Civil Pro Jurisdiction

A court's power to hear and decide a case or issue a decree; and the geographic area over which the court has power

The legal relationship and distribution of power between the federal and state governments within a federal system of government

States have the power to act unless the constitution took it away from them

they are given the power to act (by constitution or state)

1. Power to decide (hear) particular type of case (Subject Matter Jurisdiction); AND
2. Power over the parties to the dispute (Personal Jurisdiction)

1. Strategy (service/ process concerns, jury pool, demographics, travel, bias)
2. Efficieny (location of witnesses, commute, etc.)
3. Law (concerns of expertise, or neutrality )
4. Policies that are to be promoted (fairness and efficiency)

The judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the US, and Treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority...between Citizens of different states...

limited jurisdiction (can only hear the types of cases that are specigically enumerated by Congress)

All cases "arising under" the Constitution. federal laws, and treaties
AND
i. Cases affecting ambassadors/admiralty/maritime/US as a party
ii. Cases between states (to avoid in-state or anti-state bias)
iii. Cases between state & citizen of another state (see above)
iv. **Cases between citizens from different states (diversity), and
v. States/state citizens vs. foreign state/citizens/subjects (1 voice)

It must dismiss the action
- (can be raised at anytime)
- parties cannot waive SMJ

1. Burden is on the party invoking federal jurisdiction
i. On the P if he chose to file there
ii. On the D if removing from state court to federal court
2. Court can raise it sua sponte (without challenge), and is obligated to do so if it notices it does not have jurisdiction

Case originates in that court (P files Complaint in federal court)

Federal Questions (§ 1331) or Diversity (§ 1332) disputes
(there must be at least one claim in the Complaint that raises a Federal Question or Diversity jurisdiction to be in federal court)

i. Federal claim created by federal law, OR
ii. State law claim with necessary embedded federal question

Can arise under...
Constitutional
Statutory
Interpreted Fed Q Jurisdiction

Art III S 2 = arising under constitution or federal law

Osborn Ingredient Test: "Arising Under" only requires some aspect of a federal law be an "ingredient" somewhere in the P's case

(This is old, the more modern verison is narrower)

28 USC§ 1331: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the US
(slightly narrower than Art III S 2)

Mottley Rule "Well-Pleaded Complaint"
A suit "arises under" federal law only when the claim/ cause of action in the Complaint shows it's based on federal law or the Constitution

Insufficient

In the P's complaint
- A federal claim will always get you to federal court

Plaintiff will attempt to manufacture or avoid federal jurisdiction by including or omitting federal law from the complaint
- Court's will examine the claim's true nature though rather than just accepting what P's says

A suit arises under federal law only when the law creates a cause of action (plaintiff's claim)
- can always come to federal court with federal law claim
- to determine this look at complaint (WPC)

Express: Congress has expressly authorized a citizen to sue for violation of US statute
Implied: Look for statutory construction and congressional intent

Ask does the case turn on Federal law?
(In order to win under state law/ court does the question turn on federal law? If so then arises under federal law)

1. The case necessarily deals with a federal issue (is the federal question part of a prima facie case P has to prove?)
2. Issue is actually disputed (parties must be in disagreement)
3. Issue is substantial; and (to satisfy this requirment the issue must be substantial to the federal system as a whole, rather than merely substantial to the case)
4. Capable of resolution by a federal court without disrupting the federal state balance (concerned about fed courts workload? Is this the kind of case tey should hear to promot uniformity & prevent bias?)

Constitution Art III S 2 extends the power to the judiciary to hear controversies "between citizens of different states"
Statutory 28 USC 1332 extends the power to hear controversies that "exceed 75,000 (Amount in Controvery Min)", between state citizens and foreign citizens, & foreign states

at the time of filing

No Plaintiff may have the same citizenship as any Defendant

a. Citizens of different states (OH v. MI + more than 75,000)
b. State citizens v foreign citizens (OH v. Canadian)
c. Citizens of different states plus foreign citizen (OH v. MI + Canadian)
d. Foreign country v. State citizen (Canada v. MI citizen)

1. Time of Filing Rule: Citizenship is determined at the time the complaint is filed (bright-line rule)
2. Burden of Proof for Diveristy citizenship (Burden on P)

Individual is a citizen of domicile state (mere residence is not enough Mas v. Perry)
(determined at the time the case is filed)

true, fixed, and permanent home...to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent (Mas v. Perry)

1. Takes up residence in a different state, and
2. Intends to remain there indefinitely

not leaving on a set date; staying for undetermined amount of time

No Divorce Cases
No Will Probate Cases
(but does not preclude all lawsuits between family members)

Where it is incorporated
+
Where it has its principal place of business

Where the corporation was formed under state law

The place where the corporation's high-level officers direct, control, and corrdinate the corporation's activities (typically its headquaters)

Are citizens of every state in which their members (partners) are domiciled
Examples of these:
limited partnerships
law firms
unions
associations
charities

Foreign people are considered citizens of some foreign country (does not matter which foreign country)
- If there is a foreign party (P) and a foreign party (D)= Diversity is DESTROYED because foreign parties are from the same place

1. Diversity of Citizenship
2. Amount in Controversy (75,000 comes from statute 1332 (a))

1. Amount claimed in Complaint controls
- must be made in good faith
2. Legal certainty: Fact or Law
- amount was permitted by the law
- post-filing: if P gets less or loses not usually evidence of bad faith or that no jurisdiction existed

Single plaintiff can aggregate claims against a single defendant, even if unrelated
(Plaintiffs can add their claims together to reach AIC)

Single plaintiff cannot aggregate claims against multiple defendants

Multiple plaintiffs cannot aggregate claims against the same defendant or multiple defendants
Exception: If legal interest is identical
(ex: married couples or business partners)

- minimal diveristy (just one plaintiff needs to be different from one defendant)
- amount must exceed 5 Million dollars but amount can be meet by aggregation

GR: Plaintiff gets to choose where to take the case...Plaintiff is master of her own complaint

Any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the US have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant(s)
(Court will ask, could the case have been brought in the federal court originally?)

i. Any action that satisfies original jurisdiction
ii. Supplemental claims that go with those OJ claims, AND
iii. Any other claim that can go with it

ONLY defendant(s) can remove (if more than one defendant all must agree to remove to federal court)

Within 30 days of the Defendant receiving the initial pleading
OR
if the original complaint doesn't have a basis for federal jurisdiction and then the plaintiffs amends the complaint then 30 days after the amended complaint

To the federal court of the district and division in which the case is filed

1. Is there a claim within Original Jurisdiction?
2. Is it Removable? (is there a rule preventing removal?)

(timing depends on basis for objection)
1. Defendant did not follow the proper process for removal = did not file within 30 days)
or
2. Reason for objection is lack of SMJ (SMJ can never be waived and can be raised at anytime by any party)

No removal because home state advantage, so no bias against D

1. File a motion to remove in the federal court
2. Give notice to state court and parties
3. Explain why FC has jurisdiction / state ground for removal
4. Must be done within the time limit

1. Drop the Federal Claim (only bring state claim)
2. Make sure there is no basis for federal jurisdiction
3. Plaintiff can file two cases at the same time (federal in federal and state in state; not recommended)
4. If diveristy case then sue an instate defendant
5. Sue for less than amount in controversy

Allows federal courts to hear claims that have no independent basis (original jurisdiction) to be in federal court, and allow them to tag along with the claims that DO HAVE an independent basis for federal jurisdiction

1. Claims made by plaintiff against persons made defendants under FRCP 14 (impleader), 19 (joinder of necessary or indispensable parties), 20 (permissive joinder), and 24 (intervention), or
2. Claims made by persons proposed to be joined as Plaintiff under FRCP 19, or seeking to intervene as Plaintiffs under 24, or…
3. When exercising supplemental jurisdiction would destroy/ be inconsistent with diversity (it is inconsistent with jurisdictional requirements of § 1332-diversity)

novel or complex issue of state law
supplemental claim substantially predominates over original
original jurisdiction claims has been dismissed; or
in exceptional circumstances with other compelling reasons for declining

essentially you must have at least 1 claim the Court has Original jurisdiction over (FQ or Div) then look to see if the other claim are within the same CNOF
- related; same case or controversy
- common nucleus of operative facts (CNOF)

and SJ is authorized by statute- "same case or constroversy"

1. In Personam
2. In Rem
- Quasi in Rem Type 1
- Quasi in Rem Type 2

Jurisdiction over the person
Judgment against the person and his assets (wherever they may be)

Jurisdiction over property for purposes of declaring ownership or interest in property with respect to the world
Subject matter is property itself
(ex: probate, bankruptcy)

Declaring the parties ownership or interest; defendants interest in property is the basis for the suit, not the property itself
(ex: forclosure action)

Property providing a remedy in an unrelated action - attachment proceeding or writ of execution
(ex: attaching car to satisfy tort judgement)

In personam Rule: (1) Defendant must be served personally and (2) be served in the state the case/ complaint was filed in (3) Consent

In Rem/ Quasi in rem Rule: (1) Must attach the land within the state AND (2) attach before the suit begins (attachment is what notifies the defendant of the suit)

1. Defendant must have minimum sufficient contacts with the state (purposefully availed itself)
2. The claim arose out of those contacts
AND
3. Personal jurisdiction must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

1. Specific. The cause of action arose out of the defendant's contact with the state. Single contact may be sufficient (Hess).
2. General. Cause of action did not arise out of the defendant's contacts with the forum state, but their contact is so continuous and systematic that it would be reasoable for there to be PJ over the defendant

1. Does state's long arm statute authorize personal jurisdiction?
- If no, no pj
- If yes, go to next question
2. Does jurisdiction comply with Due Process?
- Does the cause of action arise from D's contacts with the forum?
- Has the D purposefully availed himself of the privileges of conducting business in the forum
- Does it satisfy "fair play and substantial justice"?

1. Burden on the defendant (Is there a burden on the D – inconvenient for them to be sued in that state? Do they do business there?)
2. Forum state's interest (if the accident occurred in the state, the state's interest is high to regulate safety and citizen's interest in safety)
3. Plaintiff's interest in a covenient forum (can P travel to another state/ forum)
4. Interstate judicial system's interest in efficient resolution of controversies
5. Shared interests of several states / interstate judical system (how will this case play out if not litigated there? is there another state that has an interest in litigating the matter?)

• Defendant had purposeful or deliberate contacts with the forum state
• Plaintiff’s claim arose out of those contacts
• PJ is reasonable based on Fair Play and Substantial Justice factors:
o Burden on the Defendant
o Forum State’s Interest
o Plaintiff’s interest in a convenient forum
o Interstate Judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of controversies
o Shared interest of several states / interstate judicial system

Procedural statute that says when a defendant is outside that state's lines, they can be hauled into that state's courts
(each state has their own)

1. Personal jurisdiction does not necessarily exist where one of the parties to a contract resides
2. Consider a number of factors, like the location of
- negotiations
- contract provisions

1. There must be additional conduct showing purposeful availment (along with placing your product in the SOC. So you really want SOC "PLUS")
2. Things that show the D was targeting the forum / had control/ was intentional, framed toward purposeful availment
- look for intend (intention) or knew (knowledge)
- designing the product for market in the forum state
- advertising in the forum state
- establishing channels for providing advice to customers in the forum state
- marketing product through a distributor in the forum state

1. Evidence test: contact provides evidence of one of more elements of cause of action
2. "But for": claim would not have arise "but for" the contact with the forum state
3. General relationship (proximate cause)

Minimum Contacts
- purposeful- not random, isolated or fortuitous
- cause of action arises from contacts or is related to
Fair Play and Substantial Justice

- Purposefulness
(Internet contacts (mostly for specific jurisdiction-- usually general jurisdiction won't exist for internet companies))
- When a website is selling products, it is easy to a forum state to say they have contacts (one contact is enough if the cause of action is from the contact)

(1) contacts are not unilateral, random, or fortuitous;
(2) the nature and quality of the contacts matter (is there an ongoing relationship/obligation established?);
(3) reasonableness factors should be applied to determined if the business had a reasonable believe that the technology utilized would avail them to the Forum State;
(4) must have a substantial (tangential) connection between the cause of action and in-state contacts

a. Looking for where the entity is AT HOME
b. Mostly a question for businesses
c. Internet transactions will almost NEVER result in general jurisdiction

Continuous and systematic Business Contacts (look at totality of circumstances – very high threshold)
1. Incorporation + Principal Place of Business
2. Physical presence?
3. High volume of sales with no physical presence?
a. NOT Enough:
(helicopteros: brief presence in the forum state will not be enough)

Domiciled there
1. Where can you sue a person even if they cause the injury somewhere else?
2. Can always sue them in their state of domicile
a. Residence + Intent to Remain

Tagging: If D is personally served with summons and complaint in forum state
(Tag is strong evidence to show D is subject to PJ)
D is Physically Present in the state when tagging occurs

Transient presence in forum state can be still be basis for in personam jurisdiction

Is okay since the traditional rule has been service within the state is sufficient, AND the examination of reasonableness is not required

the more benefit he derived while in that state, the more likley D will be subject to PJ

Yes, can be waived by the defendant, through express or implied consent

Can be through express contractual provisions-- forum selection clauses
(which are typically enforced, unless they are fundamentally unfair)
To see if unfair ask
- does it consider SMJ/ state or federal?
- does it pick one over the exclusion of others?
- venue

If a D fails to object to the P in his answer or motion to dismiss (his first appearance to the court), he waives his objection to PJ and "consents"

D can be deems to have consented to PJ as a sanction for misconduct (usually in relation to discovery about PJ)

No, not enough

1. Have the Pennoyer requirments been met?
i. Must attach to property/ land within the state, AND
ii. Attachment must occur before the suit begins
2. If so, does the person's interest in the property show "personal availment" through min/ sufficient contacts?
i. Do the International Show analysis
a. Specific; arose out of contacts, purposely availed, fair play and substantial justice
b. General; contacts were continuous and systematic, fair play and substantial justice

1. Motion to Dismiss (file at start of lawsuit)
2. Answer (affirmative defense)
3. Appeal (only if preserved in answer of motion to dismiss)
4. Collateral attack on judgment (make no appearance and allow defult judgement to be enter then object)

1. Motion to Dismiss or Answer (filed at start of lawsuit; not waivable)
2. Sua Sponte (motion to remand based on lack of SMJ any time)
3. Relief from Final Jurdgement (motion after FJ issued)
4. Appeal (can appeal even if issue was not preserved)

Notifying the defendant that proceedings against them have been initiated

reasonable convey the required information, AND afford a reasonable time to make an appearance

Due Process--> Federal Rule 4 (statutory)--> State Notice Procedures

Such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it
i. reasonable certain to inform, OR
ii. if not possible, may use a feasible and customary substitute

1. Reasonably calculated under all the circumstances
2. to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action, and
3. afford them an opportunity to present their objections

1. Known names & addresses + large deprivation = at least service by mail
i. Personal service is the gold standard; but followed by certified mail
2. Unknown names & addresses + small deprivation (little at stake) = publication may suffice
3. Actual notice offers evidence that the process used was fair, but it is not conclusive proof that service satisfied due process

Unless unknown name or address + small deprivation, then this will generally not pass constitutional due process requirements

Generall will satisfy due process

Not going to pass due process requirements

Delivering to the defendant notice that proceddings against them have been initiated

1. Content of a summons (the document summoning the defendant to appear in court)
2. Procedures of issuing summons
3. Service of summons
i. Copy of the complaint
ii. Who can serve process: 18 year old non-party
a. P may request the US Marshal serve the D (e.g. indigent P)
4. Waiver
i. If waived, D gets 60 days (instead of 21) to respond

a. According to the rules of the state where the federal court is located or where service is effectuated, or
b. Personal delivery, or
c. At individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode, or
d. Delivery to an appointed agent

Looks at whether the geographic location of the case is convenient for the parties
(must be authorized by statute)

1. SMJ (the dispute): Court authority, federalism, Art. III structural system
2. PJ (the Def.): fairness to D
3. Venue (location): Convenience and efficiency for the court, def., and witnesses

28 USC Sec 1391
1. Residential Venue
2. Transactional Venue
3. Fallback Provision

1. If all the defendants reside in the same state, then venue is proper in any judicial district in which one defendant presides
2. Residency
a. Natural Person D = resides where they're domiciled
b. Entity D = resides where personal jurisdiction exists
c. Foreign D = resides in any district

Venue will lie in a judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or where a substantial part of the property giving rise to the suit is situation
a. Broader than just the site of the tort, could include multiple places
b. "substantial part of events" = look at entire sequence of the events to the claim

If residential or transactional do not produce a venue, venue will lie in any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action

1. For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought OR to any district or division to which all parties have consented
2. Court may grant for convenience and in the interest of justice (more discretion to court)

A case is filed in wrong jurisdiction (WRONG VENUE)
"(a)…a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought"

in the interest of justice; no considerations for convenience, and cannot be transferred to a wrong venue where all D's have consented
(can only be transfered where P had the right to file in the first place)

Private Interest and Public Interest Considerations

i. Ps choice of forum (respect it) UNLESS the balance of convenience is strongly in favor of D
ii. Ds choice of forum
iii. Whether the claim arose elsewhere (does the forum have a connection with the claim itself?)
iv. Convenience of the parties
v. Convenience of the witnesses
vi. Ease of access

i. Transferee’s familiarity with governing laws
ii. Relative congestion of calendars of potential transferee and transferor courts (Does this open the floodgates to the US Fed. Courts?
iii. Local interest in deciding the local controversies at home

Action starts with a proper venue, but the court must dismiss because there is an appropriate alternative venue that is more convenient, but it is NOT the federal system = must dismiss so P can re-file in the other (appropriate) system

i. MUST be an adequate alternative forum that is available
a. SMJ + PJ is satisfied
b. Adequate: Consider the Private and Public factors
c. Also consider law (SoL), congestion, witnesses,
ii. But that forum is NOT in the federal system (where transfer is not allowed)

iv. Higher degree of deference to Ps choice
a. FNC requires an analysis of the same factors of 1404 transfer, though courts typically require the factors to more strongly favor a FNC dismissal than a 1404 transfer
b. FNC can be granted, even if the foreign country’s law is much less favorable to the P
1. Ps ties to the chosen forum are given weight

1. FSCs in a federal forum = just another consideration when a Convenience Transfer is requested
2. FSC in a state forum = dismissal of the claim via Forum Non Conveniens
3. Under the considerations, FSCs can knock out or make irrelevant the P OR Ds choice of forum, depending on who is contesting it and how

1. CANNOT transfer from the federal court to a state court, or vice versa under Venue
2. The only way to “transfer” between state and federal court is SMJ removal and remand
i. This is why if you are already in a proper forum, you make a Motion to Dismiss, not Transfer.
ii. Generally if you have a more appropriate forum to take the case to, its form the state court to the federal court (or vice versa), if you get dismissal, you re-file (or force P to refile)

a. Generally: State substantive law but Federal procedure laws
1. Substantive: Elements of the claims and their defenses
2. Procedure: How you go about enforcing the substantive law, and method for adjudicating the claim

28 USC 1652: The laws of several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the US or Acts of Congress otherwise require (FRCP) or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the Courts of the US, in cases where they apply

1. 28 USC 2072: Federal statute enabling Congress and the Supreme Court to make the FRCP
i. Rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence
ii. Shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right…
a. And all laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect

IF the federal procedure law in conflict is a FRCP, the court MUST apply that rule as long as the FRCP is (1) relevant and is (2) valid under the REA

(1) There is a direct conflict with state law,
(2) The FRCP is relevant,
And (3) it is valid under the REA (procedural only)

“laws of several states” only includes state statutes, therefore federal courts make federal common law in diversity cases (OVERRULED)

1. state substantive law applies and the FRCPs apply (overrules Swift)
2. Reasons to overrule Swift: Incorrect interpretation; Failed its intended purposes (failed uniformity; created injustice & confusion; encourages forum shopping and discrimination); Unconstitutional

1. If application of federal law could lead to a different outcome in federal court than in state court, then apply state law
2. If not explicitly a “substantive” rule, then state rules apply if the choice between state and federal law affects the outcome of the case
3. Post-Guaranty Trust, other cases suggested there was virtually NO limit to what may be considered “substantive” under this test

Not EVERY outcome effect suffices; State rule must at least partly serve substantive state interests – Need an important or substantial effect that would discriminate or encourage forum-shopping)

Is the state law in question Substantive or Procedural?
1. If clearly Substantive, then apply State law
i. Authority: RDA + Erie
a. RDA: Laws of several states (when not in conflict with US laws) shall be regarded as Rules of Decisions in federal courts
b. Erie: In diversity cases, federal courts apply state substantive law (statutory and common law) and federal procedural laws
2. If arguably Procedural, go to next step.

1. Is there a conflict between State and Federal Law?
i. NO = Apply both State and Federal law (Erie analysis only occurs when there is a conflict between state and federal law)
a. CATEGORICAL RULE: FRCP 3 does not conflict with a State SOL; if there is an Erie issue that raises a State SOL, apply the State SOL (also see this example under the “relevant” portion of the FRCP Erie analysis)
1. Why have this rule? If federal courts gave longer life to cases than they would have in the state courts, it would incentivize forum-shopping
ii. YES = Next step in Erie analysis

Is there a valid, relevant federal statute or FRCP?
i. FRCP analysis
a. Valid = under REA, (1) Rules of Practice, Procedure, & Evidence; and (2) Shall not abridge or modify a substantive right. All laws in conflict of such rules are of no force or effect
b. Relevant: It must apply to the issue at hand; Generally if there is no conflict between the two laws, then there is a problem with the relevancy factor
1. If the FRCP is valid and relevant = apply it – A Valid/Relevant FRCP trumps all other conflicting laws
c. NOT Valid/Relevant: Federal practice by judges or a local Court rule; a FRCP that modifies substantive right.
ii. After applying analysis, answer question above:
a. YES: Apply FRCP rule
b. NO: For every Federal Law/Rule, go to next step Modern outcome-determinative test)

i. If the law is not explicitly a “substantive” rule, then State rules apply if the choice between State and Federal effects the outcome
ii. NEED an important or substantive effect on the outcome that would discriminate or encourage forum-shopping = then apply state procedural law
a. After applying test, answer the above question:
1. NO, not likely to substantially effect/determine outcome: Apply Federal Law/Rule
2. YES OR MAYBE, Probably Apply State law but double check with next question (Go to Interest Test)

i. the Governmental Interests: Even if the outcome is determined based upon the choice between federal and state law, there is a possible “veto” if an overriding federal interest justifies the application of federal law
a. Ex: Juries deciding factual issues are an essential function of the federal court
ii. TEST: How integral is the federal policy to the function of the federal courts?
a. State laws cannot alter the essential character or function of the federal court
b. Ex: if Congress has directed that multiple considerations govern a certain decision within the federal court system (here a venue transfer), State policy to focus on one single consideration or subset of those Congressional determined factors would defeat the Federal Government’s intentional command in this specific area
iii. After applying this test, answer the above question:
a. YES, overriding federal interest: Apply Federal law
b. NO, no overriding federal interest: Apply State law

a. HARD RULE:A prior judgment controls in subsequent litigation
1. Baseline rule, countered by due process considerations: Due Process focuses on WHO should be bound by the prior suit
b. Source of Doctrine: Common law; not a federal statute or the Constitution
c. Policy: Efficiency v. Accuracy
d. Types:
1. Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata)
2. Issue Preclusion (collateral estoppel)

a. Rule: Final judgment on the merits precludes the same parties to the judgment from re-litigating the same claim in a later suit
1. 4 essential elements: Parties; Same Claim; Final judgment; On the Merits
b. Same Parties:
c. Same Claim:
d. Final Judgment:
e. On the Merits:
f. Merger & Bar:

Rule: Final judgment precludes re-litigating the same issue of fact or law that was actually litigated, determined, and necessary to the judgment