Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
1) States long-arm statute or federal courts long-arm statue: Rule 4(k)(1)(A)
a. Federal court only has personal jurisdiction if the state court in the forum also has personal jurisdiction
b. 100-mile bulge rule: Rule 4(k)(1)(B)
2) Constitutional analysis: Is personal jurisdiction constitutional? Does it violate due process rights?
a. Consent?
i. Carnival Cruise: boilerplate language forum selection clause is enforceable and consent to PJ
b. Physical presence in the forum state? (DOESNT APPLY TO CORPORATIONS)
i. Burnham: tag jurisdiction
c. No consentGeneral or specific jurisdiction? Does the cause of action arise out of or related to the defendants
contacts with the forum state?
i. Yesspecific jurisdiction
1. Are the minimum contacts purposefully availed?
a. International Shoe: minimum contacts and traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice
b. McGee: purposeful availment, relatedness, and states interest in providing justice for its
people
c. Hanson: unilateral business activity is not purposeful availment
d. Shaffer: International Shoe applies to quasi in rem and individuals (not just corporations)
e. Burger King: foreseeability is the reasonable expectation that youll be hailed to the forum
through purposefully availed contacts
f. Pavlovich: effects test; actions must be expressly aimed at the forum and knowledge that
your conduct may harm industries in the forum helps but not enough to establish PJ
2. If there are purposefully availed minimum contacts, do they violate the traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice?
a. World-wide Volkswagen: fair play factors and foreseeability isnt an independent factor in
PJ analysis
i. Burden on P
ii. State interests
iii. Ps interest in litigating in forum
iv. Serve interstate efficiency?
v. Serve interstate substantive social policy interests?
b. Asahi: stream of commerce (split opinion) and fair play factors find a high burden on D, then
no PJ even if there are minimum contacts (foreign defendants)
ii. Nogeneral jurisdiction
1. Systematic and continuous contacts
a. Perkins: ran business from Ohio (Philippines corporation)
b. Heliocopteros: conducting business, one contract, and one trip not systematic and
continuous contacts
iii. Ascertain the contacts and analyze whether the facts satisfy the legal standard
3) Notice (Rule 4)
a. Is it constitutional under the Mullane and Shutts standard?
4) Venue: localized jurisdiction in the state by district (1367)
a. Differs based on whether federal question or diversity
b. Apply laws of the first court (unless jurisdiction or venue improper)
c. Transfer (1404, 1406, 1653)
i. Permitted for convenience of parties and witnesses and in interest of justice
ii. where it might have been brought (make sure there is SMJ, PJ, vanue)
d. Forum non conveniens
i. Is there an alternative forum?
ii. If there is an alternative forum, does the substantive law of the alternative forum make it so that there would
be no remedy at all?
iii. If not, then balance the Gilbert factors and determine if the public and private factors cut in favor of FNC
1. Public factors
a. Relative ease of access to sources of proof availability of compulsory process for attendance
of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses
b. Possibility of viewing the premises, if appropriate to the action
c. All other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive
2
2.
Private factors
a. Administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion
b. Local interest in having localized controversies decided at home
c. Interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that
must govern the action
d. Avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law
e. Unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty
PLEADING
1) Complaint: Rule 8(a)
a. Plausibility standard (Twombly and Iqbal)
i. Strike out legal conclusions/conclusory statements
ii. Assume factual allegations are true
iii. Plausibility evaluations based on the factual allegations the facts must be such that the court can draw a
reasonable inference that the D is liable for the alleged misconduct
2) Optional pre-answer motion
a. 12(b) motions
i. Note: PJ is waived if a pre-answer motion is filed and PJ is not brought up
3) Answer
a. Admit/deny/dont know = denial/silence = admission (Rule 8(b))
i. Specific denials (Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc.)
b. Affirmative defenses (Rule 8(c))
c. Launch claims
i. Counterclaim (Rule 13)
ii. Cross-claim (Rule 13)
iii. Impleader (Rule 14)
4) Amendments: Rule 15
a. when justice so requires (15(a))
5) Reply: Rule 7(a)
a. Mandatory if there is a clearly designated counterclaim in the answer
6) Judgment on the pleadings: Rule 12(c)
a. Used when there is an affirmative defense that would end Ps claim (i.e. statute of limitations)
JOINDER
CLAIMS
BY PLAINTIFFS
Permissive claims:
Rule 18: a single P can join any and all claims they have against a single D (plaintiff autonomy, so you dont have to join claims)
Rule 42(b): allows the judge to sever claims for trial convenience (like P brought different suits)
Compulsory claims: No FRCP, but there could be claim preclusion, which acts as a compulsory joinder of claims rule
BY DEFENDANT Rule 13
Compulsory counterclaims (a): arises out of the transaction or occurrence
o Same transaction or occurrence test
Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same?
Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendants claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?
Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs claim as well as defendants counterclaim?
Is there any logical relationship between the claim and the counterclaim (causal relationship)?
Logical relationship if same aggregate of operative facts upon which the claim rests activiates
additional legal rights, otherwise dormant, in the defendant (Revere Copper & Brass, Inc. v. Aetna
Casualty & Surety Co.)
Permissive counterclaims (b): not required b/c doesnt arise out of the same transaction or occurrence
Cross-claim: against coparty; same transaction or occurrence, not derivative liability standard (Rule 13(g))
PARTIES
BY PLAINTIFFS Rule 20
Permissive joinder (Rule 20): same transaction or occurrence, or series of transaction or occurrences; common question of law
or fact
BY DEFENDANTS
Impleader (Rule 14): is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it
Compulsory joinder (Rule 19):
1) Required?
19(a)(1)(A): in that persons absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties
19(a)(1)(B)(i): person claims an interest related to subject of suit and impair and impede the persons ability to
protect the interest
19(a)(1)(B)(ii): person claims an interest related to subject of suit and leaves an existing party subject to a
substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest
2) Joinability? Is there jurisdiction?
Is there PJ over the party?
Is there SMJ over the party? Usually there is SMJ b/c of supplemental jurisdiction.
3) Indispensible? Are you REALLY required?
19(b): when a joinder is not feasible and the person is required , the court must determine whether, in equity
and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed
Extent a judgment rendered in the persons absence might prejudice that person or existing parties;
The extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by (A) protective provisions in the
judgment (B) shaping the relief; or (C) other measures
Whether a judgment rendered in the persons absence would be adequate
Whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder
RES JUDICATA
Res Judicata Refer to Chart on Respect for Judgments
CLAIM PRECLUSION
1.
2.
3.
5.
ERIE DOCTRINE
What is the result if state law applies? What is the result if federal law applies?
Identify the difference between the state and federal outcomes? Is there a collision?
If there is a collision, federal law is almost always supreme, BUT there may be an internal surrender provision in federal
law, in which instance, the state law would be applied rather than the federal law.
o U.S. Constitution? Supreme law of the land, so apply the Constitution (Supremacy Clause
o Statute? If constitutional, then the federal statute is valid and would apply
o FRCP? Consistent with REA and the constitution? Then FRCP applies
o Federal common law/practice: Federal courts have embedded in the federal law an internal surrender provision
that would apply in certain circumstances, such as when there is a collision between state and federal common
law/practice.
Guaranty Trust Outcome determination
Byrd Federal interests
Hanna Twin aims of Erie and immunizes the FRCP
Discourage forum shopping
Avoid inequitable administration of the law
Semtek: when a federal court is sitting in diversity, federal res judicata law applies. Federal res judicata law makes you apply state
res judicata law UNLESS there is a countervailing federal interest (Byrd)
Rule 41(b) is not a claim preclusion law; dismissal w/o cause is a dismissal with prejudice