SMJ (Constitution.
Art 3 §2) Pennoyer—“Prescence theory”PJ over D
Diversity §1332 (a)—between
citizens of different states and exceeds
75k (good faith).
(c)(1) corporations is citizen in
incorporation and PPoB.
Strawbridge—complete diversity.
Gordon v. Steele—citizenship is
determined by domicile (reside w/
intent to remain indefinitely).
Mas v. Perry—domicile is state of
permanent home w/ intent to return
when absent.
Hertz—held PPoB is determined by
nerve center test.
Partnerships are treated as collection
of individuals .
P may aggregate claims against one D
to meet money requirement. Not add
up between parties.
Fed. Q §1331-grants jurisdiction over
all cases “arising under the
constitution, laws, and treaties of the
U.S.”
Osborne—broadly interpreted
Constitution to mean non-frivilous
issues of federal law (original
complaint or answer).
Mottley—look at P’s complaint to see
if claim “arises under” federal law.
(well-pleaded complaint).
Holmes Creation test—a suit arises
under the law that creates the cause of
action.
Gunn v. Min. (Smith exc. To “Arises
under”)—FQ exists on state law claim
if a federal issue: (1) necessarily raise;
(2) actually disputed; (3) substantial,
and (4) capable of resolution in fed.
Court w/o disrupting the fed.-state
balance approved by congress.
Removal §1441 allows D to remove a
case to Fed court where P could have
filed the suit originally in Fed. Court.
§1441(b)(2) (forum defendant)—bars
removal of a div. case if any D resides
in the state in which the suit is
brought.
30 days from initial filing or amended
complaint to remove a removable
case.
PJ (due process 5th & 14th Amend.)
Bensusan—State Ct. must be
authorized by Legislature (Long arm)
to exercise PJ.
4(k)(1)(A)—Fed court authorize to
exercise PJ where individual is is
subject to general jurisdiction of state
court in which the federal courts sits.
Exercise of PJ must not offend the
requirements of due process.
In Rem—court case is about property itself
present in the state.
Hess—“consent” allowed exercise of PJ
where there was a nonresident motorist
statute that assigned an agent to receive
service.
International Shoe—due process req.
“minimum contacts such that they donot
offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.”
Specific jurisdiction
Denkla—minimum contact requires that
the D purposefully availed himself of the
protection and benefits of the forum.
WWV-- It is not enough that it is
foreseeable that the product may enter the
forum, the foreseeability that is important
is that the D’s conduct and connection with
the forum state are such that he should
reasonably anticipate being hauled into
court there.
McGee (reasonable factors)—(1)Burden
on D, (2)Interest of the forum state,(3)P
interest in litigating in the forum state,(4)
Efficiency of resolution,(5)shared
substantive social policy.
Burger King—activities of D directed
toward forum. Contract alone may not be
enough. Did harm arise out of the contact?
Stream of commerce arg: Pure—placing
product into the stream of commerce is
enough. Plus—placing product into stream
of commerce plus act directed toward
forum is enough.
Zippo test—(1)highly interactive website
create specific jurisdiction, (2) websites
with limited information exchange require
close scrutiny to determine whether
jurisdiction exists, (3) passive websites
with little or no interactivity generally do
not confer jurisdiction.
Calder—Conduct aimed at the state, even
if D has not been in the state is enough to
establish that purposeful availment and
minimal contact.
Specific jurisdiction is appropriate if the D
has contacts with the forum and the claim
arises out of those contacts, and exercise of
PJ would be fair and reasonable.
General Jurisdiction is appropriate where
D has continuous and systematic contacts
with the forum state. (Daimler)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires—Person(domicile)
& corp. (incorporation/ PPoB)
Burnham— Even when the out-of-state 
only comes into the state for a specific
purpose, as long as he is served within the
state even if he leaves the state and has no
other contacts with it. Must also
voluntarily travel to the forum state.
→ state can adjudicate title and interests to
any property within its boundaries
Quasi in rem—PJ over person by attaching
property and treating it as the person;
judgment can only be for property Shaffer-
- all assertions of state-court jd must be
evaluated based on Shoe and its progeny
Service of Process (Mullane)—Notice
must be reasonably calculated under all the
circumstances to apprise interested parties
of the pendency of action and afford
opportunity to defend themselves.(good
faith effort)
Personal service by mail is good
If address is known, public notice is not
sufficient.
If address is not known, public notice is
sufficient.
Venue § 1391(b): (1) a judicial district in
which any defendant resides, if all
defendants are residents of the state in
which the district is located; (2) a judicial
district in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred, or a substantial part of property
that is the subject of the action is situated;
or (3)Any district where the D is subject to
the PJ of the district(if it were a state).
§1406 – applies when the transferor is an
improper venue. Judge can transfer or
dismiss
§1404 – applies when the transferor is a
proper venue transfer based on
convenience for parties and witnesses and
the interest of justice (looking for the
center of gravity based on public and
private factors
MacMunn— Thus, the defendant must
satisfy a two-part test: (1) the case could
have originally been filed in the proposed
district, and (2) the interests of
convenience and justice require transfer.
Private-interest factors the court may
properly consider include: (1) giving effect
to the plaintiff’s choice of venue, (2) the
defendant’s preferred venue, (3) where the
cause of action arose, (4) which forum
would be most convenient to the parties,
(5) which forum would be most convenient
to witnesses, and (6) the availability of
evidence.
Public-interest factors the court must
weigh include: (1) the proposed district’s
familiarity with the controlling law, (2) the
relative crowding of both courts’ dockets,
and (3) the local interest in deciding the …
Piper Aircraft—plaintiff can’t defeat a
motion to dismiss merely by showing that
the substantive law of the alternative forum
is less favorable to him than that of the
current forum (forum non conveniens)
Erie Doctrine
Swift v. Tyson (1842) held that federal
trial courts exercising diversity
jurisdiction were free to disregard
state law and exercise independent
judgment on matters of general
jurisprudence
For example, corporate parties could
avoid applying state common law in a
suit by reincorporating under the laws
of a new state in order to establish
diversity, e.g., Black & White Taxicab
v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab, 276 U.S.
518 (1928).
Thus, to avoid injustice and further
discrimination, the law of the state
should be applied in diversity of
citizenship cases on general matters,
regardless of whether it is made by its
courts or its legislature. A federal trial
court exercising diversity jurisdiction
must respect and enforce state law.
Refusing to use state law in general
matters represents an
unconstitutional invasion of state
autonomy and a denial of its
independence.
Guaranty Trust Co. York-- The
outcome determinate test--to ensure
that the outcome of the fed. Ct.
application of the law would not differ
if the case was tried in a state court.
Joinder of Multiple Claims
Rule 18(a) allows a P to assert any
claims she has against a D, whether
related or not.
Judge still has discretion to sever the
claims or order separate trials for
unrelated claims.(Rule 42(b))
Permissive Joinder of Parties
Rule 20(a)(1) allows Ps to sue
together if they assert claims that
"arise out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences; and if their claims
involve any question of law or fact
common to all Ps . . . ." Under Rule
20(a)(2) defendants may be sued
together if the same two criteria are
met.
Counterclaims (FRCP Rule 13)
13(a) compulsory counterclaims—
arises from the same transaction or
occurrence as the opposing party’s
claim. A party MUST assert it or they
lose it through waiver. [Supplemental
jurisdiction is automatic!]
13(b) permissive counterclaims—
arises from independent and unrelated
claim and MAY be asserted.
Crossclaims
Rule 13(g) refers to claims between
co-parties, i.e. those on the same side
of the “v”. Crossclaims needs to arise
out of the same transaction or
occurrence as the original claim. Once
a crossclaim is made, the opposing
party must assert compulsory claims it
has against that party and may assert
any permissive claims. Note that
crossclaims do not have to be asserted
and are NOT barred by res judicata!
Rule 13(h) allows a defending party
to bring a stranger into the lawsuit-
someone who the plaintiff did not
choose to sue. However, the party
asserting the claim must first have a
crossclaim or counterclaim against an
existing party.
Third Party Claims
Rule 14 allows a defendant to bring a
stranger to the lawsuit into it if he
were part of the same transaction or
occurrence and is or may be liable to
the defendant for all or part of the
claim against the original plaintiff and
defendant. It embodies the idea of
reimbursement.
Once a oarty has been impleaded
under Rule 14(a), the Rule allows
other related claims to be asserted.
The third-Party defendant may assert
any claims she has against the P
arising from the transaction or
occurrence that gave rise to the main
claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(2)(D).
The plaintiff may assert claims against
the third-party defendant that meet the
transaction-or-occurrence test. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 14(a)(3). If either of these
parties assert a claim against the other,
they become "opposing parties",
triggering the counterclaim provisions
of Rule 13(a) and (b) as well. The
third-party defendant must assert
counterclaims it has against the third-
party plaintiff (Rule 13(a)(1)) and may
assert other counterclaims under Rule
13(b). If several third-party Ds are
brought in, they become "coparties"
who may assert crossclaims against
each other.
Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule 13(a)(b)--counterclaim types
Rule 14--Impleader
Rule 15--Amended and Supplemental
Pleadings
Rule 16--Pretrial Conference;
Scheduling; Management(Status
Conference)
Rule 17.--Plaintiff and Defendant;
Capacity; Public Officers
Rule 18--Joinder of Claims
Rule 19--required joinder of Parties
Rule 20--permissive Joinder of Parties
Rule 21--Misjoinder and Nonjoinder
of Parties
Rule 22--Interpleader
Rule 23--Class Action
Rule 82--Jurisdiction and Venue
Unaffected
Supplemental Jurisdiction §1367
Rule 82: "these rules of civil
procedure do not confer subject matter
jurisdiction to hear a claim. Thus,
there is an inherent tension between
rule makers' preference for joinder of
all related claims in a single action and
the need for subject matter jurisdiction
over each claim in that action."
Gibbs—It authorizes the court to hear
all others claims in the action that
arise out of the same nucleus of
operative facts as the original claim
that confers original jurisdiction on the
federal court.
Gibbs mirrors §1367 (a) and §1367(b)
mirros Kroger by restricting part (a) in
cases founded on diversity.
§1367(c) allows judge discretion in
exercising supplemental jurisdiction.
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex
issue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially
predominates over the claim or claims
over which the district court has
original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all
claims over which it has original
jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there
are other compelling reasons for
declining jurisdiction
Claim Preclusion
1. The claim must be the same as one
that was litigated in a previous case.
2. The Previously litigated claim must
have resulted in a valid,
3. Final judgment on the merits
4. The parties who litigated the
previous claim must typically be the
same parties who are litigating the
current claim
Determining same claim:
"same evidence" test--if the evidence
needed to sustain the second suit
would have sustained the first , or if
the same facts were essential to the
maintain both actions.
"transactional" test--the assertion of
different kinds of theories of relief still
constitutes a single cause of action if a
single group of operative facts give
rise to the assertion of relief.
Issue Preclusion
(1) “The issue to be precluded is
identical to the issue decided in the
prior proceeding”
(2)“The issue was actually litigated in
the prior proceeding”
(3)“The court in the prior proceeding
issued a final judgement on the
merits”
(4)“The determination of the issue was
essential to the prior judgement; and”
(5)“The party against whom the
doctrine is asserted was a party to or
in privity with a party to the earlier
proceeding “
Exceptions:
1. The party against whom preclusion
is sought could not, as a matter of law,
have obtained review of the judgement
in the initial action;
2. The issue is one of law and (a) the
two actions involve claims that are
substantially in related, or (b) a new
determination is warranted in order to
take account of an intervening change
in the applicable legal context or
otherwise to avoid inequitable
administration of the laws;
3. A new determination of the issue is
warranted by differences in the quality
or extensiveness of the procedures
followed in the two courts or by
factors relating to the allocation of
jurisdiction between them;
3. The party against whom preclusion
is sought had a significantly heavier
burden of persuasion with respect to
the issue in the initial action than in
the subsequent action; the burden has
shifted to his adversary; or the
adversary has a significantly heavier
burden than he had in the first action;
or
4. There is a clear and convincing
need for a new determination of the
issue (a) because of the potential
adverse impact of the determination
on the public interest or the interests
of persons not themselves parties in
the initial action, (b) because it was
not sufficiently foreseeable at the time
of the initial action that the issue
would arise in the context of a
subsequent action, or (c) because the
party sought to be precluded, as a
result of the conduct of his adversary
or other special circumstances did not
have an adequate opportunity or
incentive to obtain a full and fair
adjudication in the initial action.