Types of Judicial Jdx

Personal Jdx

in personam (jdx over person) / in rem (jdx over property)

general/specific

Subject Matter Jdx

Federal Question/Diversity/Supplemental

Courts need BOTH Personal & Subject Matter for original jdx

Constitutional basis for judicial jdx

-

Article III

Article III (Subject Matter)

- est. U.S. Supreme Court

- est. Fed. govt the right to create Fed Courts

- limits Fed. jdx authority in Sec. 2

Constitutional basis for judicial jdx

-

Article VI, Sec. 1

Article IV, Sec. 1 (Personal)

- “Full Faith & Credit…be given in each St. to judicial proceeding of every other St.”

- req. one st. recognize & enforce judgements from other st.

Constitutional basis for judicial jdx

-

Due Process Clauses

5th A. - Federal

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property w/out due process of law.”

14th A. - State

“No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property w/out due process of law.”

Constitutional basis for judicial jdx

-

Types

Article III (Subject Matter)

Article IV, Sec. 1 (Personal)

Due Process Clauses (Personal)

Choice of Law

 U.S. Const. dictates choice of law in 2 ways:

1) Article VI (Supremacy Clause)

 If Congress has enacted a statute dealing w/ a particular subject, both Fed. & State courts req. to enforce Fed. statute.

2) In absence of a controlling Fed. statute, Fed. courts req. to respect both statutory & CL rules of States

Categories of Personal Jdx

in personam - a court’s jdx over a person/entity

in rem - a court’s jdx over property that is contested in an action.

 Procedure

-

Ways to Raise Personal Jdx Objections

∆ must raise dispute of Personal jdx the first time ∆ responds.

∆ may raise dispute in either:

- Pre-Answer Motion

- Answer to the Complaint - Rule 12(b)(2)

***Failure to include objection of Personal jdx in either way above is treated as a waiver of jdx.

Procedure

-

Waiver of Jurisdiction

Personal Jdx may be voluntarily waived

Subject Matter Jdx cannot be waived

Completely rewrites ideas of Personal Jdx as established in Pennoyer v. Neff.

Provides a foundational basis for modern day interpretation of Personal Jdx.

Establishes Minimum Contacts Test to determine Personal Jdx.

MEMORIZE

Due Process is satisfied AND

in personam Personal jdx established 

if ∆ has certain minimum contacts w/ forum

so that jdx over ∆

does not offend traditional notions of fair play

& substantial justice. 

Personal Jdx

-

Types of in personam jdx

General Personal Jdx

Specific Personal Jdx

Personal Jdx

-

in personam jdx

-

General Personal jdx

Personal Jdx

-

in personam jdx

-

Examples of General Personal jdx

e.g.; Person that lives & works in NY may always be subject to NY jdx.

e.g.; Corp. incorporated in MS w/ HQ in AL may always be subject to AL jdx

Personal Jdx

-

in personam jdx

-

Overview of Specific Personal jdx

A single/occasional act of a person/corp. may preclude him/it from jdx, however some acts, bc of their “nature, quality & circumstances of their commission”, may be deemed sufficient to render the person/corp. liable to suit.

The more closely related contacts & facts giving rise to claim, more likely court is to uphold jdx.

Personal Jdx

-

in personam jdx

-

Reciprocity & Specific Personal jdx

Constant theme in court decisions determining Personal Jdx.

If ∆ can benefit from having access to a certain state’s laws, courts, etc. then ∆ should also subject to personal jdx in said state.

Personal Jdx

-

in personam jdx

-

Hanson v. Denckla

Personal Jdx

-

in personam jdx

-

Purposeful Availment

MEMORIZE

Essential in each case where Specific in personam jdx is met there be some act by which

“∆ purposefully avails itself

of the privilege of conducting activities

w/in the forum State,

thus invoking the benefits & protection of its laws”

Personal Jdx

-

Specific jdx

-

World-Wide Volksvagen

Stream Of Commerce theory (foreseeablity) of use of product, alone, is not enough to est. Specific jdx.

∆ must purposely avail himself to have its products in forum state. (Hanson v. Denckla)

Personal Jdx

-

Specific in personam jdx

-

Burger King Corp.

If ∆ voluntarily enters into negotiations & subsequent contract in forum state, they are subject to personal jdx in forum state.

If forum state seeks to assert specific jdx over non-resident ∆,  fair warning requirement satisfied if ∆ purposefully directed activities at residents of forum AND litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of/related to those activities.

Purposeful Availment is crucial to due process analysis as ∆’s conduct & connection w/ the forum are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled in court there.

Personal Jdx

-

Specific in personam jdx

-

Jones v. Calder

Est. "Effects Test" to help determine purposeful availment.

State can exercise Personal jdx over non-resdient ∆s “based on effects their out-of-state conduct has in forum state. Used when ∆ targets injury to be felt in the forum state.

Personal Jdx

-

General in personam jdx

-

Goodyear v. Brown

U.S. court has NO General Personal jdx over a foreign subsidiary of a U.S. corp. IF subsidiary has NO ongoing/organized business relationship w/ forum.

Personal Jdx

-

General in personam jdx

-

Helicopteros

Purchases made in forum state, even if occurring at regular intervals, are not enough alone to warrant General Personal jdx over a non-resident corp in a cause of action not related to those specific purchase transactions.

Personal Jdx

-

General in personam jdx

-

Transient Jdx

Burnham (plurality SC decision - 2 APPROACHES)

Justice Scalia, et. al.

- purposeful availment of benefits to state courts equally makes him subject to jdx of state courts.

- physical presence of P in state & P being physically served w/ summons w/in said state is sufficient ground for gen personal jdx.

- Assumption is based upon P voluntarily being in State.

- The jdx of a state court can be extended to nonresidents who are bodily present in the state (Transient Jdx)

Personal Jdx

-

Consent as a Substitute for Power

-

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.

Forum-selection clauses forcing individuals to agree to submit to jdx in a particular place are enforceable so long as they pass test for judicial fairness.

From a practical standpoint, Courts are generally hostile towards forum selection clauses & can choose to not honor them.

Personal Jdx

-

Notice

-

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust

Notice is constitutional right for ∆s under Due Process clause.

“Constructive” Notice (e.g.; publishing notice in a newspaper) alone is not enough when ∆s’ addresses are known.

Notice must have a reasonable certainty under circumstances that ∆ will be notified.

Personal Jdx

-

Requirements of Notice

-

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust (cont.)

Notice must be:

1) reasonably calculated to apprise ∆(s)

2) reasonably afford ∆(s) opportunity to present objections;

3) reasonable to convey info to ∆(s);

4) reasonable to afford time for ∆(s) to make an appearance;

5) substantial enough as to inform ∆(s) of charges.

Personal Jdx

-

Long-Arm Statutes

-

General

States may choose to limit Personal jdx authority they exercise as compared w/ authority courts can exercise under U.S. Const. 

Long-arm statutes apply to BOTH State & Federal courts located w/in same State territory. (e.g.; IA long-arm statute applies to both IA state courts & Fed. courts located in IA.) 

Personal Jdx

-

Long-Arm Statutes

-

Examples

CA Long-Arm Statute (no limitations)

CA Courts are free to exercise authority to citizens to extent its granted by the U.S. Const.

MS Long-Arm Statute (limiting jurisdiction - more common)

Personal Jdx

-

Long-Arm Statutes

-

Gibbons

Obtaining in personam jdx over a non-resident ∆ requires:

1) P must allege sufficient jurisdictional facts (based on L-A statute) to bring ∆ w/in coverage of the forum state’s long-arm statute; AND

2) Sufficient “minimum contacts” must be shown to comply w/ requirements of Due Process. (Int’l Shoe)

Personal Jdx

-

Venue

-

Venue for Individual ∆s

28 U.S.C. 1391(b) - Venue for Individual ∆s

A civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which:

i) any ∆ resides, if all ∆s are residents of same state;

ii) a substantial part of events/omissions giving rise to claim;

iii) if (i) or (ii) does not apply, any judicial district in which any ∆ is subject to Personal jdx w/ respect to such action.

** Venue & Personal Jdx are NOT related. Analyze seperately.

Personal Jdx

-

Venue

-

Venue for Domestic & Foreign Corporate ∆s

28 U.S.C. 1391(d) - Venue for

Domestic & Foreign Corporate ∆s

 a corporate ∆ is deemed to reside wherever it is subject to personal jdx

Personal Jdx

-

Venue

-

Venue for Alien ∆s

Legal Aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence shall be deemed to reside where person is domiciled.

Personal Jdx

-

Venue

-

Venue for Non-Corporate Entities ∆s

Non-Corporate Entities are subject to jdx in any judicial district in which such ∆ is subject to court’s Personal jdx w/ respect to the civil action in question.

Personal Jdx

-

Venue

-

Venue for Non-U.S. Resident ∆s

Non-U.S. Residents may be sued in any judicial district.

Joinder of such a ∆ shall be disregarded in determining where action may be brought w/ respect to other ∆s.

Personal Jdx

-

Declining Jdx

-

Rationales

1) Transfer (Federal courts only)

2) Forum non conveniens (State & Fed. courts)

Personal Jdx

-

Declining Jdx

-

Transfer

Personal Jdx

-

Declining Jdx

-

Forum non conveniens

Balancing Test est. in Piper v. Reyno.

Court MAY dismiss case if...

1) an alternative forum has jdx, AND

2) when trial in chosen forum would either:

a. be oppressive & a vexation to a ∆ out of proportion to P's convenience; OR

b. be inappropriate bc of consideration affecting court's own administrative & legal problems.

Personal Jdx

-

Declining Jdx

-

Factors affecting Forum non conveniens

1) Private Interest Factors

2) Public Interest Factors

Personal Jdx

-

Declining Jdx

-

Private Interest Factors affecting

Forum non conveniens

Private Interest Factors given consideration in Balancing Test

1) access to sources of proof;
2) availability for compulsory attendance of the unwilling;
3) costs of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses;

4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, & inexpensive 

Personal Jdx

-

Declining Jdx

-

Public Interest Factors affecting

Forum non conveniens

Public Interest Factors given consideration in Balancing Test

1) administrative difficulties flowing from court congestions;

2) local interest in having localized controversies decided at home;

3) interest in having trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home w/ the law that must govern the action;

4) avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws;

5) application of foreign law;

6) unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum w/ jury duty.

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Types of Jdx

1) Federal Question Jdx

2) Diversity Jdx

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Constitutional Source

Article III of U.S. Constitution

Portion of U.S. Constitution devoted to the judiciary

§1 establishes Supreme Court & authorizes Congress to est. lower Fed. courts (modern day Court of Appeals & Dist. Courts)

§2 limits Fed courts jdx. 

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Statutory Source

28 U.S.C. - Federal Judiciary Statutes

- 28 U.S.C. §1331: Federal Question Jdx

- 28 U.S.C. §1332: Diversity Jdx

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Statutory Source

-

Examples of Fed. Exclusive Jdx

Exclusive Federal Jdxs - authority granted by Congress.

Claims of this nature only heard in Fed. courts.

Below are are examples:

28 U.S.C. §1333: Admiralty

28 U.S.C. §1334: Bankruptcy

28 U.S.C. §1346(b): Tort suits based on N of a Fed. employee

28 U.S.C. §1337: Antitrust

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Federal Question Jdx

-

Overview

28 U.S.C. §1331: Federal Question

“The District courts shall have original jdx of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the U.S.”

§1331 grants Fed courts jdx over cases that arise under Fed. law.

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Federal Question Jdx

-

Overview (cont.)

Courts consider subject-matter jdx sua sponte (of one’s own accord), regardless if neither party argues.

∆ cannot waive subject-matter jdx.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) - “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jdx, the court MUST dismiss the action.”

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Federal Question Jdx

-

"Well Pleaded Complaint" Rule

Illustrated in Louisville & Nashville Railroad

- The Fed. claim must appear as part of a well-pleaded complaint.

- Initial complaint of P must allege some violation of U.S. Const./some Fed. statute. 

- P must list the cause of action & cite the Fed. body of law this complaint is under as well as list the essential elements needed.

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Federal Question Jdx

-

General Breach of Contract Claims

General breach of contract claims do not arise under Fed law & are not heard by Fed. courts.

Contracts are generally governed by St contract laws and heard by St. courts.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)

-

Claim for Relief

“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

a short & plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jdx”

This is where P lists complaint, cause of action, essential elements, & justification for jdx.

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Federal Question Jdx

-

Grable test

Grable set out a 3-part test for Fed. claims:

“The question is, does a State-law claim:

1) necessarily raise a Federal issue,

2) actually disputed & substantial,

3) which a Fed forum may entertain w/out disturbing any congressionally approved balance of Fed. & St. judicial responsibilities.

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Diversity Jdx

-

28 U.S.C. 1332(a)

Amount in controversy must exceed sum or value of $75k ($75,001+); AND is btw:

1)citizens of different States;

2) citizens of a State & citizens/subjects of a foreign state (unless citizen/subject is a lawfully admitted for permanent U.S. resident & is domiciled in the same state.);

3) citizens of different States & in which citizens/subjects of a foreign state are add’l parties; OR

4) a foreign state as P & citizens of a State or of different States.

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Diversity Jdx

-

28 U.S.C. 1332(c)

Corporations are citizens of:

1) State/Foreign state where incorporated; AND 

2) State/Foreign state where it has its “principal place of business.”

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Diversity Jdx

-

Nerve Center Test

Corp's "principle place of business is determined by

“Nerve Center Test” (Hertz Corp.)

Place where officers direct, control, coordinate activities.

(e.g.; high-level planning, directing/coordinating corp. strategy & daily activities)

In practice, normally the location of HQ, but not required. 

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Diversity Jdx

-

Treatment of Partnerships

Partnerships are not considered entities, rather a collection of individuals. (Grupo Dataflux)

The citizenship of each member of a Partnership must be considered for diversity.

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Diversity Jdx

-

Establishing Citizenship

- Citizenship/Domicile is all-important.

- Residence insufficient for diversity purposes.

- For purposes of determining whether diversity jdx exists, a person is a “citizen” of the state in which he/she is “domiciled.”

- Citizenship is based on date formal Complaint is filed in Fed. court.

(Hawkins v. Masters Farm, Inc.)

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Diversity Jdx

-

Establishing Citizenship - Domicile

For adults, domicile is est. by:

1) physical presence in a place; AND 

2) in connection w/ a certain state of mind concerning one’s intent to remain there.

(Hawkins v. Masters Farm, Inc.)

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Diversity Jdx

-

Complete Diversity

Not explicitly stated in §1332, but courts have interpreted complete diversity is required. (Strawbridge v. Curtiss)

CD exists when no opposing parties to a suit share state citizenship.

i.e.; if 1+∆ shares state citizenship w/ 1+P - diversity is ruined.

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Diversity Jdx

-

Amount in Controversy

§1332 requires amount GREATER THAN $75k

Valuation - if P asks for injunction, amt. is valued base on either:

- value of injunction to P;

- cost to ∆ of complying; OR

- cost/value to party invoking Fed. jdx 

- P in Fed. Court

- ∆ in St. Court & ∆ is attempting to remove

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Diversity Jdx

-

Aggregation of Amount in Controversy

Amount CAN be aggregated when:

Single P w/ 2+ unrelated claims against a single ∆

Amount CANNOT be aggregated when:

2+ Ps have a claim against a single ∆ if claims are “separate & distinct”

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Supplemental Jdx

- 

28 U.S.C. §1367(a)

If Fed. court has original jdx (Pers. & S-M) over an action, “Fed Dist courts shall have jdx over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action w/in such original jdx that they form part of the same case/controversy under Article III.”

If Federal Question jdx, Supplemental jdx will include claims that involve the joinder/intervention of add’l parties.

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Supplemental Jdx

- 

28 U.S.C. §1367(b)

Complete Diversity Requirement

If claim based SOLELY on Diversity jdx, Supplemental jdx NOT available if joinder of add’l parties destroys complete diversity.

a.k.a - If no Fed. Question Jdx and claim is based only on Diversity, must have complete diversity for Supplemental Jdx.

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Supplemental Jdx

- 

28 U.S.C. §1367(c)

Reasons Fed. Dist. Courts may decline a claim

MAY decline supplemental jdx of claim under subsection (a) if:

- state law claim raises a novel/complex issue of state law (e.g.; First Bancorp);

- state law claim substantially predominates over Fed. claim(s) (e.g.; First Bancorp);

- Dist. court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jdx;

- in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jdx.

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Supplemental Jdx

- 

28 U.S.C. §1367(d)

Statute of Limitations

- Clock stops ticking on ST statute of limitations once claim is filed in Fed. court. Amt of time left on statute of limitations is available on claim if dismissed from Fed. court in the future.

- Period of limitations for any claim asserted under subsection (a) shall be 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.

- “clock does not start ticking again” until 30 days after state claim is dismissed from Fed court.

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Supplemental Jdx

- 

Process of Analysis (1 of 3)

1) State law claim must be “so related to Fed. claim that they form part of the same case/controversy.” [28 U.S.C. §1367(a)]

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Supplemental Jdx

- 

Process of Analysis (2 of 3)

2) Claims must derive from a “common nucleus of operative fact?” (Gibbs)

What is the basis or original Fed. jdx?

If claim based on Fed. Question jdx - ok

If claim solely based on Diversity jdx - ok ONLY if there is complete diversity

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Supplemental Jdx

- 

Process of Analysis (3 of 3)

3) Finally, if Supplemental jdx is determined, consider reasons Fed. Dist court MAY decline. [28 U.S.C. §1367(c)]

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Supplemental Jdx

-  

in re Ameriquest Mortgage Co.

“A loose factual connection may be sufficient to confer supp. jdx, so long as facts are BOTH common & operative.”

Courts compare facts necessary to prove elements of Fed claim w/ those necessary to the success of the state claim. 

a.k.a. - “can state claim be resolved/dismissed w/out affecting the Fed claim?”

Subject Matter Jdx

-

Removal

Personal Jdx

-

General in personam jdx

-

Transient Jdx (cont.)

Justice Brennan, et. al.

- No, minimum contacts test as applied in Intl. Shoe still applies.

- Scalia’s reciprocity theory in this case is not adequate.

- Benefits available to ∆ are powerfully inadequate based on the divorce charges including child custody.

Removal

-

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis

Complete Diversity in claim is examined when current judgment is entered, NOT when case was removed from State to Fed court.

(if settlement w/ a party in a suit after Removal destroys diversity, court will dismiss/send back to state court.)

State Substantive Law in Fed. Courts

-

Erie Railroad v. Tompkins

 Fed. Courts sitting in Diversity Jdx/Supplemental Jdx MUST apply State substantive law [using the state in which activities arose], whether State law is statutory/case law.

Goals of Erie:

- discourage parties from forum-shopping

- avoidance of inequitable administration of laws

Transfer

-

Van Dusen v. Barrack

when a case is transferred to a Fed court in another state it “takes w/ it” the substantive law & choice of law of the state where it was originally filed.

Conflict of Law in Federal Courts

Federal courts apply conflict of law rules/tests based on State in which the Federal court sits.

In a Federal Diversity case, Fed court may reach out to the applicable State’s highest court & petition court to answer a state legal issue not yet established, so Fed court can apply correct legal ruling on the matter.

Request at the Fed. Court of Appeals level.

State SCs are not required to answer Certification requests.

If State does not answer Certification request, they may make an “Erie guess” as to how the State would rule on the issue.

Decision is binding, if St. court later makes a different opinion on the issue.