Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Federal System:
∗ District Courts in each state (sometimes more than one.)
∗ Regional Court of Appeals – jurisdiction over several states (13 total districts)
∗ Apply for a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court – final authority for all decisions
∗ All papers presented to the court must be formed after reasonable inquiry, (1) must not be for
any improper purpose, (2) must be warranted by existing law or by nonfrivolous argument
for an extension, modification or reversal of law, (3) must have evidentiary support or will
likely have evidentiary support after discovery and (4) denials must be warranted by
evidence or reasonably based on lack of information or belief.
∗ If found to be in violation, Court MAY impose sanctions.
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 2
Rule 11(b): Signer is certifying whatever is being signed is formed after a reasonable inquiry (or
if there isn’t enough time, there will be a reasonable inquiry performed by looking at the facts)
∗ You can also argue that the common law should be changed or if the S. Ct. got it wrong
o You can look at dissenting opinions, to minority opinions, to law review articles, or
consultation w/other attnys to see if you can argue that the law should be changed
∗ b(3 & 4): Certifying that the allegations either have or are likely to have evidentiary support
o If you sign something but later learn that the filing is no longer supported by facts of
law, you’re okay if you don’t do anything, but if you later advocate, then you’re
liable!
Rule 11(c): The ct. is not obligated to bring impose sanctions (sanctions must be appropriate,
and do not have to be monetary)
∗ Law firms, parties, non-singing opposing attny can be held accountable for Rule 11 sanctions
if they are responsible for the violation
∗ Rule 11 is initiated by bringing the Rule 11 motion to the attn of opposing counsel. They
have 21 days to amend it (safe harbor provision!), correct it or withdraw it
o The rec’v attny can always amend under Rule 15 as a matter of course
o If rec’v attny chooses to do nothing, sending party can file motion w/ct.
o The Ct. can raise a Rule 11 motion at any time before the settlement of the case
∗ Purpose of sanction: pg. 34; it’s a deterrent, not a punishment. The principle is deterrence
either by that same attny or by others; compensation is not the function of the rule
Rule 11(d): This does not apply to discovery; discovery has own sanctions
Bridget v. Diesel Services:
∗ Attorney brought for rule 11 violations because opposing counsel failed to exhaust other
remedies. Didn’t intend to do anything wrong–was careless. Judge rules not to impose
sanctions because the action has been deterred. (also didn’t want to chill Title VII)
Business Guides v. Chromatic Communications: Π sues Δ for copyright infringement because Π
implants seeds into its guides to see if anyone copied any entries. Π retracts 3/10 of the seeds
and the ct.’s law clerk checks and finds that 9/10 of the seeds are correct. Π finds out the reason
for the mistake that caused a discrepancy in seeds that were wrong, and magistrate accepts that
reason. However, magistrate sanctioned both Π and attnys because even if at the time the attys
didn’t have time to do full research, once they rec’d notice from the law clerk, they didn’t do
anything and said that a defense of “coincidence,” made at oral arguments and sanctionable
because of the “later advocating” part of Rule 11(b)(3 & 4).
Christian v. Mattel: Π hires Hicks as attny to represent her in a copyright infringement case. Π
makes dolls that she contends were infringed on by Mattel. In meeting, Mattel wants to show
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 3
Hicks evidence that the doll in question was made by Mattel 6 yrs. before Π’s doll was created.
Hicks rejects offer and throws doll across room. Hicks declined to file claim. Hicks sanctioned.
However, there must be a signature and filing for there to be Rule 11 sanctions, unless it
qualifies under the “later advocating” argument under Rule 11(b)(3 & 4).
∗ What was the problem w/the District Ct.’s fashioning of the sanction?
o The sanctions were mostly on behavior; and some of that, was in the discovery phase
o Rule 11(d) does not cover Discovery; perhaps reprehensible, but the ct. says that it
looks like the d. ct. was pee’vd by the attny and threw in $500k
∗ The Ninth Cir. says that hicks isn’t going to get away scott free because in addition to Rule
11, the ct. can impose sanctions under 29 USC § 1927 and the court’s inherent authority!
o The ct. has the authority to regulate its processes to control everyone that comes
before it
o Subjective bad faith: When you can tell in the head and heart of the actor that there’s
bad faith; again, a very hard standard to prove, but in this instance, the ct. seems to be
hinting that the ct.’s inherent authority can be used
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 4
∗ FRCP 8 was adopted in 1933 to allow more access to Federal courts. Context: the Great
Depression. There was a great gap b/ the wealthy and not wealthy. Public sense that rich
individuals and institutions control system. No access to redress process.
∗ FRCP 11 adopted in 1983 to limit frivolous actions. Context was the 1980’s: post-war
superpower; economic prosperity; perceptions of explosive increases in litigation
Bell v. Novick Transfer:
∗ This case was removed from State Court to Federal Court
o There must be a federal court issue that can remove the case
o But, there’s one exception: If a claim could have been filed in the Federal court
(diversity of citizenship, issue of fed. law) but Π chooses State court, the Δ can
remove the case to the Federal Court
∗ According to court, the complaint is adequate, since all you need is a short & plain statement
showing pleader is entitled to relief
JURISDICTION: INTRODUCTION
∗ For a court to have jurisdiction, must fulfill subject matter and personal jurisdiction.
Subject matter is basically whether you go federal or state court. The hard part is having
personal jurisdiction over someone.
Facts: A basic judgment in favor of Mitchell (from prior case, Mitchell v. Neff) where Neff
served by publication and fails to show. Default judgment entered for Mitchell. Neff acquires
land, Mitchell has a writ of execution entered, executing the final judgment. Sheriff gets Neff’s
land to fulfill the writ, sells land to Pennoyer (funds to Mitchell). Neff reappears 9 yrs later and
sues Pennoyer [collateral attack1] in Fed. Ct. Neff argues that the seizure of property was invalid
because of improper notice, and therefore, the ct. of OR lacked jurisdiction over Neff.
1
Suit to determine whether the first suit was valid; collateral attacks are allowed because due process is a
Constitutional mandate—very important! Can only file a collateral attack for issues w/due process
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 5
Social/Economic/Political Background:
∗ Taking place during industrialization. Also reconstruction period following Civil War;
Southern States were trying to rebuild. 1876 disputed election ended in a stale mate.
Congress could not resolve conflict, so there was a compromise: the South said the North can
have their president if the North pulls troops from the South. It was in this setting that S. Ct.
began looking at the Due Process Clause. S. Ct. sends message to Southern States that they
won’t interfere with what they’re doing, essentially giving Southern States power w/in their
selves, thereby mitigating some of the angers of the Southern States
Shortfalling of Rules:
∗ Many multi state problems (marriages and corporations—under Pennoyer if one spouse
leaves state, court couldn’t grant divorce because there was no jurisdiction. Likewise
citizens might not be able to sue a corporation in another state.) In response to short fallings,
the court makes exceptions for marriages and out of state partnerships.
∗ People can still get out of trouble by leaving state to avoid being served etc.
Facts: Π-Mass. resident and Δ-non-Mass. resident get into a car accident; Π sues to recover
damages for personal injuries under the claim that Δ negligently and wantonly drove a motor
vehicle on a public highway in Mass. Δ appeared for purposes of contesting jurisdiction and
moved to dismiss on ground that the service of process would deprive him of his property w/out
due process in violation of the 14th Amendment. Court wants to grant state court jurisdictional
reach, but tries to fit under the framework of Pennoyer.
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 6
Big Picture:
∗ The Pennoyer Rule was not as easily applicable as interstate commerce increased. The
notion of jurisdictional exclusivity falls on the wayside after Hess. Multiple states can have
jurisdiction now. (break down of major principals of Pennoyer) In Pennoyer, Δ had to be
within State. Now, Δ only had to use the benefits of the State, but doesn’t necessarily have to
be in the State and the State can still have jurisdiction. To achieve a result we all feel is
appropriate (holding Δ accountable for an injury he might cause in the state—idea of
reciprocity), the court has torched the rules of Pennoyer.
Facts: Δ is a corporation (corp. is a legal fiction/creation by the State). Δ had salesmen based in
WA and technically the sale would be made in STL and would be shipped free-on-board to WA.
This was set up so the corp. would not do business in WA; also evades the Pennoyer rule of
physical presence w/in the state (for PJ purposes). Commissioner served delinquency notice,
then served notice by mail to corp. There was no formal service of process in WA.
Rule:
∗ Jurisdiction no longer strictly based on presence or consent. Due Process satisfied if Δ has
(1) Minimum contacts w/ the state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend
(2) Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Minimum contacts:
∗ The Δ need only make one contact w/someone in the State
∗ There is nothing said about whether the Δ has to be in the State
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 7
Principle:
∗ Breaking down Pennoyer rule that Due Process means state sovereignty. Due Process Clause
protects person from the overreaching power of the State, but in doing so, the Int’l Shoe
standards empowers the State ct. judges to increase state ct. reach over people. Expanded
State ct. jurisdictional reach.
Facts: Π purchased a new car from Seaway VW in NY. While moving to AZ, a car strikes
theirs in Okla. causing a fire that severely burned Πs, so they bring a products-liability action
against Δ’s (including NY-based WWVW & Seaway and Audi/National Importer). Δ wants the
case in federal court so they move to dismiss regional distributor and retail dealer (Seaway and
WW) citing lack of personal jurisdiction.
∗ After motion for dismissal refused, Δ’s bring writ of mandamus (separate action against
judge allowed when the claim is that the court is exceeding its jurisdiction). Ct. finds lack of
jurisdiction based on the fact that the contact with the forum state was not purposeful contact.
Social/Economic/Political Background:
∗ Justice White was a conservative and was concerned about the economy and about business
and law impeding businesses. 1980 brought the Cold War, a US economy in recession and
interest rates for mortgages through the roof.
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 8
Jurisprudential Concepts:
∗ Affirms International Shoe (due process functions to protect Δ from undue burdens) and also
Pennoyer (and so states don’t reach beyond their territorial boundaries as coequal
sovereigns).
∗ White uses wrong concept of due process for state sovereignty. State sovereignty guides
state vs. state, and due process guides individuals vs. state.
∗ Idea of giving notice—predictability, that the Δ can be haled into court of the forum state
o This allows Δ to conduct his actions accordingly—if he doesn’t want to go into the
state, or he can hire insurance and pass on the costs to the consumers
o Notice to Δ ahead of time that he can be haled into forum state, and take precaution
Brennan Dissent:
∗ Brennan wants to keep broad jurisdictional reach of the State courts (concerned about the
injured Π)—formulation changes in Asahi
∗ Brennan’s test: Enough to satisfy tier A (Δ’s Contacts with State) w/out the knowledge,
intent, or expectation that products consumed in forum state
Lawyering Strategy:
∗ Δs had no complete diversity of citizenship (Audi-Germany, VW-DTW, WWVW-NY, and
Seaway-NY), preventing Δs from removing case to Fed. Ct. in Tulsa (less partial jury pool).
So Δs Audi & VW want knock out NY-based Δs to move case to Fed. Ct. Thus, strategy for
Δs is that they need a strict personal jurisdiction doctrine, and therefore ask the ct. to put a
purposeful element into the minimum contacts rule.
Facts: Person injures himself riding on Honda bike, and wife killed. Files products liability
action naming Cheng Shin Rubber as Δ. Cheng Shin files cross-complaint seeking
indemnification from Asashi Metals, manufacturer of tube valve assembly. Asahi sells parts to
Cheng Shin, Cheng Shin sells roughly 20% to Calif. Chen Shin says that Asahi knew that its
assemblies would end up in Calif (significant b/c then Asahi would be subject to PJ of Calif. ct.
according to White’s SOC). Asashi moved to dismiss for lack of PJ. Tr. Ct. of Calif. rules that
Calif. does have jurisdiction, Asahi files writ of mandamus.
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 9
∗ If minimum contacts found to be met, still need to look at Convenience tier of Due Process.
IF inconvenience too high, to exert jurisdiction would be unreasonable (burden on the Δ too
high and its 2 international companies so state interest and π interests are low). (unanimous
decision). Look at (1) burden on Δ (most important), (2) interest of the forum state, and (3)
Π’s interests.
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 10
Facts: Δ with partner applied to BK for a franchise in DTW. Even before final agreements
signed w/BK, parties began to disagree over issues. Signing final agreements, Δ personally
obligated himself to $1M payments. When rent payments fell behind, BK first negotiated, but
then sued in Fed. D. Ct. in FL, invoking both diversity and trademark jurisdiction. Δ challenged
the PJ claim. [Not a mass manufactured products case, so no SOC analysis]
Rule:
∗ To figure out minimum contacts for K cases look at the terms of the K where it was
negotiated and where the results and activities were. Then look to convenience.
∗ Recognizes two tiers of due process and but takes due process two tiers (minimum contacts
and convenience) fused into one. Convenience factors can sometimes justify jurisdiction
when there is lesser showing of minimum contacts then would otherwise be required. Don’t
need to first meet minimum contacts to look at convenience. Look at the two factors together
to decide whether or not due process is met.
Social/Economic/Political Background:
∗ Brennan’s thinking about the future, where an individual needs protection and where there
might not be significant contacts (so even if min. contacts isn’t met, you still have
convenience)
∗ Giving Π the golden nuggets so people can argue this position later!
Facts: Manufacturer of “Zippy” tobacco lighters brought action alleging trademark dilution,
infringement and false designation under the Lanham Act against computer news service Zippo
Dot Com, located in CA. Dot Com’s websites contain info about the company, ads, and an
application for its news service. Dot Com’s contacts with PA subscribers occurred exclusively
over the internet, w/no offices, employees or agents in PA. Dot Com also entered into
agreements w/7 PA ISPs to permit subscribers to access Dot Com’s news service. Dot Com
moved to dismiss for lack of PJ under Rule 12(b)(2).
Rule:
∗ Due process for minimum contacts analysis for internet sites look at the type of site:
(1) Business site: Knowing and repeated transmissions of computer files over the internet,
pursuant through a K w/individuals
(2) Interactive site: Complicated setting where the user can exchange info w/host computer
(3) Passive site: Anyone can just jump on the website, no interactivity
∗ Ct. says Zippo fits a business site part of the spectrum and therefore satisfies the
purposefulness and reciprocity of minimum contacts
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 11
Facts: HI resident in process of refinancing Calif. property. Asks bank to mail checks payable
to him so he can use it as leverage in getting better credit rating Bank contracts with Δ. Π waits
a year and sends checks to Ohio where they are rejected because Δ had Π’s bank acct. closed and
failed to tell Π. Upon being told, Δ reissues checks but sends them directly to creditors and takes
away leverage for Π who is trying to refinance his Kauai home. Δ files motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction FRCP 12(b)(2).
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 12
∗ Uses Calder Effects Test [however, this is not related to the Long Arm Statute!!!] for due
process. The Effects Test says that there’s min. contacts if Δ has no contacts with forum
state but communicates with the Π in the forum state w/the intention to defame. However,
the Ct. says that the Effects Test would apply even outside the intentional torts setting (ct.
really overstepping bounds here). Effects Test should be isolated to intentional torts
Jurisprudential concept:
∗ Occurring at a time when Hawaii (both laws and cts.) were inhospitable to outside
businesses, which might have played a role in narrowing view of buss. transactions
FRCP Rule 4(c)(2): Who can serve? Any person not a party, 18+ can serve process
FRCP Rule 4(d): Waiver of service (stick and carrot). [In HI Follow HRS §§ 634-36]
∗ The idea here is to make the whole system more efficient
∗ (1) Waiving service of process means you don’t have to go through whole service of process
∗ (2) Stick (of the Stick & Carrot): Duty to avoid the cost of serving because the Δ would incur
the cost of service as per § d(2) [unless you can show good cause]
o You send this notice of transmission by first class mail—it’s very easy
∗ (3) Carrot (of the Stick & Carrot): If you serve the complaint formally, Δ has 20 days to
answer; but if you waive service of process without requiring service of process, Δ has 60
days (get 40 extra days)
FRCP Rule 4(e): This is where the action is if you have to serve process formally.
∗ (1) Where there’s no waiver, you can serve by the laws of the State in which the Fed. ct. sits
∗ (2) You can use the Federal provision for service of process—3 methods of service of
process under Federal Rule
o Server must be careful that the req. are met to serve Δ’s at place of residence
o Service on an agent authorized to receive service of process by appointment or by law
(language in response to Hess)
Note: If in Federal Court, you may use the procedure of the state court for power and for notice –
so use HRS § 634-36. (4(e)(1)(a)). And if Δ is in another state you can choose which state statues
you want to use.
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 13
Facts:
∗ Mullane appointed to represent beneficiaries of trust. Mullane & Vaughn suing Central
Hanover Bank to settle the beneficiaries accounts, which would wipe out any claims. The
beneficiaries themselves have a direct stake in the trust. We know that the NY Ct. would
have power over the beneficiaries because there is purposeful contacts of the beneficiaries
with the forum state (e.g., reciprocity of benefits from investing in a NY trust). However, the
NY Banking Statute authorizes notice by service by publication.
Cost-Benefit Analysis:
∗ If the Ct. creates too stringent a rule for notice, the service of process would become too
expensive for the trust fund. Likewise, beneficiaries have the right to know what is
happening with their property and the opportunity to be heard; right to have notice and given
the chance to contest before deprived of any life liberty or property by the state (DP!).
Rule:
∗ Notice must be reasonably calculated under all circumstances to apprise the parties
∗ Reasonableness of notice→ constitutional validity of notice: 1) reasonably certain to inform
those affected or 2) the form chosen is not substantially less likely to bring home notice than
other of the feasible and customary substitutes. (in this case, mail was determined to be
reasonable)
o “Persons Missing or Unknown”: Court approves publication to this cat. of people
because it would be futile to put them on notice (cost to much to send out a PI to find
the names and addresses to track these people down—not economically feasible)
o Beneficiaries whose interests are conjectural or future (e.g., beneficiaries of
beneficiaries). Cost benefit analysis shows to be too burdensome
o Present beneficiaries of known address: Publication is not sufficient for Due Process
purposes because publication is not reasonably calculated under all the circumstances
to apprise the parties of their rights and give an opportunity to be heard. A mailing
would be a more effective means—mass mailing to each of the beneficiaries would
not be too much of a burden
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 14
Art III § 2: The judicial power [of the US] shall extend to all cases … arising under … the laws
of the U.S. [Speaks to the judicial power of the US]
28 U.S.C. § 1331 FQ: The Fed. Dist. Ct. shall have original jurisdiction or all civil actions
arising under the … laws of the U.S. [Limitation to the Fed. D. Cts.]
FRCP Rule 12(h)(3): The issue of SMJ can be raised whenever (and also by the cts.)
∗ If you’re the Δ, you can get an early determination from the ct. to dismiss via Rule 12(b)
∗ If you’re the Π, you can get an early determination from the ct. to dismiss via Rule 12(d)
Facts: Mottleys rec’v lifetime railroad passes as a result of a settlement with R.R. Years later,
R.R.s were bribing public officials w/free passes, so Congress outlawed them. Thus, the
Mottleys filed suit in Fed. Ct. w/FQ as the basis of their SMJ. FQ wasn’t an issue in Tr. Ct. and
Mottleys win. R.R. appeals, and S. Ct. says they’ll consider the finding of jurisdiction of lower
ct. (not saying they’ll consider the case on its merits).
Big Picture:
∗ The basis for Fed. claim cannot be insubstantial or small because Fed. cases should be about
big things. The Ct. acknowledges that Fed. law will come up, but wants the State cts. to
resolve it. Narrow the interpretation of “arising under” for fed. district ct. because doesn’t
want to open the flood gates. The same “arising under” also bars those cases that have a
Federal ingredient (e.g., federal land grants, checks) because the real controversy is not about
federal law
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 15
28 USC § 1332
Subsection A:
∗ US S. Ct. can have any diversity of citizenship, but D. Ct. level needs complete diversity
∗ $75k is simply an allegation as to amt.
(1) Citizens of diff. states: Need to be citizens of diff. states
(2) US Citizen whose a citizen of a State vs. a citizen of a foreign state
(3) citizens of diff. States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are add’l parties
(4) a foreign state as Π and citizens of a State or of diff. States
Subsection B:
∗ If Π alleges $75k and rec’v less than $75k, then Π needs to pay
Subsection C:
∗ Where corp. incorporated in the State and principal place of business counts for
diversity
∗ Therefore, corps. can have citizenships in 2 diff. states
∗ Tests: Where’s the Corporate Nerve Center and where is the Corporation’s main place of
buss. activities
∗ Must argue both sides to make the best argument!
∗ Note: Partnerships/Ass’n are not considered corp.; therefore, citizen of each person in
that partnership/ass’n is relevant. If it’s a limited partnership, the citizen of the limited
partnership also matter!
Note:
∗ FRCP Rule 12(h)(3) says whenever the ct. lacks SMJ jurisdiction, the court can dismiss
FRCP Rule 12(b)(1): Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which can take place at any
time according to FRCP Rule 12(h)(3).
Facts: Πs were grad. assistants at LSU (in LA) for 1 yr. 9 months. Shortly after being married,
they returned to LSU to resume grad. work duties. They rent an apt. from Δ, a LA citizen. Πs
sued Δ on discovery that Π had been watching them via 2-way mirrors during their marriage. Δ
made an oral motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, claiming Πs failed to prove diversity of
citizenship among the parties w/respect to Mrs. Mas.
Rule:
∗ Citizenship is measure at the time of filing the complaint; changes later don’t count.
Definition of a citizen:
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 16
Facts: Π filed complaint against Δ in Fed. Ct. on basis of diversity jurisdiction. Three reasons
listed by Δs to dismiss motion to dismiss for SMJ: (1) No amount in controversy listed; (2) Πs
failed to allege the principal place of business; (3) DOE Δs that would destroy diversity.
Rule:
∗ Where corp. incorporated in the State and principal place of business counts for diversity
∗ The presence of Π entering DOE Δs in a Fed. Ct. complaint does not automatically destroy
diversity of citizenship because of fairness.
o Ct. doesn’t want to restrict Πs to State courts: Δs would get too many options and the
Πs would be too restricted; Πs would have to file in State court and would not be able
to file in Fed. Ct. However, if Δ wanted to file in Fed. court, then the Δ could remove
to Fed. Ct. Fairness issue.
o Court warns: If one of the Δs turns out to be named and that destroys diversity of
citizenship, then the court lacks diversity of citizenship! And, if it’s after the statute
of limitations, then it’s too bad.
Π Δ Π Δ
State Law
Δz → ΔtpΔ
∗ Ancillary jurisdiction: If court has jurisdiction over the original claim, the federal court can
exercise jurisdiction over counterclaims, cross claims and 3 party claims ancillary to the
original actions but which lack necessary federal elements on its own.
∗ Pendant jurisdiction: If there is one federal claim and one state claim, one π and one Δ with
clear federal question – federal court can hear state claim too if can show that the state claim
is pendant to the federal claim.
Rule 18(a):
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 17
∗ If one party has one claim, then the party may join as many claims as necessary
∗ The rule does not authorize SMJ, so one must find SMJ in the issues
28 USC § 1367(a):
∗ Addresses the ct.’s power to hear supplemental jurisdictional: Power of the district ct. to
have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to the claims in the
action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy
under Article III of the US constitution
28 USC § 1367(c):
∗ Addresses the ct.’s discretion to hear supplemental jurisdictional: ct. can refuse
supplemental jurisdiction if (1) novel/complex state law issue; (2) state claim is the real
action; (3) all bona fide federal claims are tossed; (4) board catch all for exceptional
circumstances for compelling reasons.
28 USC § 1367(d):
∗ After the date of dismissal from supplemental jurisdiction, party has 30 days to refile in
State ct., even if the State of Limitations has expired
Facts: Δs are entities related to the Chinese gov’t who are Falun Gong practitioners in the US.
Chinese gov’t perceived Falun Gong as a threat to state security, stability & economic dev. and
decides to publish a series of negative articles about their practice in state-run newspapers as
well as limited-access news event where several Falun Gong practitioners set themselves on fire.
Video distributed in US, Πs file suit under the RICO claim and join defamation to their RICO
claim. Δs moves to dismiss defamation claim pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6).
Rule:
(1) Determine power: common nucleus of operative facts test (see if there is a common nucleus
of operative facts between the federal and state claim); doesn’t matter if claims are linked
together. If yes, then:
(2) Apply discretion: Use 28 USC § 1367. Ct. can refuse supplemental jurisdiction if (1)
novel/complex state law issue; (2) state claim is the real action; (3) all bona fide federal
claims are tossed; (4) board catch all for exceptional circumstances for compelling reasons.
Jurisprudential Concept:
∗ Ct. not worried about opening floodgates of litigation w/the power aspect because of the
discretion aspect.
28 USC § 1441(a):
∗ Removal goes only one way: State Ct. → Fed. Ct.
∗ Removal can be by Δ or Δs. This is important because all Δs MUST join in the removal
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 18
o Cts. interpreted extra “s” as all Δs, making it more difficult for Δ to remove
∗ If there is a DOE Δ, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the case cannot be removed (however,
DOE Δ must later turn out to be a citizen of diversity!)
28 USC § 1441(b):
∗ When you have in State ct. a FQ “Arising Under” claim, even w/out complete diversity, the
case can be removed
∗ “Any other such action” = diversity of citizenship. Removable only if none of the parties
joined as Δs is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought
o The whole purpose of diversity jurisdiction is fairness to the out-of-state Δ; therefore,
the purpose of diversity wouldn’t be served if a case was filed in CA state ct. and was
removed to a HI State ct.!
28 USC § 1446(a):
∗ If you want to remove, just need to state grounds for removal. Once your file
removal, it immediately gets removed (cts. not involved). This filing is pursuant to Rule 11
sanctions; therefore, if you remove and there’s no SMJ, you can get sanctioned.
28 USC § 1446(b):
∗ Δ has 30 days to file removal after service of summons or otherwise [a time bomb]
o The pleading does not need to be an amended complaint. It can be “any other paper”
that states that there’s SMJ. This would start the 30-day clock
o Also, if you give Δ a copy of the complaint, but will serve properly later, the running
of the 30 days starts when the copy is given
28 USC § 1446(c):
∗ Π can file a motion for remand to get case back in State ct. Two strands for motion:
(1) Defect in motion itself (e.g., petition filed too late, petition doesn’t have all Δs)
(2) Fed. ct. lacks SMJ
∗ If the case is remanded, then as a general manner, Π entitled to attorney’s fees, and Δ cannot
contest the remand
28 USC § 1447:
∗ Motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than a lack of SMJ must be made
w/in 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under § 1446 (a).
∗ If at any time before final judgment, it appears that the district ct. lacks SMJ, the case shall
be remanded.
Facts: Π sues Caterpillar (based in DL, principle place of buss. in IL) and Whayne Supply Co.
(KY Corp. w/principal place of buss. in KY). MA-based Insurance Co. intervened as a Π.
Lewis enters into settlement agreement w/Caterpillar. Caterpillar, learning of this settlement,
filed a notice of removal on the grounds of diversity of citizenship. Π objects to removal and
moved to remand b/c Liberty Mutual had yet to settle its claim against Whayne, which would
have defeated diversity of citizenship.
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 19
Rule:
∗ Even though the removal was wrong, there were overriding considerations: Finality,
efficiency, and economy
∗ Even though SMJ did not exist at time of removal, there was SMJ at time of trial, which was
enough
∗ SMJ is most important, grounded in due process (as per Pennoyer)
Bigger Picture:
∗ There might be something going on w/the facts that more than meets the eye
∗ This was an anomaly type of case, short of this, you’d most likely be sanctioned
∗ Orders by the court to have Δ do/not do something. Rare, but important because they allow
the court to change the behavior of the Δ.
∗ Three types of provisional remedy (provisional: ct. issues an order pending final outcome of
the case—pending the final outcome on the merits)
(1) Preliminary injunction/TRO
(2) Attachment: prejudgment attachment (e.g., Pennoyer) for purposes of acquiring
jurisdiction (also replevin falls into this category): which refers to the attachment of
personal property)
(3) Garnishment: where the Π gets the ct. to order the seize of Δ’s property which is held
in the hands of the 3rd person that is paid over to the Π
28 USC § 1291:
∗ Determines that Ap. Ct. has jurisdiction over all final decisions of a case (must be no more
claims and no more parties for lower ct. to adjudicate on)
28 USC § 1292(a)(1):
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 20
28 USC § 1292(b):
∗ If there’s no final judgment (e.g., the case is still going on) and you want to appeal a
discovery motion or a denial for motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a D. Ct.
can certify an interlocutory appeal when there’s a substantial ground of difference of opinion
of controlling question of law (law can go one way or the other), and an immediate appeal
might end the case
o If a D. Ct. judge certifies an interlocutory appeal, the Ct. Ap. in its discretion can
permit the appeal (you still have to convince the Ct. Ap. that it should take the
appeal)!
∗ You request an interlocutory appeal denied by the Tr. Ct., how can you still get the Ct. Ap. to
hear the court? File a Writ of Mandamus
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES—PRELIM. INJUNCTIONS: INGLIS v. ITT
Sliding Scale b/w likelihood success on merits and severity of irreparable harm
Facts: Antitrust violation w/below cost pricing by Δ. Δ defended itself by saying its meeting the
competition. Π files for preliminary injunction. D. Ct. denies injunction. Appeals under 28
USC § 1292 (a)(1) to Ct. Ap.
Test 2 [by Ct. Ap.] Sliding scale (if Π have more harm, then need show less likelihood of success
on merits, and if have less harm, then need show more likelihood success on the merits):
(1) Seesaw combination of probable success and possibility of irreparable injury
(2) In balancing the equities, the Δs
will not be harmed more than Π
is helped by the injunction Likelihood Severity of
(3) Public interest success on Irreparable
merits Harm
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES—
INJUNCTIONS & TROs:
ANZAI v. GANNETT
Hawaii extension of Preliminary
Injunctions
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 21
Facts: Preliminary injunction motion to stop termination of the Joint Operating Agreement,
which would have allowed Star-Bulletin to shut down, creating a one-town newspaper. Star-
Bulletin owners not losing money, but they wanted to make money elsewhere. Π’s legal claim
was antitrust, conspiracy to monopolize.
Facts: Π purchased stove and service policy on an installment sales K (w/monthly payments).
She stopped payment after issue w/servicing of stove. Firestone said Π breached K. Firestone
obtains a writ of replevin2, where all they had to do was submit a writ to eh clerk of the small
claims ct. (w/no judge review). With writ of replevin, Firestone goes to Πs home and seizes
stove. Firestone posts the requisite bond (twice the amt.).
Rule:
∗ Hearing required at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Must be granted at a
time when deprivation can still be prevented. Process requires that hearing needs to happen
before the deprivation! Security bond not a substitute for prior hearing by a neutral official.
2
A pre-judgment attachment
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 22
o Judge would have to review it and make a judgment, after hearing Fuente’s side
MODERN PLEADING:
EX. OF COMPLAINTS; FACTUAL & LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT
Elements of a Complaint:
(1) Opening, (2) Jurisdiction, (3) Parties, (4) Circumstances (Not Facts!), (5) Claim, (6) Prayer
FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint: Motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim.
∗ Informational Sufficiency: Complaint has to be enough to give notice to the Δ as to what’s
going on (usually ct. will grant motion to dismiss, but will give Π time to amend) (e.g.,
Macheras where complaint was not sufficient even on its face and judge allowed 2 revisions)
∗ Legal insufficiency: Though the complaint has enough information or assuming all facts are
true, the claim is not sufficient on its face to have a legal basis for relief (ex. Jin where the
statute of limitations had run)
o Can face Rule 11 sanctions
Δ must make any 12(b) motion before filing his/her answer to the complaint.
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 23
Dioguardi v. Durning:
∗ Judge Clark – strong realist and primary author of the FRCP – wants to push system so that
cases can be heard and decided on the merits and not kicked out for other problems in
pleading its claims etc.
∗ Π wants his tonics. They were taken from him probably for failure to pay his customs fee.
His fee was not paid so they were auctioned off at a price of $110 to a bidder. Wants
damages and value of tonics back.
∗ Procedural history – Δ files 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because of failure to state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Ct dismisses without prejudice. Π files an amended
complaint. Because amended complaint doesn’t add much, Δ again files 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a case of action.
∗ Ct says don’t need facts! Just claim. And though π stated claim inartistically, if you examine
his claim can find a few claims he is raising including conversion and failure to deliver
merchandise.
Dioguardi v. Durning—Tension: Tension between judicial economy and allowing more access to
the courts. But Fuentes points out that economy is not the primary concern of process – it is
dignity, privacy, right to be heard etc. etc. Want to allow people to have their ‘day in court’
To respond to a complaint file a: (1) pre-answer motion (12(b) motion) or (2) answer
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 24
Rule 15(a):
∗ Party may amended a party’s pleading once as a matter of course (w/out the ct.’s
authorization)
∗ Don’t be macho/don’t be stubborn; just amend
∗ “Freely given when justice so requires”: Pleadings are the mere allegation, putting into
play what is going to be proved (decisions are to be made based on the merits)
∗ If justice will be served, by allowing pleadings of the merits, the ct. will go ahead and
allow that pleading (but there are certain limitations)
3
You don’t have to get court approval, you just do it on your own
4
Lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 25
Rule 15(b):
∗ By allows the amendment of a pleading to conform to evidence; allows pleadings to
conform to the evidence, after the fact, as long as there’s no undue prejudice
Rule 15(c):
∗ Potential savior; running of the statute of limitations
∗ Amendment of a complaint relating back to the date of the original pleading
∗ 15(c)(2): If the claim simply arises from the same nucleus of operative fact, then it relates
back to the original complaint and then there’s no statute of limitations problem
∗ If 15(c)(2) is satisfied, the proper parties rec’v notice of the amendment, then the statute
of limitations is dismissed
∗ 15(c)(3): The proper Δ must know there was a mistake w/in 120 days and their able to
prepare a defense so they won’t be prejudiced
Ct. granted motion to amend, even despite there being severe prejudice on Δ because the statute
of limitations had run on Π to be able to sue other Δs. However, ct. said that Π can always sue
right manufacturer under other claims.
Moore v. Baker—Facts: Π sues Δ-doctor after having surgery performed, suing that doctor
didn’t tell Π about alternative therapies. Original complaint did mention the surgery and post-
operative care, but did not hint that the doctor’s actions were negligent. However, Π filed
amended motion covering the performance of surgery and post-operative care.
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.
CP Kimura 26
∗ The statute of limitations bars the claim asserted in Moore’s proposed amended complaint
unless the amended complaint relates back to the date of the original complaint. An
amendment relates back to the original filing “whenever the claim or defense asserted in the
amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted
to be set forth in the original pleading.”
∗ Ct. says that there’s no relation back
o They interpret the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence” very narrowly
Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation—Facts: Π slips on basketball ct. and filed complaint
for negligent maintenance of the ct. Motion to amend the complaint was entered after Π rec’d
new counsel.
Make sure to skim through the cases! Answer the call of the question, it should tell you how to format the answer.