- P sues D in the Suffolk Superior Court under Massachusetts battery law
- P loses
- he thinks that Massachusetts law was misinterpreted by the superior court
- where does he appeal?

            - Mass Appeals court. P must move up the Mass court system.

- P sues D in the Suffolk Superior Court under California battery law
- P loses
- she thinks that California law was misinterpreted by the superior court
- where does she appeal?

- Mass appeals court. What state law is being interpreted is irrelevant to the appeals process.

- P sues D in California trial court under MA battery law
- P loses
- he thinks that MA law was misinterpreted by the California court
- where does he appeal?

- P sues D in the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Massachusetts battery law
- D loses
- she thinks that Massachusetts law was misinterpreted by the district court
- where does she appeal?

            - U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1^st Circuit.

- P sues D in the Suffolk Superior Court for defamation under Massachusetts law
- P wins
- D thinks that the superior court wrongly rejected his argument that Massachusetts law violates the First Amendment
- where does he appeal?

-P sues D in the Chinese legal system under Massachusetts battery law
-both P and D are happy litigating in China
-does the Chinese legal system have the power to take the case?

            - Yes. Consent is enough to have proper venue

-P sues D in the Suffolk Superior Court under Chinese battery law
-is there SMJ?

-P sues D (a former Arkansas state trooper) in the Suffolk Superior Court for violation of his federal constitutional rights
-is there SMJ?

-P (a Massachusettsan) wishes to sue D (a Floridian) under Massachusetts battery law for $100K
- is there federal SMJ?

-is there state SMJ?

            - Federal: Yes, there is diversity and amount in controversy

            - State: Yes, there is general SMJ

-P sues D in a Chinese court under Virginia battery law
-D does not consent to litigating in China
-does the Chinese court have the power to take the case?

             - Assuming the Chinese court has general SMJ, yes

-P sues D in an Alaska state court under Massachusetts battery law
-D does not consent to litigating in Alaska
-does the Alaska court have the power to take the case?

-P (a Massachusettsan) sues D (a Mainer) in the Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island for violation of his federal constitutional rights (which occurred in North Dartmouth, MA)
-is there SMJ?
-is there PJ?
-any other problem?

            - SMJ: Yes, arising under the Constitution makes it a federal question

            - PJ: No, D does not have minimum contacts with RI

            - Other Problem: Improper venue

-P (a Marylander) sues D (a Utahan) in Utah state court under U.S. maritime law

-is there SMJ?

In which case is it most accurate to say that the court system lacks subject matter jurisdiction?

a) the German system entertains an action between two Massachusettsans under California tort law
b) the Russian system entertains an action between a Massachusettsan and a Californian under federal securities law (Congress has stated that such actions have exclusive federal subject matter jurisdiction)
c) the federal court system entertains an action between two Massachusettsans under the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, over which state courts have concurrent jurisdiction
d) the federal court system entertains an action between two Massachusettsans under California tort law

One. Someone can’t have more than one domicile at a time.

-BigSteel is incorporated in Delaware. Its corporate headquarters are in New York City, and five employees work there: the CEO, the CFO, the COO, and General Counsel.  Other than its NYC headquarters, all of BigSteel’s operations are in Pennsylvania, where it has 22 steel mills and employs 25 EVPs, 200 managers and 10,000 rank-and-file employees. 

-A former BigSteel employee domiciled in New York brings a PA-law wrongful termination action against BigSteel in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  BigSteel moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

-Result?

-Gopes & Ray is a law firm with one office (located in Boston).  All of its partners commute to the office from their homes in New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

-A former client (domiciled in MA) sues the firm under Massachusetts malpractice law in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  Gopes & Ray moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

-Result?

-Gopes & Ray is a law firm with one office (located in Boston).  All of its partners commute to the office from their homes in New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

- Gopes & Ray develops a machine that uses AI to easily determine whether a court will have SMJ in a case.  The firm files a patent for the machine with the Patent & Trademark Office.

-Another law firm, Hilmer Wale, steals the designs for the machine and begins manufacturing and selling it.  Hilmer Wale has one office (located in Providence), and all of its partners commute to the office from their homes Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

-Gopes & Ray sues Hilmer Wale for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  Hilmer Wale moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

-Result?

-Rainforest, Inc. is the nation’s largest online retailer.  Founded in 1994, Rainforest is incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters in Seattle, WA.  In 2023, Rainforest decided to open a second headquarters (“HQ2”) in northern Virginia, near Washington, D.C.  The HQ2 building is twice the size of the Seattle headquarters, and it houses twice as many executives, including the COO, CIO, and General Counsel.  The CEO, President, CFO, and EVP all remain at the Seattle headquarters.  Board meetings alternate between the Seattle and VA buildings.  On its Form 10-K, Rainforest lists HQ2 as the location of its “principal executive offices.”

-Where is Rainforest a state citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction?

-Chemcorp is a chemical company that had been incorporated in Connecticut, with its headquarters and operations also in Connecticut.  Last year, a series of Wall Street Journal articles revealed that toxic waste had been leaking from Chemcorp’s plant into the Connecticut river for decades, putting every person living in Connecticut at heightened risk of cancer.  In the wake of the news coverage, property values in Connecticut decreased by half. 

-Chemcorp called an emergency board meeting and—fearful of state-court litigation in Connecticut—the board decided to reincorporate in Texas and move its headquarters to Texas.

-One week after Chemcorp moved its headquarters and reincorporated in Texas, one million residents filed actions in Connecticut state courts under Connecticut negligence law.  Chemcorp sought to remove the cases to federal court, but the plaintiffs claim the court lacks diversity jurisdiction.

-Result?

- Court will grant removal. Reincorporation and moving HQ to avoid state court is shady but works. (CT v. TX)

- See Black and White Taxicab v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab (Erie Case).

-P (Germany) sues D (Cal.) and the X Corp. (Del. corp., PPB France) in federal court.
-P subsequently settles against X Corp. and prevails at trial against D.
-D moves to have the case dismissed for lack of SMJ.
-Result?

-Assume instead that P and X Corp. had not settled and that P had prevailed against both the D and X Corp. at trial.
-On appeal the 7thCir notices the problem.
-Can anything be done?

Not complete alienage. (Germany v. CA and DE/France). Court would probably remand or dismiss case.

-P (Germany) sues D (Cal.) and the X Corp. (Del. corp., PPB France) in federal court
-The district court recognizes the problem and dismisses P’s action against X Corp., without P’s consent, in order to retain jurisdiction.
-OK?

No. Court can’t dismiss one claim and not the other. Court would dismiss entire case.

-P (Germany) sues D (Cal.) and the X Corp. (Del. corp., PPB France) in state court in IL.
-D removes the action against him alone to federal court, leaving P v. X Corp. in state court.
-OK?

-X (Cal.) slips and falls in a store owned by D (Cal.).
-Can X generate diversity jurisdiction by assigning his lawsuit to P (Nev.)?

-D (Cal.) breaches a contract he entered into with X (Cal.).
-Can X generate diversity jurisdiction by assigning his lawsuit to P (Nev.)?

-Pedro (an avid Red Sox fan) and Derek (an avid Yankees fan) have both lived in Boston their entire lives.  Derek borrows Pedro’s car (which is painted with the Red Sox logo and has been signed in Sharpie by all of the current Red Sox players) and crashes it into a lake, where it is destroyed.  Pedro sues Derek under Massachusetts conversion law in Massachusetts state court.

-However, one day before Pedro filed the case, Derek moved to NYC, got a NY driver’s license, changed all of his bank accounts to NY, and declared, “I intend never to leave NYC.”

-Derek removes the case to federal court, fearing that the MA state court will be biased against him.  Pedro then seeks to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

-Result?

-Dom Hatfield (ND) and Dirk Hatfield (SD) beat up their arch-enemy, Pete McCoy (ND), in a bar in Texas
-Pete sues Dirk (but not Dom) in federal court for battery.

-Result?

-Pickwick (MA) and Dombey (PA) are in a car crash.  Pickwick sues Dombey for negligence, claiming $35,000 for damage to her car and $40,000 in medical expenses related to the crash.

-Does a federal court have SMJ?

-P (NC) sues D (ME) for negligence ($40,000), as well as an unrelated battery action ($40,000).

-Does a federal court have SMJ?

- P (IL) and D (GA) had an oral agreement for P to remodel D’s bathroom for $50,000.

- P does the work, but D doesn’t pay.

- In P’s complaint against D, P asks for $50,000 under a theory of breach of contract.

-Alternatively—if it is found that there is no contract—he asks for $40,000 in quantum meruit (the fair market value of the labor he performed).

-Does a federal court have SMJ?

-D (IA) hits P1 (SD) and P2 (SD) with his car. 

-P1 and P2 sue together for negligence, asking for damages of $40,000 each, for medical bills, pain, and suffering.

-Does a federal court have SMJ?

- D1 (CA) and D2 (CA) beat up P (NY) in a barroom brawl.
- D1 hit P on his left side (causing $40K in damages).
- D2 hit P on his right side (causing $40K in damages).
- P sues D1 and D2, asking for $40K damages each.

- Does a federal court have SMJ?

- D1 (CA) and D2 (CA) beat up P (NY) in a barroom brawl.
- D1 hit P on his left side (causing $40K in damages).
- D2 hit P on his right side (causing $40K in damages).
- P sues D1 and D2, asking for the totality of damages caused by D1 and D2 ($80K) which he can get either from D1 or D2 because they are jointly liable.

- Does a federal court have SMJ?

-Felipe (CA) has died.
-Felipe’s two children (Polly (NY) and Peter (NY)) are the distributees of his estate—that is, they have a right to inherit (dividing the estate evenly).
-They receive all the money from the estate that the executor of the estate (Donna (CA)) claims exists.
-Polly and Peter bring an action in federal court against Donna who, they allege, has absconded with $80,000.
-Donna claims the $80,000 was a gift from Felipe and thus not within the estate.
-Does a federal court have SMJ?

-John Jarndyce (ME) borrows $700,000 from Dedlock Bank (ME), under a federal home loan program to purchase Bleak House, a mansion in the Maine countryside. Under the program, banks make loans to homebuyers under individual loan agreements with each borrower. The statute setting up the federal loan program includes a guarantee that, if the borrower defaults, and the bank cannot collect after diligent efforts, the federal government will assure payment of the outstanding balance.

-Jarndyce defaults on his loan, and Dedlock Bank sues him for the amount due in federal district court.  -Does a federal court have SMJ under § 1331 (Federal Question?

-John Jarndyce (ME) borrows $700,000 from Dedlock Bank (ME), under a federal home loan program to purchase Bleak House, a mansion in the Maine countryside. Under the program, banks make loans to homebuyers under individual loan agreements with each borrower. The statute setting up the federal loan program includes a guarantee that, if the borrower defaults, and the bank cannot collect after diligent efforts, the federal government will assure payment of the outstanding balance.

- Assume that Dedlock Bank is unable to collect from Jarndyce and demands payment from the federal agency administering the loan program. The federal program administrator refuses payment, and Dedlock Bank sues the agency to collect. (Disregard the possibility that there is federal jurisdiction due to the fact that the United States is a party.)

-Does a federal court have SMJ under § 1331 (Federal Question)?

-Jett Rink has a patent on fourble boards. (Patents are granted by the federal Patent Office under a federal statute.) Bick Benedict wants to use Rink’s fourble boards as a component of an oil derrick they manufacture. Rink executes a contract that licenses Benedict to do so, provided he pays Rink $10 for each fourble board he manufactures. Benedict falls behind on his payments and Rink sues to collect the balance.

-Does a federal court have SMJ under § 1331(Federal Question)?

-Jett Rink has a patent on fourble boards. (Patents are granted by the federal Patent Office under a federal statute.) Bick Benedict wants to use Rink’s fourble boards as a component of an oil derrick they manufacture. Rink executes a contract that licenses Benedict to do so, provided he pays Rink $10 for each fourble board he manufactures. Benedict falls behind on his payments and Rink sues to collect the balance.

-Instead of suing Benedict to collect the balance due under the licensing agreement, Rink sues to enjoin Benedict from continuing to manufacture the patented fourble boards, arguing that making them without its permission infringes Rink’s patent.

-Does a federal court have SMJ?

-Ace Tractor Company ships all its tractors via Great Northern Railroad, the only railroad that serves the area where its factory is located. Great Northern notifies Ace that it intends to raise its rates by 20 percent.

-Ace sues to enjoin the increase on the ground that the new rates exceed those allowed by the federal Interstate Commerce Commission.

-Does a federal court have SMJ under § 1331(Federal Question)?

-The City of Boston (MA) sues D (MA) in Massachusetts state court for trespass - she was fired and keeps showing up for work.
-D brings a counterclaim, alleging that she was fired due to her public posts on Facebook, in violation of the 1^st and 14^th Amendments.  She asks for damages and reinstatement.
-May D remove to federal court?

-Jett Rink (TX) sues Bick Benedict (TX) in Texas state court for breaching their licensing agreement for patented fourble boards.
-Benedict brings a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment determining Rink’s patent to be invalid.
-May Benedict remove to federal court?

-The Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) completely preempts state contract law concerning collective bargaining agreements between unions and employers and replaces the whole area of state law with federal law.

-The International Union of Concrete Finishers sues an employer, Brutalist Construction Corp. (BCC), under Maryland contract law in Maryland state court, claiming that BCC breached the collective bargaining agreement with the union.

-BCC seeks to remove to federal court on the ground that the case arises under federal law.

-Does the federal court have SMJ under § 1331 (Federal Question)?

-Alexander Hamilton (NY) and Aaron Burr (NY) get into a fight.

-Hamilton wants to sue Burr in federal court, so Hamilton sues Burr for violating federal securities law by hitting him in the face. (Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over federal securities law cases.)

-Burr moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

-Result?

-A federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, permits suits against state actors who deprive somebody of their constitutional rights while acting under color of state law.

-Hercule Poirot, a Virginia state trooper, arrests Miss Marple (Virginia), and during the course of the arrest Poirot punches Marple. 

-Marple sues Poirot in federal court under § 1983 for violating her constitutional rights.

-Poirot moves to dismiss for lack of SMJ, arguing that federal jurisdiction is inappropriate because battery is a state-law cause of action and Marple is merely trying to clothe her battery claim as a federal question. 

-Will the federal court grant Poirot’s motion?

·       P (Maine) sues D1 (Maryland) and D2 (Maine) for negligence in state court in Rhode Island.

·       Can D1 and D2 remove?

·       Can only D1 remove?

·       P (OK) wants to sue D1 (AZ) and D2 (TX) for negligence, seeking damages of $80,000 from each.  P wants to bring the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

·       Does the court have SMJ?

·       P (OK) wants to sue D1 (AZ) and D2 (TX) for negligence, seeking damages of $80,000 from each.

·       P (OK) decides against suing in federal court, and sues D1 (AZ) and D2 (TX) in Arizona state court for negligence, asking for $80,000 each.

·       Can D1 and D2 remove?

·       P (MT) sues D1 (VT) and D2 (IA) for IIED.

·       P asks D1 for $80,000, but he asks D2 for only $20,000.

·       Can D1 and D2 remove?

·       The city of Bristol straddles the border of Virginia and Tennessee.  P lives in Bristol, VA.  D lives in Bristol, TN, and every day while walking her dog, she allows it to “make a mess” on P’s front lawn without cleaning it up.  The “mess” causes P’s rhododendrons to die, and P pays landscapers $80,000 to remove the dead bushes.

·       P wants to sue D for trespass in state court in Virginia, and wants to be sure that D won’t be able to remove to federal court.  So P finds another neighbor, X (who lives on the TN side of the border) who also has had his rhododendrons killed by D’s dog’s mess.  P and X sue D together, each asking for $80,000. 

·       D seeks to remove to federal court, claiming that X joined as a co-plaintiff only to defeat diversity.  D cites 28 U.S.C. § 1359, claiming that X was collusively joined. 

·       Will the court agree with D?

·       The city of Bristol straddles the border of Virginia and Tennessee.  P lives in Bristol, VA.  D lives in Bristol, TN, and every day while walking her dog, she allows it to “make a mess” on P’s front lawn without cleaning it up.  The “mess” causes P’s rhododendrons to die, and P pays landscapers $80,000 to remove the dead bushes.

·       P wants to sue D for trespass in state court in Virginia, and wants to be sure that D won’t be able to remove to federal court.  So P finds another neighbor, X (who lives on the TN side of the border) who also has had his rhododendrons killed by D’s dog’s mess.  P and X sue D together, each asking for $80,000. 

·       P is unable to find another plaintiff from Tennessee (X decides not to join the lawsuit).  So P decides to add D’s veterinarian as a co-defendant (the veterinarian lives and works in Virginia).

·       D again tries to remove.

·       Result?

·       Kansas City Title Company (MO) buys some government-issued bonds.  Smith (MO) believes (1) that the bonds are unconstitutional, and (2) that in buying the bonds, the bank has violated its state charter, which provides that the bank may not buy illegal securities.

·       Smith wants to sue the bank, but he wants to keep the case in state court.  So he doesn’t mention the constitutionality of the bonds in his complaint (he figures he can just say that the bonds are “illegal” and then later in the case show that they’re unconstitutional).

·       The bank seeks to remove, arguing that the lawsuit is really about a federal question.

·       Will the court grant removal?

o   Yes. Under the artful pleading rule, a plaintiff can’t only plead state issues when there should be a federal issue only to avoid federal court.

·       A (Nev.) sues B (France) and C (Oreg.) in Nevada state court for battery.

·       A asks for $80k each from B and C.

·       B wants to remove but C refuses.

·       May the case be successfully removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada?

·       P sues D in state court under state battery law and federal civil rights law

·       Then, 33 days after the complaint was filed in state court, and 27 days after it was served on D, D files a notice removal in federal court

·       Is it too late?

·       P sues D1 and D2 in state court under state battery law and federal civil rights law.

·       D1 is served 3 days before D2. 

·       Then, 30 days after D2 is served, D2 wants to remove.

·       Is it too late?

·       P sues D in state court under state battery law.

·       One and a half years after D is served, P amends his complaint to include a federal civil rights action.  Within 30 days of service of the amended complaint, D seeks to remove.

·       Is it too late?

·       UNDER PENNOYER LAW

·       Mitchell, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyer’s fees that Neff incurred in Oregon while he was a resident of Oregon.

·       Service of the summons and complaint are delivered to Neff by hand in California.

·       PJ?

·       Mitchell, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyer’s fees that Neff incurred in Oregon while he was a resident of Oregon.

·       There is in-hand service of the summons and complaint upon Neff while he is in Oregon on a brief business trip.

·       PJ?

·       Mitchell, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyer’s fees that Neff incurred to Mitchell in California – Neff was never an Oregon resident.

·       There is in-hand service of the summons and complaint upon Neff while he is in Oregon on a brief business trip.

·       PJ?

·       Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court in order to quiet title to property in Oregon that each claims he owns.

·       Service on Neff is in-hand in California.

·       PJ?

·       UNDER PENNOYER LAW

·       Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, brings a suit to quiet title to OR property he claims he owns.

·       He brings an action in Oregon state court that he hopes will bind everyone in the world.

·       Service is by publication.

·       The Oregon court determines that Pennoyer owns the property.

·       Neff, a Californian in California, has a claim on the property.

·       Is Neff bound by the Oregon court judgment?

·       Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for breach of a contract Neff entered into to sell Pennoyer property in California.

·       Pennoyer gave Neff the money but Neff has not given Pennoyer the property.

·       Pennoyer asks for an injunction ordering Neff to transfer title to the Cal. property to Pennoyer.

·       Service is in hand on Neff in Oregon.

·       PJ?

·       Pennoyer, an Oregon resident, sues Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court for breach of a contract Neff entered into to sell Pennoyer property in California.

·       Pennoyer gave Neff the money but Neff has not given Pennoyer the property.

·       Pennoyer asks the court to transfer title to Pennoyer.

·       Service is in hand on Neff in Oregon.

·       PJ?

·       Mitchell, an Oregon resident, brings an action against Neff in Oregon state court concerning $253.14 in legal fees that were incurred in Alaska.

·       Neff resides in California.

·       The Oregon state court attaches property in Oregon owned by Neff worth $300 at the beginning of the suit.

·       PJ?

·       Mitchell, an Oregon resident, brings an action against Neff, a California resident, in Oregon state court concerning $253.14 in legal fees.

·       The personal jurisdictional basis for the suit is $200 property in Oregon owned by Neff.

·       Neff defaults.

·       The property is sold and the money given to Mitchell.

·       Mitchell then brings a suit on the Oregon judgment in California state court to recover the remaining $53.14.

·       Service on Neff is in-hand on California.

·       What result?

·       Mitchell lures Neff to Oregon with a story that Neff has won a contest.

·       While he is in Oregon, Neff is served for a suit brought by Mitchell in Oregon state court concerning unpaid lawyer’s fees.

·       Neff chooses to default.

·       Under Oregon law, someone can be submitted to personal jurisdiction on the basis of tagging in the state even when the tagging is the result of fraudulent inducement.

·       Mitchell then brings a suit in California state court to execute the Oregon judgment.

·       Under California law someone cannot be submitted to personal jurisdiction on the basis of tagging in the state when the tagging is the result of fraudulent inducement.

·       Neff argues that the earlier Oregon judgment is void under the CA law.

·       What result?

·       Mitchell has Neff tagged in Oregon while he is there for a business trip.

·       Mitchell’s suit is in Oregon state court and concerns unpaid lawyer’s fees.

·       Neff appears in court to litigate the merits.

·       While Neff is there, Pennoyer has him served in connection with another unrelated suit, brought in Oregon state court, concerning a brawl in California.

·       PJ over the brawl action?

·       Neff is domiciled in Oregon, but is on an extended trip in California.

·       Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon state court for unpaid lawyer’s fees incurred in Alaska.

·       He has Neff served in California
PJ?

·       Neff, a resident of California, drives into Oregon, gets into a car crash with Mitchell, and returns to California.

·       Neff owns no property in Oregon.

·       Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon state court for negligence.

·       PJ?

·       D Corp., incorporated in California, has an agent go to Oregon where he sells a product to P.

·       The product harms P.

·       P seeks to sue the D Corp. in California state court.

·       PJ?

·       D Corp., incorporated in California, has an agent go to Oregon where he sells a product to P.

·       The product harms P.

·       P seeks to sue the D Corp. in Oregon state court.

·       PJ?

·       D Corp., incorporated in California, has an agent go to Oregon where he sells a product to P.

·       The product harms P.

·       P seeks to sue the D Corp. in Oregon state court The CEO of D Corp. is on vacation in Oregon, and P has the CEO served with process for the Oregon state court action.

·       PJ?

·       D Corp., incorporated in California, wishes to do business in Oregon.

·       Oregon law requires the D Corp. to appoint the Sect. of State of Oregon as its agent for service of process (in the narrow sense that service on the agent what create in personam jurisdiction on the corporation in the state).  D Corp. does so.

·       P is harmed by a D Corp. product and sues the D Corp in Oregon state court, serving the Sect. of State of Oregon.

·       PJ?

·       D (NH) enters Massachusetts and punches P (MA).

·       P sues D in MA court for battery.

·       Does the MA court have PJ?

·       D (NH) enters Massachusetts and punches P (MA).

·       P sues D in MA court for battery.  P also sues D for an unrelated breach of contract.

·       Does the MA court have PJ?

·       D (a TX corp.) enters into an insurance contract with P (a TX domiciliary) in TX.

·       After paying some premiums, P moves to CA and continues paying the premiums from there.

·       Is there PJ over D in CA for breach of the contract?

·       D (a TX corp.) enters into an insurance contract with P (a TX domiciliary) in TX.

·       After paying some premiums, P moves to CA and continues paying the premiums from there.

·       Is there PJ over D in CA for breach of the contract?

·       McGee’s son has heard about Int’l Life Ins. Co. from a friend.  He has sent the company an offer to insure him, which Int’l Life accepted?

·       PJ?

·       D Corp. is incorporated in Pennsylvania and has all of its employees and facilities in Pennsylvania.

·       D Corp. sends one of its products by mail to P (a California citizen).  The product injures P, and she sues D Corp. in California.

·       PJ?

·       P (VA) goes to Alaska to buy reindeer horns from D (Alaska).

·       P wants them to remain frozen and requests that D ship some of them to him in VA.

·       When they arrive in VA they are melted.

·       P sues D in VA.

·       PJ?

·       A foreign terrorist kills Americans abroad.

·       The terrorist knows that the victims are Americans.

·       The terrorist is sued by the victims’ families in the U.S. in a U.S. court for wrongful death.

·       PJ?

·       D (Michigan) wishes to buy a widget from the P Corp (Florida).

·       D learns about the widget from an ad on P Corp’s website, which he views in Michigan.

·       The ad explains that D is required to email an order form to the P Corp’s office in Florida.

·       The order form says that the contract is entered into in Florida (when the P Corp ships the widget) and is governed by Florida law.

·       Upon receipt of the widget, D is required to send $25 to Florida.

·       D does not pay, so P Corp sues D in Florida state court.

·       Is there PJ?

·       Asahi sells all of its valves to Cheng Shin.

·       Cheng Shin happens to sell all of its products in California, and Asahi knows this.

·       Is there power over Asahi in California?

·       Hotel (UK) makes offer to Corp. (MA) for discounted rates on UK hotel.

·       Corp. makes reservations for employees to stay at Hotel for a business trip.

·       While staying at Hotel, Employee drowns in Hotel pool.

·       PJ over Hotel in Massachusetts under But For Test?

·       What cause of action against Hotel would have specific PJ under the Evidence Test?

o   But For: Yes. The employees would not have been at the hotel if they did not reach out first.

o   Evidence: No. The offer is unrelated to the claim.

·       Driver (NY), is on his way to his summer home in Massachusetts.

·       After driving through Connecticut, he hits Pedestrian (CT) in Massachusetts.

·       Is Driver subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Connecticut under evidence test?

·       Under but for test?

o   Evidence: No. This is a different state.

o   But For: Yes. Driver would not have hit pedestrian if it wasn’t for his home being in MA.

·       D Corp. (NY) distributes its widgets in every state in the country, including Ohio.

·       D Corp. sends a defective product into Pennsylvania where Polly (OH), purchases it.

·       Polly takes the product to her home in Ohio where she suffers serious injuries caused by the defect.

·       PJ over D Corp in Ohio under the Evidence Test?

·       Doris, a retiree, lives in a small town in Maine carves decoys and sells them on the Internet.

·       Peter buys a decoy in Massachusetts and then takes it to Rhode Island, where the Doris had previously sold only one decoy (i.e., not the one at issue in this case).

·       Peter sues the Doris in Rhode Island state court, alleging misrepresentation.

·       PJ in Rhode Island?

·       Walmart employs 2/3 of the adult population of the state of North Dakota.

·       Does it follow that Walmart is subject to general in personam jurisdiction in North Dakota under the “at home” test?

·       Little Corp. employs three people in the state of North Dakota.

·       Does it follow that Little Corp. is not subject to general in personam jurisdiction in North Dakota under the “at home” test?

·       Crane, Poole & Schmidt is a law firm with 500 partners and 1,500 total attorneys. 

·       The firm’s largest office is in Boston (700 attorneys), and it also has offices New York (500 attorneys), Chicago (100 attorneys), L.A. (100 attorneys), Hong Kong (50 attorneys), and London (50 attorneys). 

·       Where is Crane, Poole & Schmidt subject to general in personam jurisdiction?

·       P (NY) and D (NY) get into a brawl in New York.

·       P sues D in state court in California, even though California has no PJ.

·       D appears in court to challenge PJ.

·       Can the court assert in personam PJ over D?

·       P (NY) and D (NY) get into a brawl in New York.

·       D’s only connection with California is owning a small piece of property worth $5,000 in the state.

·       P sues D in state court in California using the property as the source of jurisdiction.

·       D appears to litigate the merits (but only up to the value of the property attached).

·       Can the court assert in personam PJ over D?

·       Neff hired Mitchell to perform a variety of legal services in Oregon. Neff then left for California without paying Mitchell.

·       Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon state court to recover the unpaid legal fees.

·       Unlike the original case, Mitchell attached Neff’s Oregon land at an appropriate time.

·       If this case were to arise today, would the court have jurisdiction over the land and have the authority to auction it off to satisfy any judgment that Mitchell might get?

·       A married couple breaks up in New York, and the wife moves to Florida. From Florida, she calls her ex-husband and tells him that she wants to get back together with him. In reality, it’s all a ruse to get him to come to Florida so that she can serve him with process in an alimony action in Florida state court.

·       He flies to Florida and is served according to plan. He subsequently moves to dismiss the case on personal jurisdiction grounds.

·       Should the court grant the motion?

·       P (NY) sues D (CA) in state court in New York.

·       D defaults.

·       P sues on the default judgment in state court in CA.

·       D argues that NY state court did not have PJ under the 14th Amendment.

·       Should D offer any other arguments?

·       P (CA) sues Elizabeth Taylor (a U.S. citizen domiciled in England) in federal court in California for violating U.S. patent law.  The alleged patent law violation occurred in England.

·       Taylor is served in England.

·       Taylor moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

·       Result?

·       P (VA) brings suit in federal court in Virginia against D, a German domiciliary residing in Germany, for a battery that the German committed against him in New York.

·       D has no other contacts with the United States besides the brief trip to NY during which the alleged battery occurred.  D is served in Germany.

·       Is there PJ?

·       Ps (citizens of 15 states) sue D (Saudi) under a federal antiterrorism act allowing for American victims of foreign terrorism to sue for damages in federal court.

·       The alleged acts of terrorism in this case occurred in Saudi Arabia

·       The action is brought in federal court in New York.

·       Is there PJ?

·       P brings a federal civil rights action concerning the D’s arrest of the plaintiff in Buffalo, NY.

·       P files the action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

·       D lives in Pennsylvania and is served there.

·       Is there PJ?

·       P brings a California state-law product liability action concerning a product P bought in California that harmed him in California.

·       The suit is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against D Corp, incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Tennessee.

·       D Corp has a large factory and branch office in Buffalo, New York (with 10,000 employees) .

·       D Corp is served (through service on its Chief Legal Officer) in NYC.

·       Is there PJ?

·       P (CA) and D (NY) are in a brawl in California. 

·       P sues D for battery under California state law in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

·       D is served while on a business trip in California.

·       Is there PJ?

·       P (NY) sues D (Germany) for breach of German contract law concerning a contract signed in Germany with performance in Germany.

·       P brings the action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

·       At the initiation of the suit P had the federal court attach the assets of a trust that had been created by D’s mother with D as the beneficiary.

·       The assets of the trust and the trustee are located in New York City.

·       D is served in Germany.

·       Is there PJ?

·       P (NY) sues D (CA) for violation of a federal antiterrorism act.

·       P brings the action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

·       D’s alleged violations of the federal act were all committed in Iraq.

·       D is served in CA.

·       Is there PJ?

·       While the Robinsons are litigating their case against WWVW, P Medical Center (OK) sues them for non-payment of medical fees for their treatment in OK.

·       P Medical Center brings the action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

·       The Robinsons are served in Oklahoma, where they’re still recovering from their injuries.

·       Is there PJ?

·       P files action against D in D. Me. for violation of federal law.

·       D resides in Massachusetts. P drives to D’s home in Mass and delivers the complaint.

·       D appears in federal court in Maine and makes a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process.

·       What result?

·       D is aware that he is being served but shoves his hands in his pocket and will not take the papers.

·       The process server lets the papers fall at D’s feet.

·       The process server returns a little while later to find that the papers are gone.

·       Is this acceptable?

·       D is aware he’s being served but will not open door and tells the process server to go away.  So the process server lets the copy of summons and complaint fall just outside the door.

·       The process server returns a little later to find that the papers are gone.

·       Is this acceptable?

·       P files action against D in E.D. Pa. for violation of federal law.

·       D resides in Boston, Massachusetts, and has a summer home in Martha’s Vineyard.

·       P waits 3 months after filing complaint to serve summons and complaint to D at his summer home.

·       D appears in E.D. for Pa. and makes a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process.

·       What result?

·       P Corp. files an action against D in the E.D. Pa. for violation of federal law.

·       D resides in Boston, Massachusetts, and has a summer home in Martha’s Vineyard.

·       P Corp. has an employee deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to D at his summer home.

·       D appears in the E.D. Pa. and makes a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process.

·       What result?

·       P files an action against D in the E.D. Pa. for violation of federal law.

·       D resides in Boston, Massachusetts, and has a summer home in Martha’s Vineyard.

·       P has his brother leave a copy of the summons and complaint with D’s 16-year-old daughter who is residing at the summer home for the summer.

·       D appears in the E.D. Pa. and makes a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process.

·       What result?

·       P files an action against D in the E.D. Pa. for violation of federal law.

·       D resides in Boston, Massachusetts, and has a summer home in Martha’s Vineyard.

·       P has his brother leave a copy of the summons and complaint with D’s 16-year-old daughter who is residing at the summer home for the summer.

·       What if P’s brother had knocked at the door of D’s home in Boston and finding no one there had left a copy of the summons and complaint attached to D’s front door?

·       P files an action against D in the D. Neb. for violation of federal law.

·       P serves D in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.

·       D files a counterclaim against P and serves P by mailing a copy of the counterclaim to P’s attorney.

·       P appears in the D. Neb. and makes a motion to dismiss the counterclaim for insufficiency of service of process.

·       What result?

·       P files an action against D Corp. in the D. Md. for violation of federal law.

·       P serves D Corp. by having a process server leave a copy of the summons and complaint with a foreman at a D. Corp. plant in Pennsylvania.

·       D. Corp. appears in the D. Md. and makes a motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency of service of process.

·       What result?

·       P files an action against D Corp. in the D. Md. for violation of federal law.

·       P serves D Corp.by having his lawyer leave a copy of the summons and complaint at house of the CEO of D. Corp. in Pennsylvania with his 18-year-old son.

·       D. Corp. appears in the D. Md. and makes a motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency of service of process.

·       What result?

·       P (a North Dakota citizen) sues D Corp. (a Minnesota corporation, headquartered in Minnesota) for firing her from her secretary job at D Corp.’s headquarters.  P files the action in federal court in North Dakota. She has a process server serve D Corp. by delivering the papers to her boss, Roscoe, who manages D Corp’s headquarters, at that office.

·       D moves to dismiss for insufficient service of process and for lack of personal jurisdiction.

·       Result?

·       P sues Quarles, a citizen of Missouri, in Missouri federal court. Quarles is spending a semester studying computer science at Cal Tech in California. While there, he lives in a group house with four other graduate students. P has the process server take the papers to Quarles’s house and slip them under the door.

·       D moves to dismiss for insufficient service of process and for lack of personal jurisdiction.

·       Result?

In 2010, Mitchell, an Oregon lawyer, sues Neff to collect an attorney’s fee that Neff allegedly owes him. Neff had written Mitchell from California and asked him to investigate the validity of his title to a piece of property in Oregon. Mitchell did the work and sent Neff a bill in California, but Neff never paid. Mitchell sues Neff in state court in Oregon, and has a California process server deliver the summons and complaint to Neff, in hand, in California (a method authorized by Oregon service of process rules for out-of-state service).

·       B.  The court lacks personal jurisdiction, since Neff was not personally served with process in the action in Oregon.

·       C.  The court has personal jurisdiction over Neff only if Mitchell attaches Neff’s property in Oregon after filing the action.

·       D.  The court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Neff, but the constitutional requirement of notice to Neff has not been satisfied.

Your client is in a car accident in Boston. The client is a citizen of Massachusetts and a resident of Boston, and the other driver is also a citizen of Massachusetts and a resident of Boston. You bring the lawsuit in state court in Springfield, Massachusetts, nearly 100 miles from Boston.

A.    Does the state court have personal jurisdiction over the defendant?

B.    Is there subject matter jurisdiction?

C.    Is venue proper?

A.    Does the state court have personal jurisdiction over the defendant?

a.     Yes. Both residents of MA so PJ in the whole state through domicile.

B.    Is there subject matter jurisdiction?

a.     Yes. State court has general SMJ.

C.    Is venue proper?

a.     No. Venue should be in Boston where both parties live and where the accident occurred.

·       P (N.D.Cal.) sues D1 (S.D.N.Y) and D2 (W.D.N.Y.) for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, regarding an unlawful arrest that occurred in an airport in NJ (D.N.J.).

·       Where is venue proper?

o   SDNY, WDNY, DNJ.

o   28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) {where defendants live} and (b) {where substantial part of events happened}

·       P (N.D.Cal.) sues D1 (S.D.N.Y) and D2 (D. Conn.) for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 regarding an unlawful arrest that occurred in an airport in NJ (D.N.J.).

·       Where is venue proper?

·       P (San Francisco - N.D.Cal.) sues D1 (S.D.N.Y) and D2 (D. Conn.) for breach of contract under California state law regarding a contract signed in San Francisco for construction of a hospital in Albany (N.D.N.Y.).

·       Where is venue proper?

·       P (San Francisco - N.D.Cal.) sues D1 (Germany) and D2 (D. Conn.) for breach of contract under California state law regarding a contract signed in San Francisco for construction of a hospital in Albany (N.D.N.Y.).

·       Where is venue proper?

·       Is there subject matter jurisdiction?

o   ND Cal (transactional) and NDNY (evidence is there). Ignore German for venue purposes.

o   If the AIC is met, yes.

·       P sues D1 Corp (incorporated in DE; PPB in NH) and D2 Corp (incorporated in DE; PPB in VT).

·       Where is venue proper under § 1391(b)(1)?

·       P sues D Corp (incorporated in Tennessee; PPB Syracuse (NDNY)).

·       Where is venue proper under § 1391(b)(1)?

·       Imagine that the plaintiffs in World-Wide Volkswagen filed their lawsuit in an Oklahoma federal court (instead of in state court, as they did in the actual case).

·       Also assume that all of the defendants had waived personal jurisdiction, but had objected to venue.

·       Would venue have been proper in the federal district court in Oklahoma?

·       P, a Massachusetts citizen, is in a car accident with two other cars while driving in Canada.

·       P sues the drivers of the two other cars, D1 (from the Southern District of New York) and D2 (from Vermont), alleging damages in excess of $75,000.  

·       Where would venue be proper?

o   MA district where P is resident, SDNY, and VT. All districts that would have PJ over any of the defendants.

o   There is no proper venue under resident and substantial events part of statute because all from different states and events happened outside of the U.S. So, fallback provision.

·       Recall that, in Burger King, Burger King had sued Michigan franchisees in the Southern District of Florida for breach of contract and trademark infringement.

·       The Michigan franchisees had challenged personal jurisdiction, but what if the franchisees had also moved to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to the federal district court in the Eastern District of Michigan (where the franchise was located).

·       Would the Florida district court grant that motion?

·       P sues D for negligence under Maryland’s negligence law in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

·       The D. Md. transfers the action to D. Mass. under § 1404.

·       Which law will D. Mass. apply?

·       Assume that under Maryland’s choice-of-law rules, the court would apply South Carolina negligence law, but under Massachusetts’s choice-of-law rules, the court would apply Delaware law.  Which law will D. Mass. apply?

·       P sues D for negligence under Maryland’s negligence law in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

·       The D. Md. transfers the action to D. Mass. under § 1404.

·       P filed the action in D. Md. 20 days before the statute of limitations expired, and served D 10 days before the statute of limitations expired.

·       The D. Md. transferred the case 30 days after the case was filed.

·       After the case is transferred to D. Mass., D moves to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds.

·       Will the court grant the motion?

·       P sues D in the D. Mass.  The parties had a contract with a forum selection clause stating that all actions must be filed in the D. Neb.

·       Can D move to dismiss under § 1406?

·       Can D move to transfer under § 1404?  If so, how (if at all) will the court alter its typical analysis?

o   D could move to dismiss. Venue is improper under forum selection clause.

o   D can move to transfer under 1404. The court would weigh the forum selection clause (which would be given considerable weight) against the MacMunn factors. P would have a higher bar to prove that D. Neb. Is not the correct forum.

·       P (MD) believes that D (DE) is infringing on P’s patent.  P sues D in federal court in Delaware.

·       Under the RDA, which law would the court apply?

·       P (Germany) believes that D (OK) has breached a contract the parties entered into in OK for the construction of an office building in OK.

·       P sues D in federal court in OK.

·       Under the RDA, which law would the court apply?

·       P (VT) and D (FL) are in a car crash in NC.  P sues D in federal court in FL.

·       Under the RDA, which law would the court apply?

·       D Airlines (TX) confiscates P’s (AL) carry-on suitcase because it was emblazoned with swastika stickers. 

·       P sues D Airlines in federal court in TX for violation of her free-speech rights and for trespass to chattels. 

·       Under the RDA, which law would the court apply?

·       P (China) and D (FL) are in a car crash in China.  P sues D in federal court in FL.

·       Under the RDA, which law would the court apply?

·       P(ME) sues D (NY) in federal court in New York concerning commercial paper issued in New York.

·       New York’s constitution and statutes do not address the central issue in the case.  Neither does the federal constitution, nor federal statutes.  But there are common law precedents from New York’s state courts, as well as conflicting common law precedents from other states’ courts.

·       Under the RDA, which law would the court apply?

A Massachusetts state trial court has issued a new decision on MA state law.  This decision is:

·       binding on:

·       precedential value for:

·       a mere source of arguments for:

o   Binding: None

o   Precedent: Other MA trial courts

o   Source of Argument: Other MA upper level courts or other jurisdictions

A Massachusetts state intermediate appellate court has issued a new decision on MA state law.  This decision is:

·       binding on:

·       precedential value for:

·       a mere source of arguments for:

o   Binding: MA trial courts

o   Precedent: Other appeals courts in MA

o   Source of Argument: SJC or other jurisdictions

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has issued a new decision on MA state law.  This decision is:

·       binding on:

·       precedential value for:

·       a mere source of arguments for:

o   Binding: MA trial courts & MA appellate courts

o   Precedent: SJC

o   Source of Argument: Other state courts

·       P (MA) sues D (MA) in state court in Massachusetts under MA common law concerning commercial paper. 

·       The last Massachusetts SJC decision on this issue is from 1924.  It seems clear that the SJC would decide otherwise now (recent SJC decisions contain dicta suggesting the 1924 precedent will be overturned, and there have been more than a dozen recent law review articles saying as much).

·       How will the MA state trial court decide?

·       P (ND) sues D (MA) in federal court in Massachusetts under MA common law concerning commercial paper. 

·       The last Massachusetts SJC decision on this issue is from 1924.  It seems clear that the SJC would decide otherwise now (recent SJC decisions contain dicta suggesting the 1924 precedent will be overturned, and there have been more than a dozen recent law review articles saying as much).

·       How will the federal court decide?

o   Argument for both. Most likely follow 1924 decision

o   Predictive approach: Decide differently than 1924 decision

o   It is the job of a federal judge to decide how the state supreme court would decide today.

·       P (ND) sues D (MA) in federal court in Massachusetts under MA common law concerning commercial paper. 

·       The last Massachusetts SJC decision on this issue is from 1924.  It seems clear that the SJC would decide otherwise now (recent SJC decisions contain dicta suggesting the 1924 precedent will be overturned, and there have been more than a dozen recent law review articles saying as much).

·       Assume that the SJC would overturn the 1924 precedent and adopts a new standard.

·       One year later, X (MA) sues D (MA) on the same issue in MA state court.

·       Will the MA trial court follow the 1924 SJC decision, or the more recent federal court decision?

·       P (ND) sues D (MA) in federal court in Massachusetts under MA common law concerning commercial paper.

·       There are no MA SJC decisions on this issue, but there is a 2010 MA intermediate appellate court decision on the issue. 

·       The federal judge believes the MA SJC would rule otherwise today.

·       What should the federal court do?

o   Overrule the Appellate court decision.

o   Federal judge should rule how the state supreme court should decide today.

·       P(ND) sues D(MA) in federal court in Massachusetts under MA common law concerning commercial paper.

·       There are no MA SJC decisions on this issue, but there is a 2010 MA intermediate appellate court decision on the issue.  There is a conflicting 2011 decision from a different MA intermediate appellate court.

·       The federal judge does not know how the MA SJC would decide the issue.

·       What can the federal judge do?

·       Dinadan (a Virginia citizen) hits Percival (a Maryland citizen) during a jousting tournament in Maryland.

·       Percival sues Dinadan in federal court in Virginia for battery.

1.     Under what circumstances can this federal court assert adjudicative power over Dinadan?

2.     Which law will the Virginia court apply?

3.     Assume the court issues a judgment in Percival’s favor, awarding him $100,000 in damages.  May Percival sue Dinadan in Maryland court to collect on the federal judgment?

a.     1: SMJ through diversity and AIC. PJ through domicile.

b.     2: VA law because that’s where the court is sitting. See Klaxon v. Stentor Electric.

c.     3: Yes. Full Faith and Credit under the Supremacy Clause.

·       Two married Georgians get into an accident in California. The husband wishes to sue the wife for negligence.

·       Georgia law has spousal immunity. Under California law, spouses can sue one another for negligence.

·       Which tort law should the court apply?

·       P(NY) and D(NY) are in a car crash in Ontario, Canada.  D is driving, and P is a passenger. 

·       P sues D in NY state court for negligence.

·       Ontario has a guest statute (prohibiting recovery by a passenger for a driver’s mere negligence).  NY does not have a guest statute and permits recovery by guests.

·       Which law would the court apply under the traditional approach?

·       Which law would the court apply under the modern approach?

o   Traditional: Ontario (the place of the harm)

o   Modern: NY (forum has a stronger interest)

·       P(VA) sues D(VA) for negligence concerning a car crash in California. 

·       Virginia uses the traditional choice-of-law approach for torts.

·       California’s statute of limitations for negligence actions is 2 years, while Virginia’s is 5 years.

·       P files his complaint 3 years after the crash. 

·       D moves to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds.

·       Will the court grant the motion?

·       UNDER GUARANTY TRUST (outcome determinative test)

·       P (GA) sues D (FL) for negligence in federal court in Florida.

·       Florida state law puts the burden of proof on the plaintiff to show his lack of contributory negligence. 

·       Federal Rule 8(c) provides that contributory negligence is an affirmative defense. 

·       Which approach should the federal court use here?

Could a federal court sitting in diversity create a common law limitations period different from that of the forum state?

Should a federal court sitting in diversity use a forum state rule requiring any out of state corporation doing business in the state to appoint an agent for service of process before bringing suit?

Should a federal court sitting in diversity apply different tolling rules than those of the forum state?

York files an equitable action for breach of fiduciary duty against the Guaranty Trust Company in federal court, two years and four months after the alleged breach took place.  Guaranty Trust moves to dismiss based on the state statute of limitations, which requires such actions to be filed within two years after the time when they arise.  York argues that the federal court should apply its traditional laches approach in determining whether the claim is timely, rather than the state’s two-year limitations period.  Should the court, after Hanna v. Plumer, apply state or federal law to the limitations/laches question?

Congress enacts a statute providing that alternate jurors shall be dismissed before the jury deliberates.  Assume that judges in Maine, as a matter of longstanding judicial practice, allow the alternate jurors to deliberate in all cases.  Must a federal judge sitting in the District of Maine dismiss the alternate jurors before the jury deliberates?

Federal Rule 42 authorizes the district court to bifurcate cases, for example, to try liability separately in a negligence case before trying the issue of the plaintiff’s damages.  Assume that the practice of Mississippi judges is never to bifurcate negligence cases, allowing the plaintiff to present her entire case to the jury in her case in chief.  Should the federal judge in the District of Mississippi apply Rule 42 in a diversity case?

Federal Rule 42 authorizes the district court to bifurcate cases, for example, to try liability separately in a negligence case before trying the issue of the plaintiff’s damages.  Assume that the Constitution of the State of Mississippi provides that judges may not bifurcate negligence cases; the plaintiff is entitled to present her entire case to the jury in her case in chief.  Should the federal judge in the District of Mississippi apply Rule 42 in a diversity case?

Assume that no Federal Rule authorizes the district court to bifurcate cases, but federal judges have long done so as a matter of judicial discretion.  The practice of Mississippi judges is never to bifurcate negligence cases, allowing the plaintiff to present her entire case to the jury in her case in chief. In a diversity case, may the federal judge bifurcate the case for trial?

·      P sues D under German law in federal court in Louisiana concerning a car crash in Germany.

·      Louisiana state courts have no doctrine of forum non conveniens.  Federal forum non conveniens doctrine is laid out in Piper. 

·      D moves to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.

·      Assuming the Gilbert factors (laid out in Piper) are met, will the court dismiss?

·      Colorado passes the Certificate of Review Statute that mandates anyone suing a licensed professional for malpractice must provide a certificate claiming an expert in same area of practice has examined the claim and determined it has substantial jurisdiction.

·      Federal Rule 8(a) does not require any such certificate (only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”).

·      P (NY) sues D (CO) in federal court in Colorado for malpractice under New York law concerning a surgical operation D performed upon P in New York. 

·      No Certificate of Review was filed; D moves to dismiss on this ground.

·      Result?