DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States No. 19-278 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States PFIZER, INC. AND GREENSTONE LLC, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the California Court of Appeal RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION CHARLES G. ORR BURTON LEBLANC BARON & BUDD, P.C. Counsel of Record 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., #1100 BARON & BUDD, P.C. Dallas, Texas 75219 2600 Citiplace Dr. (214) 521-3605 Baton Rouge, LA 70808 (225) 927-5441 [email protected] Attorneys for respondents Alida Adamyan, et al. October 23, 2019 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED The state trial court in this case held that “Pfizer . acceded to the jurisdiction of the court by seeking a ruling on the merits of the California cases [while they were in federal court following removal.]” Pet. App. 12. In its Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court, Pfizer conceded that “federal law is unmistakably clear that forfeiture occurs when a party litigates on the merits, not jurisdiction.” Peti- tion for Review, Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court of Cali- fornia, No. S255942, at 10 (May 23, 2019). And in this Court, Pfizer acknowledged that “a defendant forfeits personal jurisdiction if it litigates on the mer- its.” Pet. 19. Yet, Pfizer now claims that the California courts “crafted” a new “forfeiture rule” under which a party is held to forfeit its personal jurisdiction defense by removing and litigating subject matter jurisdiction without first moving to dismiss on personal jurisdic- tion grounds. E.g., Pet. i. Thus, the questions presented are: 1. Did the state court hold, as Pfizer asserts, that Pfizer waived its personal jurisdiction defense solely by litigating subject matter jurisdiction first, or did that court actually hold that, by litigating the merits against Plaintiffs before asserting its personal jurisdiction defense, Pfizer forfeited its personal jurisdiction defense? 2. Does this Court’s decision in Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999), allow a party, like Pfizer did here, to seek a merits determination before moving to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds? ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RELATED CASES The parties to the proceeding are listed in the pe- tition for a writ of certiorari. The following proceedings are directly related to this case: • Lipitor Cases, No. JCCP 4761, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, judgment not yet entered. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ....................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RELATED CASES ..................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................... 3 I. Plaintiffs began filing cases in California state court in 2013 and early 2014. ................ 3 II. In March 2014, Pfizer removed the California cases but did not seek dismissal on personal jurisdiction grounds. ....................................... 4 III. Long before asserting its personal jurisdiction defense, Pfizer litigated the merits against Plaintiffs (including moving for summary judgment against them). ................................. 6 A. Pfizer sought discovery from Plaintiffs and obtained an order requiring Plaintiffs to participate in discovery. .............................. 6 B. Pfizer sought summary judgment against Plaintiffs. ..................................................... 7 IV. Plaintiffs’ cases were transferred back to California federal court, whereupon Pfizer indicated personal jurisdiction was “moot” if the California federal courts kept the cases. ................................................................ 9 V. Rather than asserting its personal jurisdiction defense, Pfizer instead removed Plaintiffs’ cases a second time. ...................................... 11 iv VI. Pfizer finally moved to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds. ..................................... 12 REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT ................. 14 I. This case presents neither the question nor the conflict in authority that Pfizer says it does. ............................................................... 14 A. The state court did not hold that Pfizer forfeited its personal jurisdiction merely by removing the cases or by litigating subject- matter jurisdiction. ................................... 14 B. Far from being “quite literally unprecedented,” the state court’s ruling was anchored in authorities from this Court and the lower federal courts. ......... 16 II. Neither Ruhrgas nor anything else precluded Pfizer from timely moving to dismiss on personal jursdiction grounds. ....................... 19 III. The state court correctly held that Pfizer waived or forfeited its personal jurisdiction defense by litigating the merits against Plaintiffs. ....................................................... 22 A. Pfizer sought discovery from Plaintiffs without asserting its personal jurisdiction defense. ...................................................... 23 B. Pfizer moved for summary judgment against Plaintiffs without asserting its personal jurisdiction defense. ................... 24 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 28 v APPENDIX Appendix A Answer to Petition for Review in the Supreme Court of the State of California, No. S255942 (June 26, 2019) .............................. App. 1 Appendix B Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defend- ant Pfizer Inc. and Greenstone LLC’s Motion to (1) Quash Ser- vice of Summons with Regard to the Claims of Non-California Plaintiffs for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction; or (2) Dismiss the Claims of Non-California Plain- tiffs for Forum Non Conveniens in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Ange- les, Central Civil West, No. JCCP 4761 (September 21, 2018) ................... App. 41 Appendix C Defendants’ Omnibus Motion for Summary Judgment and Memo- randum in Support in the United States District Court for the Dis- trict of South Carolina, Charles- ton Division, MDL No. 2:14-mn- 02502-RMG (June 24, 2016) ............................ App. 97 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Pages Bel-Ray Co. v. Chemrite (Pty) Ltd., 181 F.3d 435 (3d Cir. 1999) ................................. 18 Brokerwood Prods. Int’l (U.S.), Inc. v. Cuisine Crotone, Inc., 104 F. App’x 376 (5th Cir. 2004) ......................... 17 Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. Tex. E. Transmission Corp., 15 F.3d 1230 (3d Cir. 1994) ................................. 17 In re “Agent Orange” Prod. Liab. Litig., 818 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1987) ................................. 24 In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig., 921 F.3d 98 (3d Cir. 2019) ................................... 18 In re FMC Corp. Patent Litig., 422 F. Supp. 1163 (J.P.M.L. 1976) ...................... 24 In re Lipitor, No. CV-18-01725-CJC (C.D. Cal., May 10, 2018) ...................................................... 12 In re: Pfizer No. 8:17-mc-00005-CJC (C.D. Cal., May 23, 2017) ...................................................... 10 In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Prods. Liab. Litig., 136 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ................... 24 vii Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982) ............................................ 17 PaineWebber Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Private Bank (Switzerland), 260 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 2001) ............................... 18 Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) ............................... 2, 5, 19, 20 Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Labs., Inc., 376 F.2d 543 (3d Cir. 1967) ........................... 17, 21 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i) ...................................... 4 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(C)(i) ...................................... 8 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 404-404.9 ................................ 3 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 418.10(a)(1) ............................ 12 Other Authorities Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.501(8)-(9) ........................ 3 INTRODUCTION There are at least three reasons why this Court should deny Pfizer’s petition for writ of certiorari: 1. The case doesn’t present the question Pfizer asks the Court to answer. Pfizer’s question presented is premised on a false assertion: Pfizer says that the state trial court ruled that Pfizer forfeited its right to contest personal jurisdiction “because [it] did not file a personal jurisdiction motion simultaneous with [its] attempt to establish subject matter jurisdiction in federal court.” Pet. i. The state court did no such thing: It explicitly held that Pfizer waived its person- al jurisdiction defense because it “litigat[ed] the ul- timate merits” in a federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) court by insisting it was entitled to summary judgment against the Plaintiffs—not because it liti- gated subject matter jurisdiction before personal ju- risdiction. Pet. App. 14. Pfizer’s assertion that the case presents the question “whether, under federal law, a defendant’s efforts to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction can result in forfeiture of an oth- erwise fully preserved challenge to personal jurisdic- tion,” Pet.i, rests entirely on its mischaracterization of the decision below. Pfizer’s claim that the state court’s refusal to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds “is quite literally unprecedented,” Pet. 2, is similarly predicated on Pfizer’s miscasting of what the state court actually held. The state court relied on precedent from both this Court and lower federal courts
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Adams V. Alliant Techsystems, Inc
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION HARRY ADAMS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 7:99CV00813 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC., and ) By: Samuel G. Wilson HERCULES INCORPORATED, ) Chief United States District Judge ) Defendants. ) This is a personal injury action brought by plaintiffs, employees or former employees at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“Arsenal”), against defendants, Alliant Techsystems, Inc. and Hercules Incorporated, for hearing loss plaintiffs allegedly suffered while working at the Plant. On May 7, 2002, this court entered a memorandum opinion granting in part and denying in part defendants’ first motion for summary judgment. This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs argue that the court erroneously decided that Virginia’s statute of limitation applied to their claims because: (1) not all of the Arsenal is a federal enclave under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States and governed by 16 U.S.C. § 457, (2) the defendants agreed not to assert Virginia’s statute of limitations, (3) 16 U.S.C. § 457 does not make Virginia’s statute of limitations applicable to these claims, and (4) even if Virginia’s statute of limitations applies, there are questions of fact for the jury regarding fraudulent concealment that would toll Virginia’s statute of limitations. For the reasons stated below the court will not reconsider its summary judgment opinion. I. Plaintiffs’ argument that part of the Arsenal is not on a federal enclave subject to the National Parks Act, 16 U.S.C. § 457, is a new one, not raised while the summary judgment motion was pending.
    [Show full text]
  • Personal Jurisdiction and Aggregation Scott Od Dson UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected]
    University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 2018 Personal Jurisdiction and Aggregation Scott oD dson UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Scott odD son, Personal Jurisdiction and Aggregation, 113 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1 (2018). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1676 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright 2018 by Scott Dodson Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 113, No. I Articles PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND AGGREGATION Scott Dodson ABSTRACT-Aggregation-the ability to join parties or claims in a federal civil lawsuit-has usually been governed by subject matter jurisdiction, claim and issue preclusion, and the joinder rules. These doctrines have tended to favor aggregation for its efficiency, consistency, and predictability. Yet aggregation is suddenly under attack from a new threat, one that has little to do with aggregation directly: personal jurisdiction. In this Article, I chronicle how a recent restrictive turn in personal jurisdiction-seen in modern cases narrowing general jurisdiction and October Term 2016's blockbuster case Bristol-Myers Squibb-threatens the salutary benefits of aggregation across a number of areas, including simple joinder of parties and claims, representative actions, and multidistrict litigation. I offer a solution for preserving aggregation's advantages in the face of this trend in personal jurisdiction: authorize a broader scope of personal jurisdiction in federal court for multiparty and multiclaim cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview
    Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview MARCELLUS MCRAE AND ROXANNA IRAN, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP WITH HOLLY B. BIONDO AND ELIZABETH RICHARDSON-ROYER, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION A Practice Note explaining the initial steps of a For more information on commencing a lawsuit in federal court, including initial considerations and drafting the case initiating civil lawsuit in US district courts and the major documents, see Practice Notes, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: procedural and practical considerations counsel Initial Considerations (http://us.practicallaw.com/3-504-0061) and Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Drafting the Complaint (http:// face during a lawsuit's early stages. Specifically, us.practicallaw.com/5-506-8600); see also Standard Document, this Note explains how to begin a lawsuit, Complaint (Federal) (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-507-9951). respond to a complaint, prepare to defend a The plaintiff must include with the complaint: lawsuit and comply with discovery obligations The $400 filing fee. early in the litigation. Two copies of a corporate disclosure statement, if required (FRCP 7.1). A civil cover sheet, if required by the court's local rules. This Note explains the initial steps of a civil lawsuit in US district For more information on filing procedures in federal court, see courts (the trial courts of the federal court system) and the major Practice Note, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Filing and Serving the procedural and practical considerations counsel face during a Complaint (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-506-3484). lawsuit's early stages. It covers the steps from filing a complaint through the initial disclosures litigants must make in connection with SERVICE OF PROCESS discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning Law Is
    CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND LEGAL REASONING LAW IS "MAN MADE" IT CHANGES OVER TIME TO ACCOMMODATE SOCIETY'S NEEDS LAW IS MADE BY LEGISLATURE LAW IS INTERPRETED BY COURTS TO DETERMINE 1)WHETHER IT IS "CONSTITUTIONAL" 2)WHO IS RIGHT OR WRONG THERE IS A PROCESS WHICH MUST BE FOLLOWED (CALLED "PROCEDURAL LAW") I. Thomas Jefferson: "The study of the law qualifies a man to be useful to himself, to his neighbors, and to the public." II. Ask Several Students to give their definition of "Law." A. Even after years and thousands of dollars, "LAW" still is not easy to define B. What does law Consist of ? Law consists of enforceable rule governing relationships among individuals and between individuals and their society. 1. Students Need to Understand. a. The law is a set of general ideas b. When these general ideas are applied, a judge cannot fit a case to suit a rule; he must fit (or find) a rule to suit the unique case at hand. c. The judge must also supply legitimate reasons for his decisions. C. So, How was the Law Created. The law considered in this text are "man made" law. This law can (and will) change over time in response to the changes and needs of society. D. Example. Grandma, who is 87 years old, walks into a pawn shop. She wants to sell her ring that has been in the family for 200 years. Grandma asks the dealer, "how much will you give me for this ring." The dealer, in good faith, tells Grandma he doesn't know what kind of metal is in the ring, but he will give her $150.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court's New Notice Pleading Requirements
    MICHAEL (FORMATTED).DOC 5/13/2016 4:57 PM THE SUPREME COURT’S NEW NOTICE PLEADING REQUIREMENTS: REVOLUTIONARY OR EVOLUTIONARY RICHARD A. MICHAEL* The Roberts Court’s decisions about the requirements of federal pleading have engendered significant controversy in the literature. These cases, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly1 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,2 have been said by some to have destroyed the federal notice-pleading system and “radically tipped the balance in favor of defendants.”3 It is the position of this article that these cases do not “radically” change federal pleading but merely modify it in a reasonable manner to correct past errors in the interpretation of its rules and address problems that have troubled courts and legal scholars since the adoption of the federal rules. It is further believed that recent decisions from modern fact-pleading jurisdictions provide a roadmap for the proper interpretation of the “facial plausibility” now required in federal pleadings. TABLE OF CONTENTS I.THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF NOTICE PLEADING..........................268 II.THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF DISCOVERY AND PLEADING ..............272 III.TWOMBLY AND IQBAL..................................................................277 *Professor Emeritus, Loyola University of Chicago School of Law. J.D. 1958, Loyola of Chicago; LL.M. 1960 University of Illinois. Member, American Law Institute. Special thanks are expressed to Professor Locke for reviewing a draft of this article and to Brendan Kottenstette and Chantel Boctor for their able research assistance. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author. 1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). 2. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Minimum Contacts in Cyberspace: the Classic Jurisdiction Analysis in a New Setting
    Minimum Contacts in Cyberspace: The Classic Jurisdiction Analysis in a New Setting Tricia Leigh Gray I. INTRODUCTION Because no special law yet exits to address jurisdiction issues on the Internet, courts have been forced to apply traditional analyses of jurisdiction to cases in this new environment. Our traditional notions of jurisdiction have made a relatively smooth transition into cyberspace. Historically, jurisdictional requirements have centered on the locus and the activity of the parties as a means of determining which state’s law to apply.1 With the advent of the Internet and the new frontier of cyberspace, established ideas about where and how interactions take place must be re-considered in this unconventional, on- line environment. These sorts of issues affect a court’s jurisdiction over parties interacting in cyberspace. Surprisingly, our conventional notions of jurisdiction have adapted well to this new cyber-environment. This is illustrated by the report of the American Bar Association, which extends support to the minimum contacts analysis to determine jurisdiction over on-line parties.2 Cyberspace has expanded the arena for interactions of all sorts,3 and has provided another forum in which parties can reach out to each other from different locations, and possibly create the minimum contacts necessary for personal jurisdiction.4 Traditional principles of jurisdiction are adaptable to cyberspace because they consider the 1.See RICHARD D. FREER & WENDY COLLINS PERDUE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CASES, MATERIALS AND QUESTIONS 70-71 (2d ed. 1997). The place of litigation is significant for several reasons. Id. at 70. First, parties want to avoid inconvenience. Id.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule Interpleader, the Anti-Injunction Act, in Personam Jurisdiction, and M.C
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Faculty Publications School of Law 1-1-1996 What's Wrong with This Picture?: Rule Interpleader, the Anti- Injunction Act, In Personam Jurisdiction, and M.C. Escher Donald L. Doernberg Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, and the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation Donald L. Doernberg, What's Wrong with This Picture?: Rule Interpleader, the Anti-Injunction Act, in Personam Jurisdiction, and M.C. Escher, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 551 (1996), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/ lawfaculty/45/. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?: RULE INTERPLEADER, THE ANTI- INJUNCTION ACT, IN PERSONAIM JURISDICTION, AND M.C. ESCHER Plate 'Waterfall" O 1995 M.C. EscherICordon Art-Baarn-Holland. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission. - At first glance, the picture above may seem unremarkable; the eye is apt to brush over the image uncritically, taking in the whole without focusing on the details. On closer examination, * Charles A. Frueauff Research Professor of Law, Pace University. B.A., Yale University; J.D.,Columbia University. Heinonline -- 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 551 1996 552 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW vol. 67 one notices that the structure is physically impossible, pleasing to the eye but not of the real world-unless, of course, there is some undiscovered place where water spontaneously recycles itself from the bottom of a waterfall to the top.
    [Show full text]
  • Personal Jurisdiction in Illinois, Jenner & Block Practice Series 2020
    J E N N E R & B L O C K Practice Series Personal Jurisdiction in Illinois Paul B. Rietema Skyler J. Silvertrust Maria C. Liu JENNER & BLOCK LLP OFFICES • 353 North Clark Street • 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Chicago, Illinois 60654-3456 Los Angeles, California 90071-2054 Firm: 312 222-9350 Firm: 213 239-5100 Fax: 312 527-0484 Fax: 213 239-5199 • 919 Third Avenue • 1099 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 900 New York, New York 10022-3908 Washington, D.C. 20001-4412 Firm: 212 891-1600 Firm: 202 639-6000 Fax: 212 891-1699 Fax: 202 639-6066 • 25 Old Broad Street London EC2N 1HQ, United Kington Firm: 44 (0) 333 060-5400 Fax: 44 (0) 330 060-5499 Website: www.jenner.com AUTHOR INFORMATION1 • PAUL B. RIETEMA • SKYLER J. SILVERTRUST Partner Associate Tel: 312 840-7208 Tel: 312 840-7214 Fax: 312 840-7308 E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected] • MARIA C. LIU Associate Tel: 202 637-6371 E-Mail: [email protected] 1 The authors would like to thank Michael A. Doornweerd and A. Samad Pardesi for their substantial contributions to prior versions of this Practice Guide. © 2020 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication. The attorney responsible for this publication is Brent E.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawyer Insights 4 Personal Jurisdiction Questions Defendants Should
    Lawyer Insights 4 Personal Jurisdiction Questions Defendants Should Ask By Alexandra Cunningham and Elizabeth Reese Published in Law360 | May 13, 2020 Companies may find themselves sued in surprising locations, as novel theories associated with the COVID-19 pandemic unfold. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's clear mandates restricting personal jurisdiction in Daimler AG v. Bauman and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, plaintiffs still "forum shop" for jurisdictions with weak procedural safeguards and low expert admissibility standards — the perfect breeding grounds for questionable claims. Leveraging arguments that challenge the way courts have thought about personal jurisdiction for decades can help companies level the playing field, and escape lawsuits in plaintiffs' preferred forums. Below, we offer four questions to ask when you find yourself litigating a case in a jurisdiction where it does not belong. Are the jurisdictional allegations plausible? In the wake of Daimler and Bristol-Myers, plaintiffs' jurisdictional allegations have become more creative, but in many cases less plausible. While sanctions may be available for the most egregious claims, courts generally allow leeway for jurisdictional theories that may be novel but fall short of sanctionable. This is especially true when the merits are intertwined with the jurisdictional question, making courts reluctant to dispose of the claim without discovery. A plausibility challenge offers a possible solution. Federal district courts in at least five different circuits have held that personal jurisdiction must be plausibly pled under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.1 To pass muster, plaintiffs must do more than parrot the language of a long-arm statute — they must provide actual substance.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Use of 1655 Coexist with Federal Interpleader Law Thomas C
    Cornell International Law Journal Volume 21 Article 7 Issue 2 Summer 1988 Jurisdictional Reach for Interpleading Aliens: Can Use of 1655 Coexist with Federal Interpleader Law Thomas C. Morrill Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Morrill, Thomas C. (1988) "Jurisdictional Reach for Interpleading Aliens: Can Use of 1655 Coexist with Federal Interpleader Law," Cornell International Law Journal: Vol. 21: Iss. 2, Article 7. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol21/iss2/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell International Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Jurisdictional Reach For Interpleading Aliens: Can Use Of § 1655 Coexist With Federal Interpleader Law? In Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc. v. Garmaise,1 an American investment firm commenced an interpleader action 2 in order to resolve a dispute over various trust accounts in its possession. However, some of the par- ties disputing the distribution of the trust accounts were citizens of for- eign countries who refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the American court. 3 These foreign claimants argued that the interpleader action was in personam and, therefore, could not proceed unless they were person- ally served within the United States.4 The district court disagreed, hold- 1. 519 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). 2. An interpleader action allows a party to avoid multiple claims in the face of a single liability.
    [Show full text]
  • Question 1. on What Basis, If Any Would a Federal District Court Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over the Lawsuit by Plaintiff Against Defendant
    STUDENT ANSWER 1: Question 1. On what basis, if any would a federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit by plaintiff against defendant. ISSUE 1: Whether or not the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s complaint. The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have subject matter jurisdiction over federal question causes of action and diversity of jurisdiction causes of action. A federal question claim arises when the cause of action arises under an act of Congress, the US Constitution or a US Treaty. A diversity claim is a state based claim between citizens of different states where the damages exceed 75,000. In addition the federal court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear a state claim that is related to a valid pending claim in the federal court even though independently that claim could not enter the federal court house so long as the state claim against a D derives from a common nucleus of operative facts. To determine whether or not a court has jurisdiction over a federal question claim, the court relies on the well pleaded complaint rule. Under the WELL PLEADED COMAPLAINT RULE, federal courts look exclusively to the plaintiff’s complaint and will not consider that a defendant may raise a federal statute as a defense or that the D will assert a related counterclaim involving federal issues. To determine whether or not jurisdiction exists under a diversity of jurisdiction claim, both plaintiff and defendant must be completely diverse and the cause of action must exceed 75,000.00.
    [Show full text]
  • Whose Law of Personal Jurisdiction? the Choice of Law Problem in the Recognition of Foreign Judgments
    WHOSE LAW OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION? THE CHOICE OF LAW PROBLEM IN THE RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS ∗ TANYA J. MONESTIER INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1730 I. THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES ...................................................................... 1733 II. WHOSE LAW OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION? ...................................... 1739 A. There Is No Statutory Authority for Assessing Jurisdiction According to the Law of F1 ....................................................... 1744 B. U.S. Courts Are Ill-Equipped to Assess Whether a Foreign Court Had Personal Jurisdiction Under Foreign Law .............. 1748 C. Second Guessing a Foreign Court Is an Affront to International Comity ................................................................. 1756 D. Assessing Whether a Foreign Court Had Jurisdiction Under Foreign Law Is an Exercise in Futility ........................... 1759 E. U.S. Courts Do Not Engage in an Adequate Analysis of Foreign Law .............................................................................. 1761 III. WHAT IS THE LAW OF F2? ................................................................. 1763 IV. ADDITIONAL JURISDICTIONAL COMPLEXITY ..................................... 1768 A. Submission ................................................................................. 1768 B. Notice ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]