Civ Pro Outline VXX

(1) Voluntarily appearing in forum state's court
(2) Express
(a) Forum selection clause
(b) Appointment of an agent
(3) Implied
(a) Driving through the state

Aggregation= one PL's multiple claims against one DF.
Supplemental Jurisdiction = multiple PL's claims against one DF. At least one of these claims has to, by itself, meet the \$75,000 threshold or a federal question. THEN other smaller PLs can attach their claims to PL's main "anchor claim" so all PLs heard together. What's NOT allowed are smaller PLs aggregating claims together to meet \$75,000 threshold when none, individually, would get there.

If one PL can get into court w/ \$75,000 claim, then rest can; if no PL can get in w/ \$75,000 claim, there's no claim any PLs can "supplement".

DF acts in a way that is inconsistent with his argument that the forum lacks a basis for asserting personal JX

(a) Conducts discovery

(1) Limited (enumerated)
(a) Limiting JX to specific circumstances
(b) If none of them apply, then the court can't assert JX. But make sure it is constitutional!!!

(2) Unlimited (unenumerated)
(a) State's that the statute is consistent w/in constitution

(a) Limiting JX to specific circumstances

(b) If none of them apply, then the court can't assert

State's that the statute is consistent w/in constitution

General - claim DIDN'T arise out of DF's actions in the forum state

Specific - claim arose out of DF's actions in the forum state

(1) Minimum Contacts
(1) Fair Play & Justice

(1) Purposeful Availment
(a) Contact must NOT be accidental
(b) MUST be intentionally directed into the forum state
(i) Doing business in the state or driving on the state's roads
(c) Stream of Commerce
(i) Mere placement of a product into the stream of commerce" is not sufficient to constitute purposeful availment, "even if done with an awareness that the stream will sweep the product into the forum"

(2) Foreseeability
(a) Must have known or reasonable anticipated that activities in the forum made it foreseeable that she would be haled into court there

(a) If there are multiple parties then each party doesn't need to be notified if cost would be prohibitive. Instead, parties must be notified by best practical means available.
(b) If the addresses are known or could be discovered easily then the parties could be notified by ordinary mail.
(c) If address can't be found then notice by publication is sufficient.

(a) The power of a court to hear specific kinds of cases/disputes
(b) Power of legal and factual substance
(c) This isn't waivable - it's up to the court
(d) If it's found that a court did not have SMJ, the case will be dismissed and any judgements from same will be void
(e) Federal Courts are courts of limited JX and can only hear cases that the Constitution sets out in Article III. Section 2

(a) Contact must NOT be accidental
(b) MUST be intentionally directed into forum state such as business in state or driving on the state's roads

(c) Stream of Commerce: Placement of product into stream of commerce" isn't sufficient for purposeful availment, "even if done w/ awareness that the stream will sweep the product into the forum"

(1) Burden on the DF
(a) Forum must be so gravely inconvenient that the DF is at a huge disadvantage.

(2) Forum state's interest in protecting its citizens and businesses

(3) PL's interest in litigating matter in that state
(a) Business in state? Choice of law? Choice of forum?

(4) Interstate efficiency
(a) Where's everything? Witnesses are there, the business is there. Why bring everything to a different state?

(5) Interstate policy interests
(a) What is better for everyone?

(1) Type 1
(a) Claim is related to the property in a different state then where the DF lives

(2) Type 2
(a) Claim is unrelated to the property. that's only used to establish JX in forum state
(b) Shaffer established this must satisfy minimum contacts test and ownership of property in forum state by itself DOESN'T satisfy minimum contacts

Claim is related to the property in a different state then where the DF lives

(1) Complete Diversity
a. PLs must be citizens of different states than the DFs.
b. Under simple diversity (established in Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution) states that at least one PL and one DF have to be from separate states
c. Diversity is established when the lawsuit is FILED; NOT if they move after OR they lived in a different state when acts took place
d. Adding a non-diverse party later on will DESTROY diversity

(D) DOMICILE w/ Corporations domiciled in two places
a. State of incorporation
b. Principal place of business
(c) Hertz Corp. v. Friend - NERVE CENTER TEST - where the corp's officers direct, control and coordinate the corp's activities.
(d) Insurance companies are citizens where they are and where there insured is domiciled

(1) Objective physical presence in the state
(2) Subjective intent to remain indefinitely

(a) State of incorporation
(b) Principal place of business
(c) NERVE CENTER TEST - where the corp's officers direct, control and coordinate the corp's activities.
(d) Insurance companies are citizens where they are and where their insured is domiciled

(1) way to get as many claims as possible into a federal court as long as
(a) There is an independent claim that could survive a test for SMJ
(b) Any claim lacking independent basis for SMJ needs to be so closely related to the other that it wouldn't make sense to separate them

28 USC § 1391 (b)

Courts in the same judicial system (federal to federal)

You cannot move from state to state b/c those aren't in same judicial system

28 USC § 1404(a)

and

28 USC § 1406(a)

Transferee must be a proper venue and have PJ over the DF(s)

Must be true w/out waiver by the DF.

(a) Transferor IS proper venue and court may transfer to another district based on convenience of parties/witnesses and on the interest of justice

(b) May transfer to any venue if all parties agree and court agrees

(c) In a court where it could've originally been brought

Applies when the transferor ISN"T proper venue and this gives the court a choice: may transfer in interest of justice OR may dismiss claim

If SoL is about to run out, court will likely not dismiss claim - or if filing fees are expensive, it will likely just transfer

A court dismisses a case b/c there's another court that makes more sense - center of gravity)

DOESN'T TRANSFER - only dismisses
(a) b/c transfer would be impossible b/c correct court isn't in same judicial system
(b) Usually the center of gravity is in a different country

(1) Looks at public (courts) interest and private (parties) interest factors (Piper) - which are also used in forum non conveniens

(2) Foreign court must be available and adequate

(1) Court congestion issues

(2) Jury duty for people with little interest in the case

(3) Local interest? If so, keep it there
iv. Expertise in the particular matter

(1) Access to sources of proof
(2) Costs + ability to serve witnesses
(3) Subpoenas
(4) Bringing in foreign witnesses
(5) View of premises
(6) Other practical problems
(7) Things that will make it easier

(a) Court can dismiss if they think it's not convenient, but they can also choose to hear it anyway

(b) Factors
(1) Convenience of evidence
(2) Expense for both sides
(3) Docket condition
(41) Any other relevant factors

(1) 21 days after serving it, or

(2) if pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or

(3) 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier

Provides a limited mechanism for DF(s) to a lawsuit have a proceeding removed from state court to federal court, even over PL's objection.

Any case that could've been filed in federal court initially the DF may remove to federal court in correct district and division.

(1) Removal based on diversity of citizenship
(2) 1441(b)(2) – may not be removed if any DF is a resident of the forum state in which the case was initially brought
(2) All defendants MUST consent to removal
(3) Removal by original DFs ONLY (if DF files a counter claim, the counter-DF can't seek removal)
(4) If DF successfully removes the case to federal court, PL may seek remand and have the state sent back to state court. There are two ways to do this:
(a) Lack of SMJ
(b) Defect in the DF’s notice of removal

(5) PL cannot add a DF just to destroy diversity and send the case back to state court
(6) Only 30 days to file notice of removal from the date served

(1) Lack of SMJ
(2) Defect in the DF’s notice of removal

District courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action w/in such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution

(1) Judicial economy
(2) Convenience and fairness to litigants
(3) Avoiding needless decisions by federal courts on matters of state law when the state law claims are dismissed before trial
(4) If the state law claims predominate it should go to state court
(5) If the claim is closely tied to an issue of federal policy the courts should keep it
(6) Juror confusion (trying to distinguish between federal and state law)

(1) Made by PLs,
(2) Against anyone made a party to the cases under Fed. R. Civ. P. 14, 19, 20, 24, and
(3) Where exercising supplemental JX over the claims would be inconsistent with the requirements of diversity JX.
(5) Exxon Mobile – if only basis for JX is diversity, and some (but not all) of the PL’s satisfy the amount requirement, court may establish supplemental jurisdiction over the PL’s who don't meet the amount requirement.

(a) Applies ONLY if:
(1) If inclusion of any party in case won't destroy complete diversity
(2) No claims against anyone made a party under the Fed. R. Civ. P. 14, 19, 20, 24

(1) Claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law
(2) State claim substantially predominates federal claim
(3) District court has dismissed all claims over which federal court has original JX (most common)
(4) Any other exceptional circumstance