This document provides guidance on various topics for an exam, including forum selection, personal jurisdiction, joinder, and supplemental jurisdiction. It emphasizes analyzing each issue thoroughly and considering multiple perspectives. For personal jurisdiction, it outlines both the statutory and constitutional tests, including analyzing minimum contacts under International Shoe. It stresses assessing whether jurisdiction is proper for specific or general contacts. For joinder, it discusses compulsory counterclaims and cross-claims, and when supplemental jurisdiction would apply. The key lessons are to argue all sides of an issue, apply the legal rules mechanically, and justify each conclusion reached in the analysis.
This document provides guidance on various topics for an exam, including forum selection, personal jurisdiction, joinder, and supplemental jurisdiction. It emphasizes analyzing each issue thoroughly and considering multiple perspectives. For personal jurisdiction, it outlines both the statutory and constitutional tests, including analyzing minimum contacts under International Shoe. It stresses assessing whether jurisdiction is proper for specific or general contacts. For joinder, it discusses compulsory counterclaims and cross-claims, and when supplemental jurisdiction would apply. The key lessons are to argue all sides of an issue, apply the legal rules mechanically, and justify each conclusion reached in the analysis.
This document provides guidance on various topics for an exam, including forum selection, personal jurisdiction, joinder, and supplemental jurisdiction. It emphasizes analyzing each issue thoroughly and considering multiple perspectives. For personal jurisdiction, it outlines both the statutory and constitutional tests, including analyzing minimum contacts under International Shoe. It stresses assessing whether jurisdiction is proper for specific or general contacts. For joinder, it discusses compulsory counterclaims and cross-claims, and when supplemental jurisdiction would apply. The key lessons are to argue all sides of an issue, apply the legal rules mechanically, and justify each conclusion reached in the analysis.
Forum Selection = PJ + Notice + SMJ + Venue Assess SMJ on every claim filed in fed. ct. Be very mechanical about every step. Memorize the rules and carefully apply. Always analyze why can this happen? Dont just assume and state something. o i.e., talk about all three reasons why a party would be necessary under RULE 19 Joinder tips: o If it starts with C then it is a claim between existing parties (counterclaim/cross- claim, claim joinder) o If it starts with I you are joining someone new
PJ o Statutory Test: there must be a statute that allows the exercise of in personam jurisdiction Long-Arm Statute Always trying to get a non-resident Almost always specific jurisdiction for something that non-resident did in that forum. Laundry List long-arm: lists various things that a D can do to subject herself to jurisdiction. o Constitutional Test Is there a traditional test for jurisdiction? Burnham talk about the split. 4 justices say its okay, 4 other say that you must do International Shoe. Argue it both ways. i.e., if not present, if not domiciled, etc. International Shoe Relevant contact between D and the forum. o Relevant contact: Purposeful Availment D must have reached out to the forum in some way. Targeting that forum. Foreseeability It must be foreseeable that the D could be sued in that forum. Assess whether this is general or specific jurisdiction. o Relatedness Does the Ps claim arise from the Ds contact with the forum. If yes: then specific jurisdiction. If no: then only okay if there is general in personam jurisdiction. o General Jurisdiction Continuous and Systematic Contacts with the forum Goodyear: must go beyond; be essentially at home. Assess whether jurisdiction is fair. o The burden is on the D to show that it is gravely inconvenient. o Inconvenience for D and her witnesses. o Forum states interest o Ps interest Maybe P is injured and cannot travel, etc. o Legal systems interest in efficiency o Shared substantive policies
Joinder o Compulsory Counter Claim Tell professor WHY it is a compulsory counter claim: against an opposing party from the same transaction or occurrence If you dont assert it here then you dont get to assert it anywhere else Does it have SMJ? i.e., fails to invoke diversity jurisdiction b/c claim for less than $75,000 Fails to invoke FQJ because no FQ about a car wreck Is there supplemental jurisdiction? 1367(a) 1367(b) The party may file a cross-claim o DONT MENTION supplemental jurisdiction UNTIL you show there is no diversity and FQ