Civil Procedure Outline (Short), Sachs Fall 2011 Goal of FRCP: just, speedy, inexpensive determination of every action To get into fed court need SMJ + PJ + venue To determine if PJ or venue proper, first figure out if consented w/ forum selection clause or waived oBjection 12(h) SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION – ABility of court to hear particular type of case. Cannot be waived. Constitution (Article III) + Statute (§1331, 1332). Fed courts have limited SMJ. Note states have very, very Broad SMJ. 1. Diversity Jurisdiction: The power of federal courts to adjudicate disputes Between citizens of different states if more than $75,000 at stake. a. Citizen of a different state (Article III). Need complete diversity: all Ps from different states as all Ds [Strawbridge] b. Amount-in-controversy statutory requirement exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest or costs (§1332). Legal certainty; reasonaBle to conclude that P’s injuries would support recovery of that amount [Difenthal, flight attendant treated passengers “brusquely”, no legal certainty that facts supported damage claim of $10k] • P can aggregate claims against single D • P cannot aggregate claims against multiple Ds • Co-Ps cannot aggregate claims. • Exceptions: supplemental jurisdiction & common undivided interest, joint claim that is “indivisiBle” How to define citizenship? *calculate as of date action initiated a. Individual – domicile (only 1) = present + intent to remain indefinitely b. Partnership – citizen of state where all partners domiciled c. Corporations – state of incorporation + principal place of Business, where high level officers direct, control and coordinate corporation’s activities, nerve center [f Corp., Breyer, usually the headquarters unless it is a mail drop Box or Bare office; must Be single location, test not perfect and can create anomalous results] d. Alien = domicile 2. Federal Question Jurisdiction §1331, the power of federal courts to adjudicate disputes arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the US Constitution defines outer Bounds of jurisdiction Congress may confer upon courts. §1331 interpreted more narrowly in that requires at least an essential federal ingredient [Merrell Dow, Grable]. a. Cause of action under which P sues is created By federal law i. Mottley (1908) – P’s original claim must arise under a federal law. P enforcing federal right. Court doesn’t have jurisdiction just Because federal claim-related defense is anticipated. Only look to P’s original complaint (no counterclaims) [P’s claim under state contract law not federal law; RR would need to bring federal law as part of defense] 1. Well-pleaded complaint rule – fed claim must appear on the face of the complaint 2. Holmes’s creation test – Suit “arises under the law that creates the cause of action.” Can claim proceed without reference to federal law? If yes, then doesn’t Belong in fed ct. *works for most cases 3. Rationale: easy to determine jurisdiction from onset b. Cause of action includes essential federal ingredient i. Grable (2005) – Claim that doesn’t follow creation test can Be tried in fed ct. if there is (1) essential federal element emBedded in otherwise nonfederal claim (2) federal ingredient must actually be disputed (3) federal ingredient must Be substantial (4) court should consider careful Balance B/t state and fed courts 1 1. Serious federal interest in adjudicating claim 2. Potential for disrupting Balance B/t state and fed cts. (federalism) 3. Impact on fed dockets 4. *Goes beyond Holmes but faithful to Mottley (looks to what P must prove) [resolution involves implication of notice statute in fed. tax law]. 3. Removal – §1441 if P Brings case in state court, D can remove case to fed ct. so long as fed ct. has “original jurisdiction” (this means SMJ must have existed). Fairness to D. a. Federal claims – regular FQ analysis b. Non-federal claims (state claims) – need supplemental jurisdiction (same case/controversy w/ common nucleus of operative fact, §1367(B) exceptions • File notice of removal w/ clerk w/in 30 days of service or 30 days after Becomes removaBle (amended pleadings), §1446 • Must move to fed district ct. “for district where action pending” *Venue §1391 does not apply to removed cases • All original Ds must join in notice of removal • Exception: §1441(B) Forum defendant exception: Bars removal of diversity case if D resides in state where suit Brought. D doesn’t need to Be protected B/c at home. Does NOT Bar removal of fed Q case • §1441(c) motion to remand must Be w/in 30 days of else waive oBjections (other than SMJ) PERSONAL JURISDICTION – ABility of court to exercise authority over D (require D to appear Before it and to render judgment that will be binding on D). Can be waived. Constitution (DP, notice and opportunity to Be heard and FF&C, full faith and credit will Be given in each state) + State statute (long-arm statute) + 4(k) (notice of lawsuit) *This answer assumes the state long-arm statute extends to the limits of DP with regard to the claim(s) at issue. Also assume contacts mentioned are D’s only contacts w/in forum state. 1. Basis for Personal Jurisdiction – cannot sue people wherever you feel like it; need DP a. Domicile b. Presence, service of process while physically and voluntarily present in forum state [Burnham (Scalia) transient presence, father visiting kids in CA when served, 4-4 split, Brennan: need to do Shoe] Note this is only for individuals, service ok But cannot oBtain PJ By serving officer of corporation (But not partnership) who happens to Be in forum state c. Consent: express (contract) or implied (Hess, PA citizen injured MA citizen in MA; voluntary act of driving in MA implied consent] d. Waiver: failure to waive w/in specified time 12(h) e. Minimum contacts: D must have sufficient contacts in state such that D has purposefully availed himself of privilege of conducting activities in state and thus should reasonaBly anticipate “Being haled into court.” Further, exercising PJ over D does not offend traditional notions of fair play and justice [Shoe, no offices or contracts or sale in WA but shoe salesmen were continuous and systematic contacts, received benefits/protections of WA laws] • D’Arcy (1851) – Need service of process in forum state or voluntary appearance in forum state. • Pennoyer (1878) – Need service of process in forum state or voluntary appearance or property in state and property attached Before litigation Begins (quasi in rem). DP req. actual notice. • International Shoe (1945) – Need minimum contacts. D suBmits to litigation in forum state if claim arises out of voluntary activities in forum state. This is fair to D and ok under DP [no offices or contracts or sale in WA but shoe salesmen were continuous and systematic contacts, received benefits/protections of WA laws] 2 Did claim arise out of D’s contacts with forum state? YES – specific jurisdiction (fewer contacts req.) NO – general jurisdiction (many contacts req.) 2. General Personal Jurisdiction: If D has continuous or systematic contracts with forum state such that the continuity of purposeful contacts w/in forum state is sufficiently great, can have PJ even if claim does not arise out of those contacts. Not unfair or inconvenient to D. Use for any claim P has against D. What continuous and systematic contacts suffice? a. Individual = domicile b. Corporation = (1) place of incorporation (2) principle place of Business (3) corporate office w/ significant Business or continued physical presence [Reyes, Hong Kong company w/ office in CA that conduced significant business] (4) essentially at home, rely on “carved out” test ex. Starbucks in NY, do everything in state as they would do if were own Business, Buying/selling in state not enough, need physical presence [Goodyear (2011), GinsBurg, no PJ b/c Goodyear not at home in NC, attenuated connections to state, no offices, do not ship products or solicit sales] i. Registered to do Business in state? ii. Physical presence in state? iii. Any advertising in state iv. Solicit business in state? v. Any employees in state? vi. Volume of in-state Business, relation to whole? vii. If “carve out” forum market, does it look like a local Business? • Not necessarily regular contacts [Robbins, 50 transactions w/ MD not enough] • Temporary principle place of Business ok [Perkins, Philippine mining company temporarily conducting business in Ohio] • Not necessarily purchases in forum occurring at regular intervals [Goodyear, no offices, does not ship products or solicit sales in NC; P should have argued single enterprise theory] 3. Specific Personal Jurisdiction: D has min contacts with state (can Be single act B/c of “quality and nature” [McGee]. Claim must arise out of D’s min contacts. Exercise of jurisdiction must Be otherwise consistent w/ traditional notions of fair play and suBstantial justice. Use for only claims arising out of D’s in-state contacts. Step 1: Minimum contacts with forum state. Contact exists when D has purposefully availed himself of privilege and Benefits of conducting activities in forum state. 1. Purposeful availment – did D purposefully avail itself of Benefits and protection of forum’s laws? [Hanson] D purposefully avails self of opportunity to conduct activities in forum state and could “reasonaBly anticipate Being haled into court there.” Lawsuit cannot Be a surprise. Distinguish foreseeability w/ purposeful availment. [Nicastro, Kennedy; if foreseeability sole criterion, then small farmer in FL who sells crops to large distributor could be subject to PJ in Alaska] a. Worldwide Volkswagen, must Be foreseeaBle that D could get sued in forum, not that product could get there [could foresee buyers taking cars to OK (product) but no PJ b/c had not purposefully availed of conducting activities in OK, solicit no business, sell no cars there] b.