Civil Procedure - Emanuel Law Outlines

2. Federal Question Jurisdiction

28 U.S.C 1331 gives federal courts SMJ over statutory and constitutional claims, regardless of the amount in controversy. A. Basics 1. Exclusive jurisdiction: SMJ under 1331 is usually not exclusive and is shared with state courts. However, other statutes give the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over certain claims arising under federal law. 2. Claims "arising under": Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims "arising under" not only federal statutes but also under the U.S. constitution and treaties. 3. When claim "arises under": A claim can arise either if the law itself creates the right, or, in some cases, when federal law is a necessary element of a state-law claim. B. Well-pleaded complaint rule: Whether a case involves federal question is determined by using well-pleaded complaint rule: federal question jurisdiction only exists if the federal issue is necessary to the plaintiff's case.

5. Removal of cases from state court to federal court

28 U.S.C 1441 allows a defendant (in some cases) to remove a case filed in state court to federal court. A. When case is removable: Generally, case in state court may be removed when it could have been filed originally in federal court. ----1. Federal court to which the case is removed must have diversity, federal question, and/or supplemental jurisdiction over all claims in the case. ----2. When removal is based on diversity, special rules apply. -----a. Section 1441 (b) prevents a defendant sued in her home state from removing -----b. Diversity must exist both when the case is filed and at the time of removal. -----c. A case ordinarily cannot be removed based on diversity more than one year after it was first filed. ----3. Section 1441 (c) allows removal of federal claims brought along with certain "separate and independent" claims that are not removable. B. Process: ----1. Only defendants may remove ----2. Defendants remove by filing a notice of removal with the federal and state court. Court permission is unnecessary. ----3. Removal must occur within 30 days after defendant receives notice that she is party to a removable state court case.

6. Transfer of Venue

A case filed in one federal district may be transferred to another federal district. A. If venue proper: If the original court has venue over the action, any party may ask the court to transfer the case to another federal district where venue would also be proper. 28 U.S.C. 1404. The court will grant the request if the new forum is a more convenient place for litigation. 1. As in forum non conveniens, the court considers both public and private factors. 2. The governing law in the new court is the same as that which would apply in the original court. B. If venue improper: If venue is improper in the original court, 28 U.S.C 1406 allows the court to transfer the case to a district where venue would be proper, but only if transfer is more just than simply dismissing for lack of venue.

I. Overview

A. "Personal Jurisdiction" Definition: - Court's power to enter a judgement that binds the parties to the case. B. Constitutional Considerations: U.S. Constitution limits a court's power to exercise personal jurisdiction. Numerous Supreme Court cases define when the Constitution allows jurisdiction. C. Two Categories: 2 Broad Categories of Personal Jurisdiction: ----1. In personam (Jurisdiction over the person) ----2. In rem (jurisdiction over property)

3. Diversity Jurisdiction

A. Basics ----1. Actions included: Statute grants SMJ over actions that (a) are between citizens of different states and/or foreign citizens, and (b) involve an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. ----2. Not exclusive: Diversity jurisdiction is not exclusive. The same action may be filed in state courts ----3. Exceptions: There are certain exceptions to diversity jurisdiction, including abstention and situations of collusive joinder. ----4. Complete diversity required: Section 1332 requires complete diversity; that is, no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. B. Determining citizenship: A "citizen of a state" within the meaning of 1332 is a citizen of the United States who is domiciled in a particular state. ----1. Domicile: A person's domicile is determined by residence plus intent to remain. An individual always has only one domicile. ----2. Corporations: Section 1332 provides that a corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. Thus, a corporation can have two citizenships. If a corporation does business in more than one state, its principal place of business is its "nerve center", usually the corporate headquarters. ----3. Special Parties: Special rules apply to insurance companies and representatives. ----4. Foreign Citizens: Although 1332 allows suits between citizens of a state and foreign citizens, suits involving only foreigners are not covered. C. Amount in controversy: 1332 requires an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. ----1. In a case involving damages, requirement is satisfied as long as the plaintiff's complaint states a colorable claim for damages of greater than $75,000 ----2. In cases involving nonmonetary relief, courts must ascertain the money value of the relief sought. ----3. Plaintiff may be able to aggregate claims to meet the amount in controversy. D. Skirting 1332: Section 1359 deals with attempts to create diversity by collusive means.

1. Basic Principles

A. Definition: Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) is a court's power to hear a particular dispute. B. All Courts: SMJ is an issue in both state and federal courts. ----1. State Courts: Have residual jurisdiction; There is at least one court in every state with SMJ over every claim other than those specifically delegated to another. ----2. Federal Courts: Courts of limited jurisdiction. SMJ of federal courts is limited by the Constitution and federal statutes. 2 Basic categories of federal SMJ: federal question and diversity. ----3. Exceptions: Several exceptions to federal jurisdiction, including domestic relations and probate cases. C. Challenges: Unlike other defenses, any party may challenge SMJ at any time. Court may also raise the issue sua sponte.

II. General Themes

A. Multiple Court Systems: Recurring theme of parallel state and federal courts. Often possible for either state or federal court to hear a particular dispute. B. Stages in a Civil Lawsuit: Typical lawsuit involves several stages. 1. Determining where to sue: Plaintiff first determines where to bring the action. Requires consideration of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue. 2. Pleading the case: Party determines how to plead the case. The complaint is the document in which the plaintiff sets out her claims. Defendant responds with a pre-answer motion and/or an answer. 3. Joinder: If case involves more than one plaintiff or defendant. If so, the parties may file various claims against each other. Also possible for parties other than plaintiff and defendants to be joined to a case, or in some cases, for non-parties to join of their own volition. 4. Discovery: Although the parties will engage in significant information gathering before the case begins, they may also compel the other parties, as well as non-party witnesses, to provide information during the case. 5. Resolution before trial: Many cases are settled before ever going to trial. A party may also dismiss her case voluntarily or have her case dismissed for failure to cooperate in the litigation process. Finally, if it becomes clear that one side should prevail, the court may grant a summary judgement in that party's favor, which operates like a judgment after a full trial. 6. Trial: If case reaches trial, additional issues arise, primarily involving immediate appeals of rulings and use of the jury. 7. Post-Trial: Unfavorable judgement may be appealed, although strict rules govern the timing of the appeal. A final judgement may prevent he litigants or other parties from relitigating the claims and issues in later cases.

I. Civil Procedure Generally

Civil Procedure: The study of how civil cases are conducted. Sources of Civil Procedure: Rules of procedure more likely to come from a statute or written rule than from case law. 1. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2. Cases: Although most rules come from statutes and other written rules, cases are also important insofar as they explain, fine-tune, and sometimes ignore the rules.

4. Supplemental Jurisdiction

For a federal court to hear a case, SMJ must exist over every claim. However, 1367 allows a federal court to hear claims it could not otherwise hear when those claims are brought along with related claims over which the court has SMJ. A. Basics: 2 Step Process: ----1. 1367 (a): First, determine if claim in question is sufficiently related to another claim in the case over which the court has diversity or federal question jurisdiction. A sufficient relationship exists if the two claims arise from a "common nucleus of operative fact". ----2. 1367(b) & (c): The second step is to determine if any of the exceptions in subsections (b) and (c) apply. a. Section 1367 (b) prevents a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over certain claims "by plaintiffs" against parties "joined under certain rules" when jurisdiction over the original federal claim is "solely on diversity". b. Section 1367 (c) gives a court discretion to refuse to hear the nonfederal claim based upon certain criteria set out in the subsection.

5. Forum Non Conveniens

Forum Non Conveniens = court created doctrine, applicable in both state and federal court, gives court "discretion" to dismiss an action even though venue is proper. Court will dismiss a case on forum non conveniens only if: A. an alternate forum is available to hear the case, and B. the court determines that the "private" and "public" factors warrant dismissal. Private factors relate to matters of convenience of the parties and witnesses, while public factors consider choice of law questions and interests of the judicial system.

3. Federal Venue

In federal courts, venue is specifically defined by 28 U.S.C. 1391 and other statutes. A. Districts: - Federal venue is defined in terms of judicial districts rather than states. Many states have more than one federal district. B. Where Proper: - Under 1391 (b), Plaintiff may bring her action in any district in which the defendant resides (provided that all defendants reside in the same state) or in any district in which a substantial portion of the events or omissions giving rise to the cause of action occurred. If venue not possible under either of those options, plaintiff may bring action in any district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. 1. Corporations and non-resident defendants: - 1391 (c) contains special rules governing corporate and non-resident defendants. a. A corporation is deemed to reside wherever it is subject to personal jurisdiction. b. Defendants who do not reside in the United States may be sued in any district in the United States. 2. Special Venue: Special venue statutes apply to certain cases, such as statutory interpleader actions and cases removed from state court.

1. Basic Principles

Legislatures often prescribe a particular location for litigation, which is called the venue.

II. The Constitutional Test

Long line of Supreme Court Cases that set out an analysis for when a court may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant. Referred to as the Minimum Contacts Test. A. Pennoyer v. Neff (1877): - First case to hold that the Constitution limited jurisdiction. Set out a territorial approach, where a State's authority was confined to the people and property within its borders. Recent modifications but many of these rules still remain. B. International Shoe v. Washington (1945): - Established basic "minimum" contacts test", which is still used today to measure jurisdiction. Court indicated that the minimum level of contacts necessary to sustain jurisdiction depends on whether the suit arose out of the contacts (specific jurisdiction) or whether it was unrelated to the contacts ("general" jurisdiction) C. Shaffer v. Heitner (1977) - Held that the minimum contacts test also applied to in rem (jurisdiction over property) cases. Court held that if property was the only contact between defendant and the state, and the cause of action did not arise directly out of the property, a state ordinarily could not exercise jurisdiction over the property or the owner. D. World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson (1980): - Gave the minimum contacts test 2 distinct elements: 1. First, there must be purposeful contacts between the defendant and the forum 2. Second, the exercise of jurisdiction must be fair as measured by 5 factors E. Contract Cases: - McGee v. International Life, Hanson v. Denckla, and Burger King v. Rudzewicz, court discussed how minimum contacts analysis applies to contract-based claims. Contract can constitute purposeful availment with a state fi the contract is negotiated and/or is to be performed in that state. Merely, contracting with a citizen from another state is not enough to qualify as contact. F. Nicastro: J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, "Stream of Commerce" Problem: A defendant injects a good into commerce through a third party. Court indicated that mere awareness that some of your product would end up in the forum state was not enough to qualify as a contact. Contacts would only exist if the party also engaged in other activities specifically directed at the forum, such as advertising.. G. Internet Cases: Internet poses special difficulty for minimum contacts test because users are not necessarily aware of the location of people they interact with. Supreme court has not dealt with issue, but lower courts have. Passive sites usually do not create jurisdiction, active sites, especially those where the owner takes orders, can be sufficient contact. H. General Jurisdiction: Most personal jurisdiction cases involve "specific jurisdiction", where the claim arises out of defendant's contacts. However, if defendant is "essentially at home" in the state, general jurisdiction may be available even if defendant is not currently in the state. In general jurisdiction, the claim need not arise out of the contacts. I. Summary: These cases and others set out basic analysis to use when determining whether most assertions of personal jurisdiction satisfy the constitution. ----1. Two distinct steps: The contacts and fairness portions of the test are separate steps. -----a. Contacts always required. Unless there is at least one purposeful contact between defendant and the forum, there will not be jurisdiction. -----b. Once at least 1 contact is identified, a court will evaluate fairness, applying 5 different factors. Usually, the fairness analysis will prevent a court from exercising jurisdiction only in cases of extreme unfairness. ----2. Contacts and purposefulness: Court indicates that a contact does not count unless it is the result of "purposeful availment" by defendant of the benefits and protections of the forum. ----3. Fairness: When evaluating, one must consider not only the burden on defendant but also the interests of plaintiff, the forum state, other states, and the judicial system. However, fairness is not considered unless there is at least one purposeful contact.

III. Case Outside the Minimum Contacts Test

Minimum contacts test of "International Shoe" replaces the territorial approach of "Pennoyer" in most circumstances, there are still situations in which the "Pennoyer" rules apply. These include: A. the DOMICILE of an individual B. the STATE OF INCORPORATION of a corporate defendant C. the PHYSICAL PRESENCE of defendant in the forum state at the time of service (illustrated by Burnham v. Superior Court) D. when defendant CONSENTS to jurisdiction

IV. Notice

Notice: a summons and copy of the complaint----is the other key prerequisite for exercising personal jurisdiction. A. Constitutional considerations: Constitution places certain restrictions on notice. Supreme Court held in "Mullane" that notice must be reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the parties being served. B. How notice is provided: State and federal courts differ on the methods of service ----1. Long-arm statute: Service on an out-of-state defendant in a state court action is usually effected by means of a special statute called the long-arm statute. ----2. Federal Courts: Service in a federal action is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. -----a. Methods: Federal Court can serve either using methods listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. or by borrowing the law of the state in which the federal court sits or in which service occurs. Special service rules apply to certain types of defendants, such as infants, foreign defendants, and the United States. -----b. Territorial Limits: Service alone does not create jurisdiction. -------I. The minimum contacts analysis discussed above applies to the federal courts, indirectly. -------ii. There are a few exceptions. C. Waiver of Service: Party suing in federal court may ask defendant to waive service. Rule provides incentives to encourage defendants to waive.

V. Challenges to Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is a personal defense that can be waived by inaction or by taking inconsistent action. A. Traditional Approach: Very strict. If defendant participated in the case in any way, she waived the personal jurisdiction defense. B. Modern Approach: Exemplified by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under this approach, a defendant may challenge personal jurisdiction and, if he loses, go ahead and litigate the merits.

4. Challenges to Venue

Rules governing challenges to venue are the same as those that apply to challenges to personal jurisdiction.

2. State Venue

Venue in the state systems varies significantly.