts power over a case II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction – courts A. Federal Questions Jurisdiction § 1 331 Article III § 1-- The judicial power of the US, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, & in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain & establish. Article III § 2-- The judicial power shall extend to a ll cases, in law & equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the US, and treaties…to controversies…b/t citizens of different states (i.e. DJ) 28 USC § 1332 (a, b, c)--a) grants DJ over diversity cases in where the amount-in-controversy is $75,000.01 or more exclusive of interest and costs and is b/t (1) citizens of different states… b) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state… c) Corporations have two states of citizenship — PPB PPB of and where they are incorporated. The [federal] district courts shall have original 28 USC § 1331 — The jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, Constitution, laws, or or treaties of the US
Having a federal question issue in a case doesn’t automatically give rise to federal question jurisdiction. Ex. TILA vs. libel case involving 1 st Amendment B. Diversity Jurisdiction § 1332 **Residence & citizenship are not synonymous Test for determining PPB-nerve center test — where headquarters is ―where — where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, & coordinate the corporation’s activities.‖ [Hertz Corp] *With multiple parties on either side of the v, everyone must be diverse [Strawbridge v. Curtiss]; Rules: alien v. alien = NO citizen, alien v. alien = NO citizen v. alien = YES citizen, alien v. citizen, alien = YES citizen, alien v. citizen = YES Aggregation of amount-in-controversy single and single w/ multiple claims = ALLOWED 1. multi parties on either side of v = usually cannot 2. Exception a common, undivided interest or multi & there is joint & several liability for $75,000.01 or more. If the claims are c ompletely unrelated, then aggregation is not allowed If you have ’s w/ the exact same claim, then one must meet $75,000.01 by themselves. Everyone else comes in under supplemental jurisdiction. = YES C. 28 U.S.C. § 1 367: Supplemental Jurisdiction a) grants supplemental jurisdiction; b) takes it away — 3 requirements § 1367(a) — the district court will have supplemental jurisdiction over — the these claims if they are so c losely related to the federal SMJ claim. This standard requires that you show a loose factual connection (very liberal) b/t the federal and state law claims. Does the claim arise from a common nucleus of operative fact? § 1367(b) — takes away supplemental jurisdiction in certain cases. — takes General rule of thumb: analyze it if the federal claim is based solely on DJ (§ 1332) if implementing supplemental jurisdiction is in conflict with DJ. Supplemental jurisdiction will not exist — Refer Refer back to §1332. (Repo §1332. (Repo man= takes away what section (a ) gives IF the federal claim is based on DJ). RULES 14, 19, 20 & 24 § 1367(c) — the federal district court has the discretion to refuse to — the hear the case if certain conditions exist. (novel or complex issues, claim substantially predominates over the claim which the district court has jurisdiction, has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, *If all claims have a commonality or resolving the federal claim will impact the other states claims the court will normally implement supplemental jurisdiction. = YES [ In re Ameriquest Mortgage Co.] D. Removal Jurisdiction §1441 and § 1446 1. As soon as a case triggers federal SMJ, you have 30 days to request any removal. This includes even after the case has already started. 2. Diversity removals Forum rule: if the is from the same state where the lawsuit is filed, then diversity removal will not be allowed. There is a 1-year clock running once the lawsuit is filed for diversity removals. Ex. Case starts out in state court, but there is a lack of diversity. o 3 years later one party settles and drops out so there is diversity. The 1-year clock has run out. Your 30 days are gone. **1-year time clock only runs on diversity removals — federal federal question removals do not clock. **If was acting in bad faith then the court can toll the 1-year clock. E. Misc. — SMJ SMJ and Venue do not have have to be analyzed on a by basis
**Merely bringing a suit in a particular jurisdiction does not act indefinitely to expose that party to defending a future suit in the same jurisdiction UNLESS: Factors to consider is the length of time b/t the complaints being filed and whether the party filing now as a part of the original suit that was filed. [Gibbons] **SMJ can be raised by either party or the court itself — cannot be waived Rule 12(b)(1) — Allows the court to dismiss for lack of SMJ [Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley] Rule 12(b)(6) — Motion to dismiss for failure to state a c laim. (what is being alleged is not illegal — Case cannot be refiled in that state court. Dismissal was based on the merits, i.e. no case exists. III. Venue — solely governed by statutes & is discretionary 28 U.S.C. § 1391 — defines where you reside for purposes of residency test i.e. where you are domiciled For corporations: based on where you have sufficient minimum contacts; district-by-district analysis for PJ For flesh and blood ’s—It’s where they reside 1391(d) — alien corporations are subject to suit where they do business AND any federal judicial district Three tests for venue: 1. Residency test — Wherever a single lives/resides; If there is more than one , all s have to reside in the same state 2. Transactional test — Anywhere where the incident took place 3. Fallback * test — Allows for venue to be appropriate where any has sufficient minimum contacts i.e. most likely in international events Federal district courts can transfer cases a mongst themselves; not states. § 1404 A. Forum Non Conveniens — can only be filed by ; court’s discretion standard for dismissal in forum non conveniens — used in federal foreign If there are administrative problems w/ the court being able to hear this case, then it can be moved. Maybe the court would have to apply a strange, or foreign law; Overwhelmed w/ cases; Burdensome to the court Excessively burdensome on the --where is the evidence/witnesses located? Cost?--’s agree to waive SOL ahead of time **Dismissal not allowed b/c law of one forum not economically viable IV. Erie The Rules of Decision Act, 2 8 U.S.C. §1652 “The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.‖— refers to state statutes; no federal common law V. Pleading Twombly standard — have to make a showing (outside of facts) that makes the claim plausible on it’s face (heightened pleading) Iqbal standard — 2 pronged approach 1. For 12(b)(6) motions the courts must assume that all allegations are 100% correct conclusory legal allegations are not treated this way 2. Only a claim that is plausible will survive the motion to dismiss Conley standard — almost anything short of a mere possibility would be allowed; can’t prove facts to support claim then it should be dismissed Rule 3 — complaint filed in court Rule 4 — 4(k)(1)(a) Gives the federal district courts the same long-arm statute the lower state courts use; 4(e)(2)(A): tagging; 4(e)(2)(C): Pineapple Express tagging exceptions didn’t get in mail or doesn’t speak English; 4(e)(2)(B): 1st class mail service — get 60 days to respond if waives service (90 days if foreign ) otherwise 21 days to respond;
Rule 8 — governs pleading; 8(a)(3) short & plain statement showing pleader entitled to relief; 8(a)(1) short & plain language regarding SMJ; 8(a)(3) prayer for relief being sought; 8(c) affirmative defenses must be raised in the answer3 or they will be waived; 8(b)(6) affirmative defenses are automatically treated as denied by the opposing party Three possible responses to a complaint: default, pre-answer motion, answer — answer must respond to all facts alleged; what does it require (broad view); what must a plead (narrow view) Pre-answer motion addresses only the issue that is problematic; has 21 days after this to serve the actual answer unless the case is not dismissed Answer provides the blueprint for the rest of litigation — can deny, admit, Rule 9(b) — fraud allegations must be plead w/ specificity Rule 11 Sanctions — 11(a) all documents have to be signed by an attorney that are being submitted before the c ourt; 11(b)(1) not being presented for any improper purpose to harass or burden someone; 11(b)(2) claims or defenses are warranted by existing law; 11(b)(3) factual allegations have evidentiary support after a r easonable inquiry has been done; 11(b)(4) denials of the facts also have an evidentiary basis; 11(c)(5)(a) – no sanction can be places on party for legal mistake. Only lawyer held liable for legal mistake. Court’s own initiative; party requests it— 21 day window that must exist before filing a motion under Rule 11 — motion has to be drafted and served to the other side — has to wait 21 days before sending it to the court (allows party to cure) Non-monetary (public reprimands, etc.); monetary (pay penalty, attorney fee’s to the other side that flow from the violation) Does not touch on any discovery violations — cannot be filed w/ other motions; 11(b) below 1. Not being presented for any improper purpose to harass or burden someone 2. Claims or defenses are warranted by existing law if you have adverse law in your jurisdiction, you can say you h ave a nonfrivolous, good faith basis for why the law should b e changed or amended 3. Factual allegations have evidentiary support after a rea sonable inquiry has been done 4. Denials of the facts also have an evidentiary basis Rule 12 defenses — 12(b)(1) lack of SMJ; 12(b)(2) lack of PJ; 12(b)(3) improper venue; 12(b)(4) insufficient process; 12(b)(5) insufficient service of process; 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted — waived unless you bring it up at beginning of suit EXCEPT for 12(b)(6); 12(f) allows challenge to part of a claim instead of the entire claim — strike out an invalid argument; 12(c) motion for a judgment on the pleadings — only filed after the answers Rule 13 — states that compulsory counterclaims must be listed Rule 15 — 15(c) allows incorrect to be removed & the correct to be added after the SOL has run — complaint filed, SOL expires, seek to amend complaint; 15(a) complaint filed, seek to amend complaint, SOL expires Rule 84 — appendix of forms will suffice (brevity) Amendments must be made 21 days after you serve your own pleading, or if pleading requires response then within 21 days of response. Can amend once. Courts can grant permission to amend, will look at: 1. Undue delay 2 . Bad faith 3. Futile 4. Prejudice
