Civil Procedure I- Devlin Fall 22

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts SMJ is limited by Art. III § 2 of the US constitution to diversity and federal question

Which of the following statement or statements contains the core principles of Grable and Sons?

Federal courts may have federal question jurisdiction over claims created by state law, if the meaning or application of some point of federal law is actually disputed, and is a substantial part of litigation and Federal court has federal question jurisdiction over state law claims as long as the federal court can hear without disrupting the federal-state balance, as set by Congress.

Taken together, Pennoyer v. Neff and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A), establish the basic rules for a federal court's power to assert personal jurisdiction over persons within the United States. Together, these sources of law establish that:

Federal courts, like state courts, are only permitted to assert jurisdiction over persons or things that are found within or who has otherwise associated herself with - i.e, by citizenship, voluntary appearance or consent - the state in which the particular federal court sits.

Peter (a citizen of Louisiana) wants to sue David (a citizen of Texas), alleging a claim for breach of contract. He asserts that defendant's breach has cost him (plaintiff) $90,000. Peter can bring that suit:

In either state court or federal district court, at Peter's option.

IPJ Analysis

1) contacts 2) statutory authorization constitutional analysis: (minimum contacts) 1) purposeful availment 2) foreseeability (TNFSPJ) 1) burden on defendant 2) plaintiff interest 3) forum's interest 4) efficiency 5) multi-state interest

Genreal jurisdiction

1) continuous and systematic contacts 2) claim unrestricted to defendant's acts in forum

FQ Tests

1) fed law must enter as part of the logic if P's claim (Mottley) 2) fed law must play specific role in that claim - "create claim" (Holmes: American Well Works) 3) "necessary ingredient"- (Smith, Grable, Gunn)

Specific Jurisdiction

1) single or isolate contacts 2) claim arises out of defendant's acts in forum

Traditional bases of IPJ

1) territoriality / physical presence (Pennoyer) 2) extensions of territoriality a) domicile/citizenship (Milikin) b) voluntary appearance c) consent - by contract (Carnival) - by appointment of agent for service (Szukhent) d) implied consent (Hess)

Which of the following provides statutory authority for Louisiana courts to assert general IPJ over non-resident business entities that have "continuous and systematic" contacts in Louisiana.

13 Louisiana Revised Statutes § 3201.B AND Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Art. 6.B.

Paula, a citizen of Louisiana brings an action against Darlene, also a citizen of Louisiana, alleging a claim "arising out of" Darlene's alleged violation of federal statutes prohibiting race discrimination in employment. Paula can bring that action:

In either state trial court or federal district court, at Paula's option

Diversity met under § 1332(a)(____)

(1) US citizens only, domiciled in different states (2) US citizen v. foreign only (3) US on both sides, domiciled in different states, w/aliens

Grable Test

1) Does a state law claim necessarily raise a substantial federal issue 2) May a federal forum entertain without disturbing the balance between federal and state

In International Shoe, the Supreme Court:

- Retained prior analyses of IPJ based on the traditional bases of physical presence, domicile, voluntary appearance; or consent, but added a new analysis applicable to cases where a non-consenting, out-of-state defendant has "contacts" with the form state. - Derived the "contacts" portion of its new analysis by re-examining and re-classifying prior cases, and constructing a new theory that would account for the results in those cases. - Derived the "reasonableness" part of its analysis from the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, and cases interpreting that Amendment. (E.g., Milliken)

Which of the following are required in order for a court to successfully assert a court's power over particular persons?

- Statutory authorization for the court to assert that jurisdiction. - That the assertion of jurisdiction fall within the limits imposed by the Constitution. - That the summons and complaint were properly served.

1446

- defendant has 30 days from initial filing to file a notice in state court to remove - plaintiff files in federal court a motion to remand to state court - federal court decides where the case stays

Caterpillar v. Williams

- federal defenses do not provide basis for removal - plaintiff relied on individual (state) contracts, not the CBA which is preempted by federal law - plaintiff is master of his complaint

plaintiff interest (SIPJ)

- injured plaintiff? - need all defendants in one courtroom

Forum's interest (SIPJ)

- protect citizens - regulate products entering state

Aggregation of Claims

- single party v. a single party - cannot do this for claims made by different plaintiffs against a single defendant - single plaintiff can do this for different harms caused by a single defendant (car wreck: damage to car, medical expenses, pain and suffering, consequential damages) - Plaintiff cannot do this for different claims if these are just different legal theories for the same harm What is the maximum I can recover from this particular defendant?

Gaston (a citizen of Belgium) wants to join with Levasseur (a citizen of Louisiana), as plaintiffs, to bring a tort suit against McFee Manufacturing Co. (a corporation organized under the laws of the U.K. with its principal place of business in Glasgow, Scotland). They seek $200,000 in damages against the defendants, jointly and severally. Gaston and Levasseur would like to bring this action in federal court. There is also a second potential defendant - one Austin, a citizen of Texas - against whom Gaston and Levasseur have a good faith claim arising out of the same transaction and who could be joined as a second defendant in the same suit. They come to you for advice regarding how the joinder of Austin (or failure to join Austin) would affect the diversity subject matter jurisdiction in federal court.

A federal court likely would have diversity subject matter jurisdiction if Austin is joined as a defendant, but would not have SMJ if Austin is not joined. 1332(a)(3)

Domicile

A person's true fixed principal establishment where they intend to return when absent (Mas) - a person retains their last ________ until changed - to change, a person must physically arrive and intend to remain indefinitely

Hanson v. Denckla

A state court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a party located outside the state in which the case was filed unless the party has substantial contacts with the state.

Both Art. III of the U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. §1332 permit federal trial courts to assert subject matter jurisdiction over suits "between citizens of different states. Which statement correctly describes how the United States Supreme Court has interpreted this phrase?

As used in Art. III, the phrase has been interpreted to require only minimal diversity, but as used in §1332, the phrase has been interpreted to require complete diversity.

Both Art. III of the U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. §1331 permit federal trial courts to assert subject matter jurisdiction over claims "arising under" the Constitution, laws or treaties of the Unites States. Which statement correctly describes how the United States Supreme Court has interpreted this phrase?

As used in Art. III, the phrase has been interpreted to require only the federal law have something to do with plaintiff's claim, but as used in §1331, the phrase has been interpreted to require that federal law "create" (or at least be a "necessary element" of) plaintiff' claims.

P, a citizen of Louisiana, sues D Corp., her employer, for an alleged violation of Louisiana law. D Corp. is a corporation created under Delaware law with its principle place of business in Baton Rouge. Plaintiff seeks exactly $75,000 in damages. Plaintiff brings the suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Defendant files a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. You are the judge. You should:

Grant the motion to dismiss because the parties are not diverse and because the amount in controversy requirement has not been met.

Smith

Appears on the face of the well pleaded complaint, that the case will turn on federal law

Oscar sues the Dunder Mifflin Company for bad faith discharge, a state tort claim that allows damages if the defendant discharges an employee for reasons that violate certain public policies. Oscar claims that Dunder Mifflin fired him because he refused to engage in accounting practices that violate federal statutory accounting requirements for government contractors. Oscar bring suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and Dunder Mifflin moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. What is the result?

Grant the motion, because Pennsylvania employment law, not federal law, creates the claim that plaintiff asserts.

In rem

Binds property in the sense of adjudicating the rights of all persons who claim interested in the property

Assume that Lewis never appears at all in a Mississippi action and that a default judgment is rendered against him. Faulkner then attempts to enforce the Mississippi judgment in Ohio against Lewis and his assets. Lewis opposes those efforts, asserting that the Mississippi court lacked IPJ over him. The Ohio court should:

Enforce the Mississippi judgment if but only if it agrees that the Mississippi court had IPJ over Lewis. Full faith and credit does not require a court to enforce a judgment of a court that lacked jurisdiction to render a judgment.

LLC / Partnership

Citizen of every state where its partners--both managing and limited--are citizens

Carnival

Consent by contract

Federal Question

Constitutional allowance where a question of federal law may arise under 1331 "arising under" has been narrowed by tests established through case law

Gunn

Essential ingredient of the state law COA was the contention arising under federal patent law

Gray v. American Radiator

Defendant acts as an agent for the other defendant Both defendants benefit State can assert IPJ

Mas v. Perry

Defines domicile parties have complete diversity, which is required under 1332 (Strawbridge)

The Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC") is a federal administrative agency created Congress. It is authorized to, and does issue regulations which have the force of law. One of the most important of these is SEC "Rule 10(b)(5)," which prohibits fraud in the purchase and sale of stocks and bonds. A Nevada statute provides that it shall be a violation of Nevada law for any person in Nevada to engage in "any violation of SEC Rule 10(b)(5) involving short selling of securities," and provides that any person injured by such a short sale by a person in Nevada can assert a claim for damages against that person. Priscilla brings an action against Dennis, who "short sold" stocks to Priscilla in Nevada in a manner that she alleges violates SEC Rule 10(b)(5). She alleges that this sale therefore violated the Nevada statute and seeks the damages provided for by the Nevada statute. Priscilla brings the action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Dennis moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The federal judge should:

Deny the motion because plaintiff's claim will rise or fall depending on whether federal law (here Rule 10(b)(5) is construed to prohibit or not prohibit Dennis' actions. (fulfills Mottley and necessary ingredient)

Pierre, a citizen of Louisiana, gets into a car accident with Donald, a citizen of Texas. Pierre brings a negligence action against Donald in federal trial court. In the "wherefore" clause of his complaint, Pierre lists the following items of damage: 1) $35,000 for the cost to replace Pierre's car (which was totally destroyed in the wreck); 2) $15,000 for Pierre's medical expenses; and $30,000 for Pierre's "pain and suffering." Donald moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. You are the judge. How would you rule?

Deny the motion because the parties are diverse and the claims for damages may be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount.

"Targaryen Associates" is a partnership organized under the laws of New York. It is in the business of providing management services for commercial real estate (mostly large apartment buildings) throughout the northeastern parts of the United States. Targaryen's headquarters is, and its officers are, all located in New York City. Targaryen operates in and has individual partners who are citizens of the following states: New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut and Massachusetts. "Lannister Holdings, LLC," is a limited liability company organized according to the laws of Delaware, with its headquarters in Los Angeles, California. Lannister own commercial buildings located throughout the United States. Its sole managing partner, Cersei Lannister, is also domiciled in Los Angeles, California. Lannister Holdings has limited partners (who act solely as passive investors) located in California, Washington State, Arizona and Texas. Some years ago, Targaryen entered into a contract to manage the Westeros Arms, a building owned by Lannister in Boston, Mass. A dispute has developed between Lannister and Targaryen: Targaryen accuses Lannister of failing to pay their debts (i.e., to pay what was owed under the contract) and Lannister accuses Targaryen of failure to properly manage the Westeros Arms. Targaryen Associates brings suit against Lannister in federal court, seeking $100,000 in damages for breach of the parties' contract. Lannister Holdings moves to dismiss for lack of federal SMJ.. As judge, you should:

Deny the motion to dismiss, because the parties are completely diverse Because Targaryen is a partnership, it is treated as a citizen of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut and Massachusetts (i.e., all of the states in which its partners are domiciled). Though an LLC, Lannister is also treated as if it were a partnership, with its citizenship defined by the domiciles of its partners - here, California, Washington State, Arizona and Texas. Carden v. Arkoma Associates.

Lewis publishes books in Ohio. One day he was visited in Ohio by Falkner, a book wholesaler whose head office is in Mississippi. Lewis agrees to sell a thousand copies of Brandywine, Ohio, a novel, to Faulkner. At Faulkner's request Lewis ships the books directly to Faulkner's Louisiana warehouse. Faulkner subsequently discovers that the books have suffered water damage and cannot be sold. Falkner sues Lewis in a state court in Mississippi. Lewis is convinced that he should win on the merits, because he believes the books were damaged while being stored at Faulkner's warehouse in Louisiana. Lewis also doubts that a Mississippi court would have IPJ over him. Lewis makes a special appearance in the Mississippi court to raise the issue of lack of SIPJ. You are the judge. You should:

Deny the motion. Entering into a contract with a Mississippi entity (Falkner) is an intentional contact by Lewis with Mississippi, and this case arises out of that contact. (Burger King)

Allie (a citizen of Louisiana) works at LSU as a professor. Allie believes that LSU is treating her differently and not giving her the same opportunities as other professors of similar accomplishment because she is a woman. (Indeed, she is the only woman in her department.) Allie has heard that federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender. She is also convinced that the university's treatment of her violates the terms of her employment contract. She wants to sue LSU for breach of contract, and to do so in federal court if possible. She come to you for advice. You would tell her that a federal court would

Dismiss the claim because Allie is relying on state law as the source of her right to relief.

Peggy Olson (New York citizen) sues Don Draper (New Jersey citizen) in New York state court alleging employee discrimination due to her gender. Under which of the following circumstances would the New York have in personam jurisdiction over Don based on traditional bases?

Don was served with process in his New York office and Don appoints his secretary at his New York office as agent for service of process

The most common form of express consent to personal jurisdiction in the business world is by contract. Both parties may agree to add a forum selection clause identifying a certain forum as the agreed place to litigate should any conflict arise. Generally, courts may

Enforce such clauses regardless of whether they were expressly negotiated by the parties.

Assume that the Mississippi court conducted a hearing on Lewis' motion to dismiss, but concluded that it had IPJ over him. Lewis is convinced that the Mississippi court is wrong on this point, and decides not to appear to defend the action on the merits. A default judgment is entered in favor of Faulkner against Lewis. Faulkner then attempts to enforce the Mississippi judgment in Ohio against Lewis and his assets. Lewis opposes those efforts, asserting that the Mississippi court lacked IPJ over him. The Ohio court should:

Enforce the Mississippi judgment even if it doubts the correctness of the Mississippi court's ruling on this issue. Because this issue was fully litigated in Mississippi, the Ohio court must give "full faith and credit" to the Mississippi court's ruling that it had IPJ over Lewis.

World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson

Foreseeability alone is not sufficient to authorize a state court's assertion of IPJ over a non-resident defendant that has no contacts, ties, or relations with the forum state.

Cora Crawley was born and raised in the District of Columbia. At the age of 20 she married Hugh Grantham, a British citizen residing in Hampshire, in the southern part of England. Though the couple established their domicile in Hampshire, Cora retained her American citizenship. Edwardian Gowns, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in D.C. Recently, Edwardian Gowns, Inc. brought an action against Cora in a United States District Court, alleging that she owed the company $80,000 for fancy dresses which she had purchased but not paid for. Cora makes a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. You are the judge. You should:

Grant the motion because Cora is not a citizen of any state of the United States, nor is she a citizen or subject of any foreign state. 1332(a)(2)

Petunia, a citizen of Louisiana, was out walking. She was hit by a car driven by Desdemona, a citizen of Texas. Later, on the way to the hospital, one of the EMTs, Douglas, also a citizen of Texas, negligently gave Petunia a transfusion using the wrong type of blood, causing further injuries to Petunia. Petunia thereafter brought a single action in a federal court against both Desdemona and Douglas (as co-defendants). Petunia's claim against Desdemona lists the following items of damage: 1) $25,000 for medical expenses resulting from the initial accident and $30,000 for her "pain and suffering." Petunia's claim against Douglas lists the following items of damages:3) $20,000 for additional medical expenses because of the improper transfusion and $20,000 for the additional "pain and suffering caused thereby. Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. You are the judge. How would you rule?

Grant the motion because Petunia's claims do not "exceed the sum or value of $75,000," as required by §1332.

Leni Riefenstahl is a citizen of Germany. However, she is also a permanent resident of the United States with her domicile in California. Kelly Conway is a citizen of the United States, also domiciled in California. James Carville is a U.S. citizen domiciled in Louisiana. Reifenstahl brought a defamation action against Conway and Carville, in U.S. District Court, alleging a good faith claim for more than $75,000 in damages against each. Defendants move to dismiss the action for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. You would expect the judge to:

Grant the motion because Riefenstahl, as a "permanent resident" is treated as if she were a citizen of the state in which she is domiciled - here, California. Thus she is not diverse from Conway. 1332(a)(2)

Prentiss, a citizen of New York, sues Dee Foods Corp., a corporation created under the laws of the state of New York, with its principle place of business in Tampa, Florida. Prentiss became sick after drinking a bottle of orange juice bottled by Dee Corp., which turned out to contain botulism toxin. Prentiss brought suit in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida (which includes Tampa). Prentiss brings suit on two theories. Count I seeks $50,000 from Dee Corp on the theory that the company was negligent in allowing its product to be contaminated by botulism. Count II also seeks to recover $50,000 based on the same events, asserting in the alternative that Dee Corp. is strictly liable under a "products liability" theory. (Note, both theories arise under Florida tort law.) Defendant moves to dismiss.. You are the judge. You would most likely:

Grant the motion because the parties are not diverse and Grant the motion because plaintiff does not state claims that "exceed the sum or value of $75,000."

Tim Cook, holder of a patent on a new cell phone, licenses the idea to Steve Jobs, an entrepreneur. Both Cook and Jobs are citizens of California. The contract between Cook and Jobs requires Jobs to pay a license fee to Cook for every phone sold. Jobs sells over one million cell phones, but Tim claims that Steve has only paid him licensing fees for half of those phones. Tim sues Steve in the Central District of California to recover for the difference in amounts paid for the licensing of the patent, and Steve moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. What is the result?

Grant the motion, because the plaintiff's claim does not "arise under" federal law, under either the "creation" or the current understanding of the "necessary ingredient" test. (state COA and state remedy, will not turn on federal law)

Purposeful availment (SIPJ)

Hanson - knowingly cause effect in state - shipment through manufacturer, direct marketing, shipment into forum, service networks, market specific product - benefits from state through contract; longer contemplated relationship with state

In International Shoe, the Supreme Court ultimately found that the State of Washington and its courts could constitutionally assert jurisdiction over the International Shoe Corp. because:

International Shoe had continuous and systematic contacts in the state of Washington and this cause of action arose out of those contacts.

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.

It is sufficient for the purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract that had substantial connection w California

Creation test

Judge Holmes in American Well Works - if fed law creates the right and remedy for plaintiff's claim

Burger King v. Rudzewicz

Jurisdiction may not be avoided merely because the defendant did not physically enter the forum state - The franchise grew directly out of "a contract which had a substantial connection with that state" - Defendant deliberately "reached out beyond" his home state to the state of which forum is trying to grab him

In Personam Jurisdiction

Limited by the constitutional due process requirements (5h and 14th amendments) and state reciprocity must be - constitutional - authorized by statute

The "vesting" clause of Article III, §1

Mandates the existence of a federal Supreme Court, but gives Congress the option of deciding whether to create other federal courts and tribunals

Patricia was driving from Arizona to her home in Louisiana. She while in Texas she suffered a flat tire. As the old tire was very worn, Patricia bought a new tire from "Don's Tires," a store located near Houston, Texas. The new tire was installed at Don's, and Patricia paid in cash. Later that day, while Patricia was on the highway between Lake Charles and Lafayette (i.e., in Louisiana) the new tire had a catastrophic blowout. Because of the blowout, Patricia's car skidded off the road, rolled several times and eventually crashed into a tree. The car was destroyed and Patricia was severely injured. She is presently in a hospital in Lafayette, where she will likely remain for some time to come. Patricia brings suit against Don's Tires in a Louisiana state court. Assuming statutory authorization, will a Louisiana state court liiely be able to assert personal jurisdiction over Don's Tires?

No, because Don's has not "purposefully availed" itself of the privilege of doing business in Louisiana.

Austin, a citizen of North Dakota, is a traveling salesman who sells her goods in North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota. While in Minnesota, Austin is involved in a car accident with Healy, a citizen of Minnesota. Austin brings suit against Healy in the U.S. District court for the District of North Dakota, seeking $100,000 in damages for the harms she suffered in the accident. Does the North Dakota federal court have personal jurisdiction over Healy?

No, because defendant has not consented or voluntarily appeared, and has no apparent contacts with the state of North Dakota.

Would the outcome of Hess v. Pawloski be different if it had been decided after International Shoe was decided?

No, because the facts that defendant was voluntarily driving in Massachusetts, and that the accident arose out of that driving, creates the requisite "minimum contacts between defendant and the state of Massachusetts.

In Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust, the Supreme Court held that a federal court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim that the bank's officers and directors had breached their fiduciary duties, even though that claim was "created" by state rather than federal law. It did so because:

Plaintiff's claim would necessarily turn on the question of how federal law - here, the federal constitutional limits on Congress' authority to issue bonds - was interpreted. and The fact that plaintiff's claim would turn on the interpretation of federal law was apparent from the face of the complaint.

American Well Works

SMJ if federal law creates the right and remedy (creation test)

Aaron B. (New York), shoots and kills Eliza H.'s husband in a duel. At the time of the duel, both were officers in the U.S. Army. Eliza (New York) wants to bring a tort action against Aaron for wrongful death and loss of consortium. Both causes of action are state law torts. She seeks a total of $1 million from Aaron As part of her allegation that the death was indeed "wrongful" Eliza's complaint cites to Art. 114 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 United States Code 914, which defines dueling as an offense punishable by court martial, and sentence for a term of years to a military brig). Eliza comes to you for advice about where to file her claim. You should tell her:

She can file the action only in state court, because only a state court would have general subject matter jurisdiction over claims of this sort. (need the right and the remedy)

Diversity

Statutory SMJ under 1332 - interpreted to require complete diversity - No plaintiff can be same citizenship as any defendant (Strawbridge) It does not matter if Ps are diverse from other Ps, or if Ds are diverse from other Ds.

As you may know, the Wal-Mart retail giant (a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Arkansas) owns many stores and employs many hundreds of people in every state. Assume that a dispute arose between Wal-Mart and a large number of its employees at its stores in Texas. Those Texas employees alleged that Wal-Mart wrongly interfered with the employees' efforts to organize a union, in violation of the federal Labor laws. Those employees are concerned that the federal 5th Circuit is hostile toward enforcement of federal labor laws, so they instead file the suit in California. Under the line of cases typified by the Louisiana decision in Aguilera de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd.:

Suit in a federal court in California might be possible, based on the defendant's continuous and systematic contacts in that state, but the ultimate result would depend on whether the court considered bring suit in that location "fair" and "reasonable."

FRCP 4(K)(1)(A)

Territorial Limits of Effective Service (1) In general, serving summons of filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant: (A) who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located

Pennoyer

Territoriality (derived from international law) 1) every state posses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over person and property within its territory 2) no state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over person or property without its territory

Chaplin Motors, Inc. manufactures stunt cars for use in movie and television. Paramount Pictures, a company headquartered in Hollywood, California, is a regular customer of Chaplin. Paramount ordered 10 cars from Chaplin. Chaplin shipped the cars to Paramount, which promptly paid for them. Paramount sent one of Chaplin's cars to Arizona, for use in a desert chase scene. The cars malfunctioned while being used in Arizona, causing injuries to its occupants and delaying completion of the movie - a delay which cost Paramount a significant amount of money. Paramount sued Chaplin in California court, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty and negligence. Both Chaplin and Gleason move to dismiss the claims against them for lack of in personam jurisdiction. (Remember: California has a long arm statute like Louisiana's §3201.B - i.e., that instructs the state court to assert IPJ to the limits of the Constitution.) How would you expect a California court to rule?

That it may assert IPJ over both Chaplin and Gleason. (American radiator)

Chaplin sells its cars to various distributors of movie equipment and props, including "Indestructible Props, Inc." a company located in Salt Lake City Utah. Chaplin is well aware that many of Indestructible's clients are in California. Assume that the car that malfunctioned in California was bought by Paramount from Indestructible, rather than directly from Chaplin. Under these facts would a California court would be able to assert specific IPJ over Chaplin in connection with Paramount's claim?

The California court would be able to assert SIPJ. Because Chaplin knew that Indestructible sold its products in California, and Chaplin benefitted from those sales, Indestructible was (in effect) acting as Chaplin's "agent" when selling Chaplin cars in California. Grey v. American Radiator.

Which of the following statements most accurately states the degree of deference that federal courts of appeals usually use when reviewing the decisions of United States trial courts?

The appellate court usually gives deference to the trial court's findings of fact, but little deference to the trial court's conclusions of law. The trail court's finding of fact should be left undisturbed (unless they are clearly erroneous) because the trial court was able to see the witnesses' testimony, while the appellate court sees only a written transcript. In contrast, the appellate court review the trial court's conclusions of law "de novo" (i.e., by making its own independent decision, not limited by any deference to the trial court). Panels of appellate judges are more reliable interpreters of law than a single trial judge, acting alone.

Suppose that the Mottleys' case arose after Grable was decided. Once again they sue in federal court for their passes, and allege that the railroad will likely rely on the federal anti-Trust statute as its reason for refusing to renew the passes. The Mottley's complaint goes on to assert that this defense is insufficient: 1) because the statute does not apply to passes granted before its enactment; and if it the statute were so interpreted, the statute would violate the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. How would the result in the Mottley case differ if it were brought today?

The result would be the same because the federal statute and Constitutional provision cited do not form any necessary element of the Mottley's claim and therefore their claim does not "arise out of" federal law. (federal law enter in the logic of plaintiff's claim, not as a defense)

Asahi

To assert IPJ, connection must be purposely directed at forum by defendant: 1) designing the product for the market in the forum state 2) advertising in the forum 3) establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum 4) marketing in the forum

Natural Persons

To be a citizen of a state under 1332: - person must be both a US citizen and a domiciliary of a US state

Plaintiff (a Louisiana citizen) sued Defendant (a Texas citizen) in a Louisiana state court. After winning a $100,000 judgment in her favor, Plaintiff sought to enforce that judgment against Defendant's assets in Texas. The Texas state court refused to enforce (i.e., to give full faith and credit to) the Louisiana court judgment, on the ground that it was an unreasonable interpretation of the applicable law. She comes to you for advice: You should tell her:

To file the appeal in the appropriate Texas state appellate court. The appeal will likely be successful because, under Full Faith and Credit clause, the Texas court is required to enforce valid judgments by a Louisiana regardless of whether the Texas Court agrees with the decision or reasoning.

Walter White (cit. of Arizona) hired lawyer Saul Goodman (cit. of New Mexico) to sue Jesse Pinkman (cit. of New Mexico) for breach of contract. Both the hiring of Goodman and the work on the suit took place in New Mexico. Walter agreed to pay Saul $1000 for his services. Saul did the work, but Walter returned to Arizona without paying Saul's fee. Saul sues Walter for his fee in an New Mexico state court. Walter is served with process in New Mexico while Walter was visiting there on unrelated business. Walter promptly departed once more for Arizona and has not returned to the state since. According to Pennoyer, the New Mexico court:

Would have personal jurisdiction over Walter because he was served in New Mexico

Acme Contractors, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Texas, with its principal place of business in Marshall, Texas (a city about 40 miles west of Shreveport on I-20). Acme is in the business of doing the construction work necessary to renovate, expand or repair private homes. Until the facts set forth below, all of Acme's customers have been located in Texas. Last spring, Acme entered into a contract with Boudreaux, a lifelong resident of Greenwood, Louisiana. According to that contract, Acme agreed to repair the roof of Boudreaux's home, which had been severely damaged by a tornado. Acme did the work and Boudreaux paid Acme $10,000 for its efforts.. However, it swiftly became apparent that the roof was defective - it leaked badly in every rainstorm. Boudreaux brought suit against Acme in Louisiana state court. Assuming statutory authorization, would a Louisiana court be able hear this claim against Acme?

Yes, because Acme ""purposefully availed" itself of the opportunity to do business in Louisiana

Peggy and Donald got into car accident in Georgia. Peggy wants to sue Donald, but he left the state before he could be served with process. His present whereabouts is unknown. Peggy's investigator learned that Donald is a citizen of Florida, where his aged mother still lives. Peggy arranged to have her investigator send a Facebook message to Donald stating (untruthfully) that Donald's mother was gravely ill. Not surprisingly, Donald rushed home, where he was met by a process server who served Peggy's summons and complaint on him. Would a Florida court likely assert personal jurisdiction over Donald in this case?

Yes, only because Donald is a citizen of Florida. Fraudulent serving is not ok

Some years ago, Jessica was involved in a car accident. The other party involved brought suit against Jessica in a Maine state court. Process was served on Jessica in New York. Jessica believes that the Maine action should be dismissed for two reasons: 1) because the Maine court lacks personal jurisdiction over her; and 2) because the suit is now barred by the applicable statute of limitations. She makes what she calls a "special appearance" (allowed by Maine law) and moves to dismiss the case on both of the asserted grounds. Did Jessica's appearance in the Maine Court give that court personal jurisdiction over her?

Yes. Special appearance protection only applies when the defendant appears solely for the purpose of dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction. Jessica has also pleaded the affirmative defense of statute of limitations, giving Maine jurisdiction over her.

Necessary Ingredient

case must necessarily turn on a substantial question of federal law without disturbing the congressional balance between federal and state courts (side-door) (Smith, Grable, Gunn)

IPJ Contacts

claim must arise from that contact

Szukhent

consent by appointment of agent for service

Consent by appearance

consenting to a venue allows a forum to exercise IPJ special appearance- going to court to contest jurisdiction is not sufficient for consent

Milikin

domicile in a state is sufficient for a state to exercise IPJ

Favoring last domicile

family in last state property not sold yet retain drivers license no job yet/low end job renting

International Shoe

for state court to assert IPJ over a nonresident: 1) minimum contacts 3) not offend TNFSPJ

U.S.C. §1338 provides that federal courts have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over claims alleging violation of the federal patent and copyright laws, (Note, this is one of the rare cases for which state courts do not have concurrent jurisdiction over claims "arising under" federal law.) Acme Corp. (incorporated in Delaware, with its PPB in New York) manufactures and sells ceiling fans. Widgets, Inc. (incorporated in Delaware with its PPB in Ohio) also manufactures and sells ceiling fans. Acme believed that Widgets' products improperly copied Acme's patented "force multiplier" design for the blades of its ceiling fans - a patented design for the shape of the blades which increased the amount of air in circulation and the cooling effect of Acme's fans. Acme wrote letters to Widgets, to Widgets' customers (mostly large retail outlets) and to the newspapers, all accusing Widgets of "stealing" Acme's intellectual property. In response, Widgets brought a defamation action against Acme in state court. Acme responded to Widget's complaint by filing an answer and counterclaim alleging that Widgets had "infringed" Acme's patent rights (a claim that "arises under" federal patent law, and thus falls within §1331 and also under §1338's definition of exclusive federal SMJ over patent claims). Acme then "removed" that case to the appropriate federal court. Widgets made a timely motion to "remand" the whole case (including both its original claim and Acme's counterclaim) back to state court, on the ground that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The federal judge should :

grant the motion to remand, on the ground that Widget's original claim does not fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court. (plaintiff's claim has to be arising under federal law or a necessary ingredient. Counterclaim cannot be granted federal question)

Calder v. Jones

in cases in which there is insufficient interactivity or minimum contacts, but where the action is targeted at a particular forum, the court may find jurisdiction

Efficiency (SIPJ)

location of evidence - injury, shipment, manufacturing, advertising, call/internet orders, witnesses

burden on defendant (SIPJ)

most important - distance (past trips?) - resources

Multi-State Interest (SIPJ)

new prevalent something in need of regulation / foreign manufacturer

The rule articulated in Louisville & Nashville RR. Co. v. Mottley is sometimes (somewhat misleadingly) referred to as the "well pleaded complaint" rule. This concept is best understood as:

requiring that the federal law relied on for the assertion of U.S. District Court's federal question subject matter jurisdiction must make up part of the logic of plaintiff's claim.

Quasi in rem

settles property rights only of specific persons does not settle rights in property against all persons 1) resolves a dispute about the property itself 2) establishes rights to property, but the underlying dispute is unrelated to the property (Pennoyer is example)

Ringling Brothers, Inc. is a corporation created under the laws of Wisconsin, with its corporate central offices in New York City. Ringling is in the business of operating a circus. During the months from March through November, the circus travels (primarily by train) to and performs in cities up and down the eastern portion of the United States. The only real property owned by Ringling is near Sarasota, Florida, where the circus maintains its "winter quarters" - i.e., where they store their equipment for the winter, where performers train and where those performers who do not have homes elsewhere can live in barracks-type quarters provided by the company. Investigation has revealed that the particular employee whose negligence caused the lion to escape was Emmett Kelly, a citizen of Florida. A few months ago, Barnum, a citizen of Maine, was injured when a lion escaped from its cage while the circus train was stopped for refueling at the railroad yard in Bangor, Maine. Plaintiff wants to bring suit against Ringling Bros. and Kelly, and would like to get both defendants into the same courtroom. Barnum comes to you for advice. The time is today. You would tell him:

that he could certainly get IPJ over both defendants in Maine, and may be able to get IPJ over both defendants in Florida as well.

To say that a particular court can assert "general IPJ" over a particular out-of-state business entity means that:

the court's power is "dispute blind" in the sense that it the court's power does not depend on what the dispute is about, or where that dispute arose.

Favoring domicile change

voter registration drivers license buy property limited visits to prior ________ sell property in last ________

Mottley

well-pleaded complaint rule (front-door) - federal law must enter as part of the logic of a plaintiff's claim

Amount in Controversy

§ 1332(a) must exceed $75k determined by looking at plaintiff's good faith claim

Corporations

§ 1332(c)(1) citizen of every state of incorporation and the state of their principle place of business PPB is a corp's nerve center- where its officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities (Hertz)

Removal

§ 1441(a) suits are removable to federal court where a federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the claim (SMJ specifically) Caterpillar

Remand

§ 1447 B2 exception