Jurisdiction

28 USC 1331

" The district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the US" The statutory grant of power to courts, sounds like Art III We want to be more selective than the states - how do we narrow this down and keep it under control

Rest 2nd Sect 80

"The parties' agreement as to the place of the action cannot oust a state of judicial jurisdiction, but such an agreement will be given effect unless it is unfair or unreasonable." In plain English, this means that when there is a forum selection clause, the courts should give it its effect unless it is unfair or unreasonable - nothing about that should be interpreted that the court does not have jurisdiction, rather it says what the court should do with its jx

Pennoyer v. Neff

(1877) Proper jurisdiction is a constitutional question, and grounded in principles of territorialism. Atty sues over unpaid bills, collects by . State has no jx outside its territory - but14A issue or 10A issue?

Mullane v. Central Hannover Bank

(1950 US) Question - was the notice to beneficiaries of a judicial settlement of a common trust fund CON According to the structure established in Neff, the Bank does not have jx over non-residents of NY that were not mailed a letter Notice is a separate due process (separate from jx), according to 5th amendment; Under tag jx, that establish jx and notice (but if you serve in another state notice, that is okay as to notice but not jx) The court asked if closing of trust accounts is true in rem, unclear if in rem, you could then say that it is QIM - type 1 - the jx rises due to the property and the presence of the trust gives them jx Actual notice is not required - only need to have notice that is reasonably calculated to reach the address

McGee v. International Life Insurance

(1957, US, p. 30) Specific jurisdiction can arise from just a single contact if the suit concerns that contact. "Reached out and solicited" business. McGee recovered against D, who was not served with process in CA, but by registered mail in its place of business in TX (jx based on a state statute that subjects insurance companies to suit in CA even though they cannot be served with process TX refused to enforce it This D took over insurance contracts from Empire Mutual and mailed a reinsurance letter to the D The Court had continually expanded its jx reach, partially due to the change in technology etc CA has a manifest interest in providing for a redress to its citizens who have insurance through companies outside the US and has an interest in providing a redress to their citizens (b/c otherwise, she would have to go to TX and that seems unfair) (take this with a grain of salt, it is a little dangerous to say that due process is satisfied b/c the state has exercise, odd b/c due process is supposed to protect against the state's interests, so it is weird to conflate the two

Gray v. American Radiator

(Ill 1961) - products liability Manufacturer subject to JX for products sold by downstream manufacturer, but which could be reasonably contemplation of use in the forum. Foreseeability was enough here (DP) -Here, heater eventually sold in IL & caused injury there. JX OK. After Asahi - maybe need more Two step analysis (1) fall under long arm statute and (2) does it fall within due process The court also discusses "benefited from the market" - this is pretty far out, yes, in a vague sense, yes, but the benefit that they are getting is indirect, but since they are make a small component, the benefit is less direct (very broad) Discussion on ease about defending lawsuit, and the court thinks that it is okay

Tyler v. Judges

(Mass 1900) P brought this suit to prevent judges proceeding upon an application concerning land in which the P claims an interest b/c it is unCON; Quit title action by publication, and mailed to all possible adverse parties These kind of proceedings do not violate the 14th amendment if the object of the proceeding is against a piece of property (ie to establish clear title to a piece of land)

Harris v. balk

(US 1906) E had a claim against B in Maryland (B stayed in NC) for $300, but B had a claim against H for $180, H went to Maryland where E collected the $180 from H as if he was collecting on the debt from B; H paid the money to E; B then sued H in NC and H claimed the payment in Maryland as a defense, which the NC court rejected Classic example of how far this could be driven, this is not a piece of real property (which would have made it easier, eg if B gave H his car for the weekend) but here, we have an intangible piece of property - debt is piece of property, is the debt with H? quasi in rem type 2. Now illegal b/c goes too far Court asserts gen. JX over ∆ because he is the seat of the debt property.

Gulf Oil v. Gilbert

(US 1947) Under forum non conveniens, judge has discretion to dismiss a case that is more suited to resolution in another jurisdiction. (Here, NY VA) (Distinguish venue, which dismisses for resolution by another court in same jurisdiction). The trial judge should ask whether adjudication in the forum selected by the plaintiff is seriously inconvenient given the private interests of litigants and the pub. int. of the court and the community. Question presented is where a US DC has the inherent power to dismiss a suit pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens

Hanson v. Denckla

(US 1958) ∆'s contacts w/ forum must be "purposeful availment." -Here, DE bank that just mailed statements to trustee in FL after he moved there. Didn't count. Not doing business in FL, no benefits of interests the Court did not find that the State have the same level of interest as in McGee However minimum contracts required for the D to defend, there were no contacts of the trustee with FL The court differentiated McGee because there the D had solicited the contract from the P; there were no examples of when the trustee did anything in FL; also FL had enacted no special regulations Unilateral act of Ms. Donner put the trust in contact with FL

Shaffer v. Heitner

(US 1977) WATERSHED case Overrules Harris v. Balk. No quasi #2 Held that jurisdiction is unconstitutional unless due process tests in International Shoe are met. (Burnham refuses to follow this case when tag jurisdiction is involved.) F: Dereliction of duty over stocks incorporated in state. Couldn't get JX b/c ownership unrelated to the xn.

Burger King v. Rudzewicz

(US 1985) Sophisticated corporate K forming an ongoing relationship, even though made in MI and for a franchise there, counts as purposeful availment of FL b/c payments sent there & foreseeable. Factors: Sophistication of parties, prior and ongoing dealings, benefits, forum selection clause, who reached out, convenience/burden

Burnham v. Superior Court

(US 1990, p. 80) Husband who was served in CA while returning his children to W challenges tag JX on the grounds that it doesn't comport with contemporary notions of fairness and justice (and thus violates DP). (b/c Sheffer v. Heitner had said that all forms of jurisdiction must be evaluated under standards articulated in International Shoe.) H: Scalia majority says this is paradigm of fair & traditional. Brennan concurrence says its fair too - visit is availment. Quid pro quo -States allowed to permit tag jx. But not required. [Strange tension with Kulko?]

M/S Bremen v. Zapata

(USSC 1972) Consent - form selection clauses 5th Cir declined to enforce a forum selection clause; Zapata contracted with Unterweser to tow a drilling rig (contract included forum selection and exculpatory clauses), a storm happened, the rig was seriously damaged and took refuge in Tampa Florida The USSC is concerned about facilitating international business, so as to courts sitting in admiralty, the test is whether enforcement of the forum selection clause is unreasonable; courts follow the clause, enforce it like a contract (so you dismiss the case (not based on jx) but a dismissal pursuant to valid agreement

Waiver

(sometimes explicit, but also can be constructive by failing to exercise its right to vote in a timely manner, FRCP 12 is an important example

Comparison of Art III and 1331

1331 provides limits on what can come into the Fed court, e.g. Congress passed FSIA, Art 3 very broad and sweeps in 2 foreign organizations (Osborne) very little CON limits

St. Paul Mercury v. Red Cab Co

1938 US Indiana company sued Minnesota corp, in amount of $4,000; the case was transferred to fed court ad then one of the parties was dismissed, which dropped the amount of the lawsuit down to $1,400, which is less than the minimum for federal courts Amount claimed in π's initial complaint determines amount in controversy, unless not made in good faith or a law says otherwise Winning less in the end doesn't undo Fed JX

Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts

1985 USSC Plaintiffs pick the forum, they consent to jx (as to counter-claims, Ps used to claim that there was no jx over counter-claims, courts said no, you brought it Fed 23(b) (?) - class action, lead plaintiffs that they file on their behalf, and sweep up the whole mess in one action (lookers on get swept up in this) - claims are usually very small Do plaintiffs have any protection against undue jx - due process of law over their claims - true Ds want to claim this to make the class action fall apart, not a good legal standing argument - but they want to be protected against future litigants who have no opted out (since they had no opted in) If they have jx, then at least we can be sure that there is res judicata that they are protected against the opted in people You want to make sure that the settlement sticks SC said that opted out is okay The stakes are pretty low -invalidate all class action judgments - makes sense

Asahi Metal v. Superior Court

1987 USSC [product liability] RULE: Stream of commerce + purposeful availment necessary, not just awareness/foreseeability, but directed purpose. -Here, foreign metal co. who sells 1% to US can't be JX. Suit b/w foreign -Plurality opinion. Court can't agree on how much of this depends on it being a foreign corp. (w/ unique burdens). Fairness fear. -Brennan concurrence: there was purposeful availment, but this is one of those rare cases where fairness concerns undo that (14A) -Lower courts split b/w O'Connor plurality & Brennan approaches

Chicago v. Int'l College of Surgeons

1997 USSC Chicago passed ordinance requiring approval for construction on historic buildings, P wanted to do so, sued the city, city removed it to DC which upheld the city's authority, appealed and the CoA said the DC had no jx and remanded for dismissal The court reversed the CoA and focused on the well-pleaded complaint of the P, which raised questions of federal law even though they were raised by using a cause of action created by state law (IL Administrative Review) One difference between Merrell Dow and this case is that this is a CON question while the other was a statutory issue and the heart of the issue was the CON issue while the heart of the other issue was not the FDA Fed Courts can review state administrative law decisions when they deal with CON rights All of the theories seem to have federal CON issue even if they claim that the administration law review was bad (which has a due process question) Do the issues have to be of CON issues? (footnote 7 in Grable - the Grable attorney says that there is no CON in Grable: the court says no - the federal element does not have to be CON, but it helps that it is - b/c it is more likely to reach the level of substantiality that can trigger federal courts jx - we are veering towards a multi-factor test

Grable v. Darue Engineering

2005 US 158 (Unanimous scotus) RULE: If there's a federal interest, doesn't have to be a fed. Right per se. Fed had interest in asserting JX over a tax issue that would affect fed $$ TEST: (1) substantial fed interest? (2) Would asserting JX disturb any congressionally approved balance b/w state & fed? -Simplicity matters too. Also adding to federal caseload fear. Guy lost his land in payment of federal tax delinquency sale, argued that notice through certified mail was insufficient, the D removed the case to the federal courts b/c it involved a question of interpreting federal law, DC agreed and both DC and COA upheld jx

Wyaman v. Newhouse

2nd Cir 1937 Guy gets lured down to CA for service of process, and thus the court found that the service of process was fraudulent and should be vacated As to whose law should govern, it is likely to be NY since the case in FL went away and under the full faith and credit if the jx was found to be okay, then FL should govern RULE: If you fraudulently entice someone into forum for service, that does not count; broader rule is that fraudulently established jx does not count What law decides whether this is fraud? What if FL said this is not fraudulent, and NY said fraud safety hatch, NY would have to execute the FL decision unless there is fraud (NY must treat like FL would treat it UNLESS the fraud is a CON issue that you can enforce) - be aware as to whether under the judgment rendering issue would be okay

Mas v. Perry

5th Cir, 1974 Jean Paul was a citizen of France, married to Judy in MS and both had previously lived in Louisiana doing work as graduate assistants, they sought damages b/c they had been spied upon Landlord claims that there was no diversity of citizenship Diversity rules clearly state that no party on either side of the suit can be a citizen of the same state as any other person on the other side of the suit complete diversity b/w adverse parties, based on domicile at time of filing. Here, H and W have diff domiciles, b/c students

Siemer v. Learjey Acquisitions Corp

5th Cir. 1992 Service on agent of a corp is not sufficient for service on corp The ideological battle is made more clear looking at the list of hypos - the challenge Brennan's position and strengthen Scalia's; Not tag jx for corporations

"well-pleaded complaint" rule

An original or initial pleading that sufficiently sets forth a claim for relief — by including the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, the basis for the relief claimed, and a demand for judgment — so that a defendant may draft an answer that is responsive to the issues presented. • In federal court, a this must raise a controlling issue of federal law, or else the court will not have federal-question jurisdiction over the lawsuit.

Enforce forum selection clauses

Both parties had equally bargaining power Arm's length negotiating party Not a contract of adhesion Eliminates uncertainty in litigation Ensures neutrality London has expertise When not enforce them? If they are not fairly negotiated (offer and acceptance) If they pick an odd court - e.g. Congo

28 USC 1406

Care of waiver of defects (a) The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interests of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought. (b) Nothing in this chapter shall impair the jx of a district court of any matter involving a party who does not interpose timely and sufficient objection to the venue

28 USC 1404

Change of venue (a) For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division in which it might have been brought

Class Action Fairness Act

Class Actions normally involve mass number of parties - only the name parties count for diversity requirements - then up to Ps to decide who to name - the SC handed class-action P's the switch - to allow completely diverse ->federal or not -> state jx (odd that the SC did this) The problem was that class action Ps wanted to be in state courts since the rule was that state courts were more friendly to class actions, and then Congress responded with class-action fairness, allowing the D to remove the case to federal court - allow fed courts to take jx based on mim. Jx

Siro v. American Express Co.

Conn 1923 - odd case about travelers check, but the court held that there was no fraudulent inducement of

Impact of rendering case without jx under the 14th amendment

Courts have personal jx on a variety of bases, one of which is the voluntary submission of party to the court, which can take place in the form of an ex ante, contractual, agreement between the parties as to the forum, or waiver

Uniform Model Choice of Forum Act

Establishes both the offensive (this court) and defensive (not this court) versions of forum selection Section 2 governs what to do when a state is selected for jx and Section 3 has to do with when a state is not selected (they will dismiss or stay the action unless certain conditions are met) Not law, but lays out distinction Idaho - what is an example of a state that refuses to enforce forum selection clauses Clicking sufficient Clicking is an affirmative declaration of reading, it could be viewed as unreasonable, especially if it was viewed as an adhesion contract Courts have struggled when the forum selection is through a hyper link - that is not proper notice, we want to see some real consent

Federal and state subject matter jx

Federal courts jx is concurrent, overlaps with state's jx - states still have jx (in all diversity cases); Fed courts can be exclusive - when a statute says that you must bring a certain act in federal courts - such as copyright case, you have to be there; Most of the time, we are talking about concurrent jx - do you have the option of going to federal court?

FRCP 4(k)(2)

For a claim that arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if: (A) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction; (if long-arm statute fails, thus only a gap filler) and (B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws (if you satisfy due process of fed level - this is functionally a long arm statute as a filler, but here the test is nation-wide rather than state specific). This is weird if 4k1 fails, the P will then have to show the court that the D is not subject to jx in 50+ states - long brief, but the courts have used it as a smoke out jx - the D then has the burden of showing (A) the state in which they could be sued In order to exercise personal jx at fed level, go to 4K

Rest 2nd 11-22

Governs specific rules of domicle Domicile determined at birth and can change (everyone can only have one and has one, only the acquisition of a new domicile can get rid of the previous one Physical presence and intent to make a new home are both essential to making a new domicile (as to college, do you have an intent to make it a new home)? Open-ended fashion (four years, for college, not likely) Everyone has one and only one; "home" is the center of domestic, social and civil life; each forum defines it independently; domicil of origin is domicil which person has at birth; domicil of choice is from someone who has the legal ability to choose, a physical presence, and an attitude of mind; intent is determined when someone intends to make the place her home Corps are domiciled both were they are incorporated and where they are headquarters

Limits of tag jx

If Action bore no relationship to CA - according to Scalia yes, Brennan might blink, but you still benefited from CA (not turn on where the wife and kids are), instinct is that Brennan might say that goes too far, Scalia and Brennan's decisions are easy when the tag jx has to do with forum state, then you have to ask whether you can turn this into general jx - Brennan would think that this goes too far If Changing planes - Scalia would say yes, you are on CA territory, Brennan should say no, that is not enough, too short and violates fairness, White could go either way "intentionally in forum state" If While flying over CA, in MacIntyre case, they said jx, problematic If Outsider - Scalia said yes, but the reward would not be enforced (Scalia might blink, the French do not know this, they cannot effect the political process) Conclusion: at the hard core, good to have a good rule, but the more that you push it in more the more and more unfair it looks

JX rules on internet

Internet made jx scholars excited and 2 camps- CA folks said that internet is new game - death of terrorialism v. Chicago, who said that we just need to transition traditional rules to the internet, the anchor is still when you use it Courts said that the later faction won and courts have done well, and now it is just one line of cases Passive websites - not want to count (these are just the ones that are advertising) Delta is doing a transaction in your living room, but if they just advertise and not do anything else, should not attach jx (but many are in the middle - line drawing issue

Piper Aircraft v. Reyno

Judge used forum non conveniens in an international case to dismiss in favor of Scottish tribunal where all the plaintiffs and the crash that was the subject of the litigation were located in Scotland. Even though the defendants were American and the law applied in a Scottish court was likely to be much less favorable to the plaintiffs.

28 USC 1407

Multidistrict litigation (a) When civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in different districts, such actions may be transferred to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Such transfers shall be made by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation authorized by this section upon its determination that transfers for such proceedings will be for the convenience of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions. Each action so transferred shall be remanded by the panel at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the district from which it was transferred unless it shall have been previously terminated. Provided however that the panel may separate any claim, cross-claim, counter-claim, or third-party claim and remand any such claims before there remained of the action is remanded

28 USC 1369

Multiparty, multiforum These are the special SM jx rules for mass accidents, these play by different rules than the rest if 1332 - specifically 1332(d) directs us here If more than 75 people died, then the district courts shall have jx if D resides in one state and most of the incident took place in another (but not when the majority of the Ps are in the D's state and that state's law shall apply Congress can allow cases in on min. diversity grounds - the first statute is largely understandable (concern rose from mass tort events and the case having to be tried in federal court -out of 200, some shared states with D - if there is a mass single accident and a bunch of other conditions, and then a fed court can take jx on some diversity grounds - just be aware that this is an example - some fed jx based on min. diversity 1332(d) - which governs when the federal courts can take jx - be aware that class actions create different category - make sure you are aware that it is out there

Two sides of forum selection clause

One that establishes jx (offensively) And one that destroys the exercise of jx in the non-chosen forum (defensively - most battles here) You should make sure that your clause is written exclusively in order to make clear that the clause says to the exclusion of other courts (in order to have the defensive option)

relationship between territorialism and the fairness/due process

One way of viewing this dichotomy 1877-1945 territorialism and then the SC grafts upon it (and including all of territorial forms of jx) the due process (thus, even tag has to be fair) v. other way to look at it is box of territorialism and then another box for due process - there is no overlap and once you looked at fairness (Scalia is the second) -> the second one prevailing view (if we think that White agreed with Scalia) if you are outside of the state, then you have to answer fairness questions - creates a hard core of jx and a gray zone outside that is highly problematic

US Con Art III

Power vested in SC and other courts that Congress may decide to vest, extends to all cases in both law and equity arising under Fed law, impacting ambassadors, admiralty and maritime jx, when US is a party, between 2 or more states, citizens of 2 states Original jx as to ambassadors, public ministers, consul, and when state a party the SC has original jx Section 1 - as CON law, we must have a supreme court but existence of lower courts, not have to have lower court - implies that Congress not have to give all jx to fed courts - only give some, but not all, jx to the federal courts - look both at statute and CON to determine limits In this section, we are talking about federal law giving some, not all, jx to the federal courts Section 2- all cases arising under federal law (federal question doctrine - very thorny) (comprises about ½ of the federal docket); controversies in which the US is a party; between 2 states and between different citizens of states and foreign Ds (diversity jx) Add suppelemental and removal (about 96% of federal doctrine)

Hoffman v. Blaksi

SC 1960 Litigation in one forum and a D seeks a transfer, we know that this is a proper venue, the court could hang on to it, you can only send the case where the P "could have been brought" D says that it can now be brought - they are consenting to that forum, but the court said no, the USSC said that the only forums considered are the ones that were possible when the lawsuit was filed If the D consented to jx before filing, the case could be brought there (including to consent) they can agree to drop case and re-file In most cases this is a good limitation on what the D can do (under FNC, you can do this, but not under the language of 1404)

FRCP 4(k)(1)

Serving a summons or 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; (general here means general court rather than juvenile court - so if the states have jx, the fed have it too) (B) who is a party joined under Rule 14 or 19 and is served within a judicial district of the United States and not more than 100 miles from where the summons was issued; or (goal to keep cases together - not mater) [(C) who is subject to the federal interpleader jx under 18 USC 1335] (D) when authorized by a federal statute. (federal statutes can say that federal courts have jx on a federal level, their territory is the whole US, but Congress has limited this type of jx to what Congress has said, coast-to-coast jx) [fed courts have in persona jx over everyone (Congress has by 4k1 limited federal courts jx) in order to prevent forum shopping}

Plenary subject matter jx

State courts have general sm jxand the federal courts do not (under the CON, the states have residual power in 10th amen and the federal government only has enumerated power, Art III - federal courts only have jx over when the CON/Congress gives it to them - presumption in favor of state sm jx and have to established fed sm

long arm statutes

States enacted these in response to that grant of power, the assumption was that when you are under Neff, it is an inherent power of sovereignty to act on territoriality, but once you reach beyond your territory, you need a statute to say that you are exercise long arm - which is necessary to states exercising power Two ways - laundry list and cover all

28 USC 1332

Statute imposes a min amount in controversy requirement (which the CON does not require) - only cases $75,000 and up (whether this makes sense is also debated - on one side the federal courts are too busy, but at the same time the triviality of the issue does not necessarily depend on the amount of money at stake) - this is a very crude way, and the amount has gone up and up - likely will go up again Case has to fall within one of four categories 1) Citizens of different state 2) Citizens of state and foreign national 3) D (very weird - come back here) 4) Reference to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Section b - harmless and informative - there is a sanction (if you claim 75,000 and get less that does not defeat subject matter jx) court may impose costs Section c - lots of definitions (governs when people are citizens) Section e - territories count as states for jx issues (Puerto Rico is a state - watch for this)

FRCP 4(n)

Text: Seizure of Property; Service of Summons Not Feasible (1) If a statute of the US so provides, the court may assert jx over property. Notice to claimants of the property shall then be sent in the manner provided by the statute or by service of a summons under this rule (2) Upon a showing that personal jx over a D cannot, in the district where the action is brought, be obtained with reasonable efforts by service of summons in any manner authorized by this rule, the court may assert jx over the D's assets found within the district by seizing the assets under the circumstances and in the manner provided by the law of the state in which the district court is located Application If statute allow to take property, then it okay If personal jx fails, if the state in which you are authorized QIM type 2, the federal court can use that jx hook, you can use state law in your court, if they are available - that does not mean that you are free from Shoe - you still have to apply it Notice and opportunity to be heard

Federal Question Jx

The exercise of federal-court power over claims arising under the U.S. Constitution, an act of Congress, or a treaty. 28 USCA § 1331.

WorldWide Volkswagon (diversity)

This case was not about personal jx The P was suing 4 Ds (Audi (Germany), VWoA (NJ), WWV, Seaway (NY) - in state court and Ds removed it to federal court There is not federal sm here b/c this did not involve federal law (no 1331), so has to fit under 1332 - all turned on diversity The Ps were from NY, but they were on route to AZ for their new home (you need to figure out domicile in order to know what state to assign to the Ps) - we do not know whether they got to AZ and settled - not made it to AZ when they filed the lawsuit There is not complete diversity because we have 2 parties from NY (the big 2 did not fight it, and here we wanted to keep Seaway in in order to prevent the case from being removed to federal court - want to keep the case in NY b/c of the jury would be educated if you stayed on the state level but if you want federal court, get a lot more rural folks and reduce the expected value of the case - this could make a huge difference in amount recovered - so it drives the value of the case Jx battle here is a shadow battle that drove diversity and the value of the case - diversity game here does not have to do with instate/out of state bias We have to be careful about establishing where the parties are from and see if there is any overlap

Hague Choice of Forum Convention

This provides that exclusive international forum selection clauses are binding and enforceable; the chosen court must accept jx and the other defer; also provides that judgments based on exclusive forum selection clauses must be enforced, but it is not in force yet

Republic of Bolivia v. Philip Morris Co.

Tx 1999 The court held that the case should be tried in DC where the judges have more expertise and the court is better equipped to deal with the case Here for amusement, but also to see the system at work, under Daimler, we may not have jx - this is a chance for the judge to transfer to DC - stays within the same system Tempting for a judge to say that he was too busy, but here the judge sua sponte transfers the case - it is not dependent on a motion

Strawbridge v. Curtiss

US 1806 Court dismissed the complaint's bill in chancery for want of jx Since only one of the D's had diversity of citizenship, the case in whole could not be taken out of the state court, and Marshall decides the case based on the text of the 1332 Marshall here invented that diversity meant complete diversity between the parties (there can be no overlap between Ps and Ds); the opinion is rather cryptic - focus on the note

Lousiville & Nashville RR v. Mottley

US 1908 Pre class (related to 1331) (fed q in complaint) permits jurisdiction when, and only when, π is required by the rules of pleading to include a reference to a fed. Q to state her case. π cannot establish fed JX by anticipating a fed. defense or by raising a federal response to a possible defense. So here, no Fed Q JX. Well Pleaded complaint - defense not count

Osborn v. Bank of the US

US 1924 Congress can create JX -Court can also assert JX over anything where it finds a federal interest -Cong can create supplemental JX, even if pulling in state issues. [CW: today, automatic removal to fed CT whenever agent of US sued. Also, today any case can become a federal case - claim interest]

Hess v. Pawloski

US 1927 D sought to recover damages for personal injuries from the P driving a motor vehicle on a public highway in Mass Basis of jx - Mass has statute that checks back against the Neff presumption of no jx; Mass thought Neff was too narrow, so they added statute, Court wants to allow Mass to protect its citizens and allow the privilege of driving on the roads - is this fair? The actual basis of jx is the service on the register - constructive consent to this - the driver appointed Sec of State as in state service of process - on your agent - this is a weird fiction of consent, hook and crook way to squeeze this case into Neff. States woke up when this was handed down and opened their jx to them, consent is good enough (consent deemed to have happened) - broadened the fiction, predication jx no longer on territoriality, but on fairness grounds Requirement- no violation of fair play and substantial justice - and minimum contacts be enough to get jx Some individual, specific acts (and that is what the suit is about) the state can exercise jx over that specific act -> specific in personam jx

National Equipment Rental v. Szukhent

US 1964 designated representative Jurisdiction achieved by service in state on agent appointed by defendants. Held constitutional even though arrangement was clearly created by leasing company to make it easy to initiate litigation in its home state. Sufficient that actual notice given to defendants.

Kramer v. Caribbean Mills

US 1969 Question presented was whether the fed courts had jx over the case at hand or whether 28 USC 1359 deprived them of that jx (whether the parties colluded to get into federal court) The Panama company assigned its interest against the Caribbean company to a TX lawyer, who then brought suit in TX The 5th circuit thought that it was too convenient, which the SC upheld The court was careful to limit this holding to a case where the transfer was not complete (ie the Panama company gets it money back)

Franchise Tax Board v. CLVT

US 1983 cannot rephrase what is a state claim and defense in declaratory judgment terms and get around the rule - you have to translate the declaratory judgment (to see that this is not an end run around of the issues with the first claim) - declaratory judgment requests do not give you more jx if fed stuff come up in declaratory judgment, translate it as a request for coercive relief, and why it does not work here (Scully oil case) also - discussion of field preemption

Helicopteros Nacionales v. Hall

US 1984 F: Helicopter co from Columbia, crash in Peru. Suit in TX where ∆ is part of trade org, has training & meetings, but not licensed to do business there H/R: JX not ok b/c no "continuous and systematic contacts" Repeat not ok ∆ is only buying, not selling in TX. Foreigner is paradigm outsider, want to encourage foreign corps to do business in/with US *"Arise out of" v. "Related to" distinction key b/w majority & dissent

Keeton v. Hustler Magazine

US 1984 Publisher can be sued in action based on contents of magazine wherever a substantial number of copies are regularly sold and distributed. Intentional tort, product delivered to and sold in state. -Only place where SOL hasn't run, but she can get nat'l damages, under Single Publication Rule. Remember, libel is a special case. -π need not have contacts w/ forum, only ∆. (+ state interest?) -Lower CT had said NH "too small a dog to wag so large a tail" NO

Merrell Dow v. Thompson

US 1986 Rule: "A state law claim could be the basis for jx under 1331 only if it relied on a federal statute that itself created a cause of action" (p. C306) opposite of above No federal JX or interest when a state act defined negligence per se in a pharmaceutical case by reference to violation of Fed FDA Act. -Claim has to depend on, as in turn on, federal law, not just use it ***Key that there is no federal right /cause xn for party here (Grable later undoes this - not an essential/dispositive requirement)

Omni Capital v. Rudolf Wolf

US 1987, p. 94 Omni marketed investment program involving commodity-futures and employed a British corp, and the IRS disallowed tax deductions because the trades were not arms-length transactions The lower court concluded that under the CEA it had jx over the foreign Ds and then the 5th court decided a different case and then the court reconsidered its decision and said that b/c the Louisiana long arm statute requirements were not met, so no jx Omni wants contact with the nation to be sufficient to provide jx in a specific state and the court rejected that view. Under 4(k)(1)(A), Louisiana long arm statute not reach it, which means that the state would not have jx, so the feds would not (seems odd, but that was the point of this one - to make the feds act like a state judge)

Christianson v. Colt Industries

US 1988 - when a P presents alternative theories of liability, the case "arises under" federal law only if a federal element is necessary under both theories

Nicastro v. McIntyre

US 2011 (handout?) -RULE: Targeting required to get JX. One incidental sale in a JX isn't enough. About state authority > fairness. Intent/consent. -Here, British Co. w/ American distributors that happened to have a sale in NJ didn't target any of its actions to NJ, so no JX. Trade show Q too. Foreseeability not enough, again. -(Trying to get majority on the Asahi issue and failing. Plurality) -Breyer (conc.) worries about small Appalachian potter. Internet too.

Miliken v. Meyer

USSC 1940 guy still domiciled in WY, temporary absence not matter Domicilary - eg WY domicilary, gets sued in WY (question about service of process), he did not show up, and then try to enforce it in CO, CO find that the judgment enforce by full faith and credit, CO SC reversed based on underlying facts, P takes it to SC, which says that other courts cannot question the underlying finding of the other court- you can only question jx - and that is not in question here This shows full risk of strategy of defaulting and then claiming that there was no jx, if court finds jx, you are stuck Why do we assume general in personam jx? What makes that plausible? You cannot really claim that it violates your due process if you are sued in your own state

International Shoe v. Washington

USSC 1945 Whether a DE corp has by its activities in WA subjected itself to proceedings in that state and whether WA can exact the contributions consistently with the due process; no office in WA, no contracts for sale or purchase of merchandise, Test - whether due process is satisfied depends whether there are continuous and systematic contacts with the state on the quality and nature of the activity in relationship to the fair and orderly administration of the laws, here the corp exercised the right to do business in that state and enjoys the benefits and protections, they may give rise to obligations, we want to make sure that we do not offend fairness and justice

Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co

USSC 1951 Whether the 14th amend precludes Ohio from subjecting a foreign corp to its jx in this action in personam, when the cause of action did not happen in Ohio, nor was it related to activities associated with Ohio USSC finds no requirement that prohibits OH from hearing it or compels OH to hear it A court probably could not exercise jx over a foreign corp b/c its wholly owned subsidiary (a different legal person) did continuous and systematic business in forum state This had a huge impact, there is jx - the SC is not ordering OH to take jx - the court can, but you don't have to take jx, corps had been doing consistent activities in OH, running business out of OH and that is good enough for jx The cause of action is not related to OH - but the guy was running the business out of his house

Goldlawr v. Heiman

USSC 1962 1404 says you can transfer the case even if you don't have jx, the D said that no jx means no power and the USSC said that 1404 says that we can transfer the case and it does not matter whether we have jx The D makes a CON argument that they do not have jx and thus they have no power - the court not get this - thus Congress took away jx from Fed Courts under 4k and then gave it back some jx power under 1404 Federal courts not having jx under the respective state rules shall have enough jx to transfer the case to where it is properly brought 1406 says you cannot decide the case on the merits, but you have enough power to transfer the case

TB Harms v. Eliscu

USSC 1964, related to 1338, but also applicable to 1331 Approach: (1) if a federal law creates a cause of action, and the P sues under federal law (very sure case - Holmes test), (2) whether state claim requires a (necessary) federal element and the case turns on the Federal element (broadened "arising under" (pretty good hit rate) (3) federal interest so pervasive and need to be settled (questions of federal preemption, and leave nothing to state law, like labor relations, we just call it federal) (closer to the perimeter, very uncertain) Possible elements of the test: (1) whether the complaint discloses a need for determining the meaning or application of a federal law, (2) whether the federal interest is dominant, and (3) if the complaint is for a remedy expressly granted by the act in question

Kulko v. Superior Court

USSC 1978 In support dispute, Supreme Court found insufficient "minimum contacts" when father had been in forum state for short periods and permitted daughter to go to live with mother there. "Minimum contacts" appears to require more than in the products liability and business cases. -Looks more like Hanson than McGee because wife moved away from state of marriage home. His contacts were for kids' benefit, not his. Unfair

Insurance Co. of Ireland v. Compagnie

USSC 1982 Here, the court is trying to determine whether they were was jx (and thus ordered discovery to prove whether there was actually jx) FRCP 37(b) allows a DC to sanction a party for not complying with a discovery motion, but does it apply to facts that form the basis of personal jx over a D? Three options regarding waiver: (1) default, (2) show and object to jx (have to fight jx battle), if you win, dismissed, if you lose, fight it, and (3) waiver (not include it in your piece of paper

Calder v. Jones

USSC 1983 -Previous case was libel for corps, this applies it to ppl (journalists) -Note: Personal JX must be established for each ∆ separately -π's domicile matters (even though normally in JX its ∆'s that's key) b/c intentional tort, so conduct aimed at π's home state (CA). -Seems that intentional torts less protected by DP b/c foreseeable. -1A claims are not for JX determination, but for merits of case

Carnival Cruiselines v. Shutes

USSC 1991 Admiralty case, having to do with the binding nature of a forum selection clause on tickets that passengers purchased and only could have known about once they received their non-refundable tickets Court of appeals found that the clause was not enforceable b/c it was not freely bargained for; Respondent's conceded that they had notice of the clause There are not the same good reasons that we saw in the Bremen case here; take it or leave it, no negotiation, no equal power, home base in FL, and court has no specific expertise And yet the court allows it to stand (message from USSC - forum selection clause enforced here - very strong!) - hugely business friendly State courts are not bound and only courts that sit in admiralty are bound (14th amendment not come in here, this is not the law of the land since the court was sitting in admiralty

Empire Healthchoice v. Veigh

USSC 2006 Under FEHBA, the court looked at a cause of action that required employees to reimburse the insurance company and the question was whether the federal government had jx over it Get a multifactor test: prong 2 is maybe, yes, or no [what type of issue? (CON, statutory, regulatory) Interest in uniformity? (dial-able) on the frequency of litigation it could cause? Federal cause of action in sight? (Not fatal if it is lacking)] Cardozo is right that we need to take all of the information that we have, throw it together, multi-factor test - kaleidoscopic test (big problem that the courts can sua sponte decide no SM jx at any time) Why do we have federal question jx? expertise, more specialized docekt, resources to review, uniformity, Enforcement of federal law,

Sinochem v. Malaysia Intl. Shipping Corp

USSC 2007 The court can decide to leave the issue of personal jx open and dismiss on FNC, but if the court can decide the issue of jx more easily, they should decide based on that Practically, this makes sense - venue factors look like Shoe factors - lots of overlapping, district court wanted to do 1 rather than 2 analysis But this is limited to special cases (in order to not allow district courts to use a safety hatch to get out)

Goodyear Dunlop v. Brown

USSC 2011 (unanimous) No general JX over foreign tire co. subsidiary when accident occurred in France and products sold in forum state (NC) by ∆ were not same kind as caused accident. The defendant is "in no sense at home" in forum.

Atlantic Marine Construction v. US

USSC 2013 P and D agree on forum selection clause and the other party files in a different court The court said that the right instrument is not dismissal for improper venue (venue as proper or improper is based on the venue statute) nor 1406 transfer, there is proper venue, regardless the forum selection clause should be enforce under 1404 - very strong presumption in favor of the clause and so transferred to the chosen forum This would not work if the selected forum was in State Court, and then the federal courts could dismiss under FNC

Daimler v. Bauman

USSC 2014 Concerning a case between a foreign p and a foreign d on events outside US, 22 Argentina residents filed a claim in CA against D, complaint alleges that MB Argentina did some dirty things in the dirty war, jx is premised on California contracts of MBUSA Question is whether 14th amend precluded CA court from exercising jx, P invoked CA's general (or all-purpose jx) and the court found that exercises of personal jx so exorbitant are prohibited and whether CA can exercise over Daimler in CA - specifically, general in personam (which would open them up to liability for events internationally) "all purpose" jx - first time USSC called it this Ps never claimed that MBUSA is Daimler's alter-ego while the 9th Cir was okay if M was just D's agent, but that does not work so under that theory D is not subjected to general liability New test - is whether the corp's affiliations make the corporations at home in the forum state Continued and systematic not create general in personam only creates specific - and now, we require that the operations are substantial and render it substantially at home in order to call the corp as an insider - more than consistent and systematic business Daimler is not at home, Perkins was still fine because they are basically at home As to Delta, they would have been subject to general in personam jx and now today they can argue that they are not at home in the state of MI - they might still be in - b/c they functionally own DTW

Zippo Manufactuing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com

WD PA 1997 The basic case on electronic age - still ground zero for litigation in internet and jx In specific in personam - raises a question as to whether there is a contact with a forum state - traditional tools work well to determine jx The court says from the get go - treat this as a specific jx (could have said that the company was doing C&S business in the state, not want to do general The question becomes - did the D reach out to PA that could be fairly attributed, the case becomes quite easy and the court was right If the D infringe the property rights of P, they do it in PA lots (you have subscribers by the thousands, you do it in PA) - but this makes courts have jx in PA but also in every state (odd situation, specific in personam jx in every state) then, there is no single publication rule, so you can only get damages in every state? But not matter here because the state is the home of the P, so in the P's home, you can get damages for the whole thing (v. NJ, and only allowing recovery from the specific instances in NJ) Ps will then sue in home state - so it really means that Ps can sue in home state, get specific in personam jx, and there you can sue for the whole damages - the court hands P ticket for home court advantage

Diversity Jx

We want a neutral forum in disputes among citizens of different states - home state advantage may be real or it may be imagined, but either way, it is important that people feel like they get a fair shake and concern that people fear injustice There is an ongoing discussion as to whether this is a valid reason, are there still good reasons to think that state courts are biased against "outsiders" - depend on which side of the argument you listen to (tension about not liking the feds, dependent on local culture (story about Tennessee)) Federal courts have created substantial areas of abstention - federal courts will not hear domestic cases and probate proceedings

Transfer Statutes

When these provisions discuss "venue" they mean both venue (as geographic location) as well as whether jx exists or not One difference between 1404 and 1406 is that under 1406, the judge can dismiss as well as transfer Seems like FNC still has a place for when the judge does not necessarily automatically decide but needs pressure for the D After Gulf case, Congress passed 1404 and 1406, and wanted to codify FNC, but be very careful as to these statutes 1406 applies if I file in wrong venue or wrong jx, the judge can transfer or dismiss, the judge cannot keep the case If has jx and proper venue, under 1404 the judge can take it or they can transfer it Under FNC - you can either dismiss or keep, not the same as 1404 or 1406, FNC presumes that you are in the right court, which makes it like 1404 Do not conflate FNC with the statute If we are in a fed court and the alternative is another US fed courts we use transfer statue (either 1404 or 1406) (it is a less harsh treatment than FNC - dismissal means case is dead, you have to pay new filing fee, start a new case, deal with SOL

Continuous and Systematic Contacts

With regard to corps, general jx is less straightforward, American society and market has changed - by middle of 20th century - lots of corps operate nation-wide, question becomes where can you sue these corps, can you sue them beyond their domicile

World Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson

[product liability] US 1980, p. 35 create contacts. (Protects ∆ and limits state overreach) -TEST: Should ∆ reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum state? (Foreseeability necessary but not sufficient) -Here, π driving a car bought in NY to OK doesn't create OK contacts against the car manufacturer when car crashes. -Brennan Dissent says that there's OK state interest to consider (-Putting this together w/ Gray, relevant location is place of sale)

In personam jx

against the person (the court has jx over the D and the D's rights - you can bind the person) - here it did not work (the problem here is that none of these are here in the Neff case) but you have to have one of the following three things - underlying principle is territorial (westphalian system replicated here) Domiciled in the state Appearance (voluntarily) Served with process in the forum state

Two types of in personam jx

general (court can adjudicate all claims against a D - claims not have to do with the jx) and specific (court only hs jx if the case is specifically connected with the forum - this is a case-centered) Traditional basis of general is domiciled in forum (don't call it residence)

FRCP 12

if you get sued in a place that you are not, you file a motion claiming lack of jurisdiction - you file a motion to dismiss for lack of jx or in your responsive plea; you have to do this pretty early if you are claiming objective over lack of personal jx, you have to do it before you do anything else; has to be the first sheet of paper you file, if you don't do that, you waive it and it is foreclosed forever - you are locked into that court - in case of doubt object Rule 15(a) amendment as a matter of course - tiny exception, don't rely on it

Three types of jx

in rem; in personam jx, quasi in rem jx)

Domicile

is not the same as residence, the jx that states have over all of these in their state is called "general in personam jurisdiction"

Venue

jx is about power of the court, without it decision void; venue is different "place to which you come" right courthouse Work distribution plan, venue is a district question, Ann Arbor Flint (work distribution plan between courts) if you mess up, not fatal to the question - On the federal level, messier - basically the same thing - there are about 100 district courts and in which venue you place the case, but under 4k1 - it can be sometimes messed up - courts can confuse jx and venue (e.g. Nevada has 1 district at state level, and federal courts district question (two districts in MI, we should sue people in Eastern District, but if we do it in Western, the judge will just move it over Venue = the correct geographic location within a court system, venue is not a matter of CON Due Process, but it is still important because the different district courts operate under different procedural regimes

Policy behind long-arm statutes

not based on D but on the underlying events and where they occur, this is like the nationality principle in transnat - the states have jx over the events (as well as the corps and residents), specific in personam like territorialism - act/party based, this emerges in response to the greater mobility of the economy (when Neff started to feel like a straight-jacket) instead now we have Hess

28 USC 1391

p. 114 Venue where D lives, where the acts took place, or where the D is subject to personal jx, residency is decided based on domicile and for a corporation, it is decided based on personal jx Be aware that this is in the books, lots of special venue questions in the code, the federal districts don't have the same amount of rules Venue provisions are forgiving

in rem

property jx (normally when a state administers an estate - quit title proceeding, and bankruptcy)

Quasi in rem jx

the Oregon ct would say that this works because the court can use the property to enforce the judgment - they have jx over the land, if we cannot get the D, maybe we could substitute the land for the person (The SC said that it could be good enough - b/c we want to be able to get some people who have property but stay out of the jx (becomes a real problem) looking for aux devices to get them) - the court could have said that they seized the land and then use it as a stepping stone against him, and then have judgment over the land - and is limited to the value of the land (the problem with that in this case is that the court did not attach the property and you cannot do it retroactively - you have to go in and grab the land

California long arm statute

this is a cover all; moved away from laundry list (everything goes up to limits of due process)

Michigan long arm statute

this is a laundry list; the state will exercise jx over you

Forum non conveniens

this requires a (1) showing of an alternative and (2) then the court balances long list of factors/considerations brought by D and P (including the private interest of the litigants, the ease of access to source of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of the unwilling, cost of attendance of the willing; practical problems that make a trial easy, expeditious and inexpensive, enforceability of the judgment; vexing or harassing of D; factors of public interest)

Broad general in personam jx

when you add International Shoe to Perkins, when a corp does continuous and systematic business in the state, they are opening themselves to liability, it was unquestioned for a while - interesting consequences - > where is Ford motor Co doing business - in every state, then they are available for general in personam jx - it essentially created nationwide jx over nationwide actors - we do that b/c there is nothing unfair about requiring them to defend a suit in Alabama - the cause of action not have to do with Alabama - very broad - caused a lot of problems -> forum shopping to no end for plaintiffs, which was the situation until Dalmer

European Court of Justice on libel

you can either sue the newspaper in its home court or in any forum but only for the harm causes in that specific forum