Civ Pro II: ENTIRE COURSE

Question 1

International Shoe v. WA (1945)

Answer 1

Personal Jurisdiction is established by:

• MINIMUM CONTACTS
• AND*
• Traditional Notions of FAIR PLAY and Substantial Justice

Question 2

Minimum Contacts via INTERNATIONAL SHOE

Answer 2

Once you have had a minimum number of contracts within the state, you become subject to that jurisdiction’s laws and courts → JURISDICTION

• Contacts are SYSTEMATIC and CONTINUOUS
• Economic Activity
• PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT

Question 3

INTERNATIONAL SHOE: Rule

Answer 3

A corporation that is protected by the laws of a state shall be subject to personal jurisdiction in that state
* For a state to exercise in personam jurisdiction over non-resident D, there MUST BE MINIMUM CONTACTS b/w D, the forum, and the claim.

Question 4

Minimum Contacts; SYSTEMATIC and CONTINUOUS

Answer 4

Contracts are SYSTEMATIC and CONTINUOUS

• It’s not erratic or sporadic
• Can’t be unusual
• Can’t be irregular
• But on-going and repeated basis

Question 5

Minimum Contacts: ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

Answer 5

There’s a lot of people doing a lot of commercial activity across state lines

Question 6

Minimum Contacts: PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT

Answer 6

If I have intentionally decided to avail myself in the shoe market in another state, I am acknowledging that that state has jurisdiction over me

• -> THINK: Why were they in the state?
• -> Mere foreseeability that your product will wind up in the forum is insufficient

Question 7

Personal Jurisdiction: IN REM JURISDICTION

Answer 7

Case arises out of the property in question

Question 8

Personal Jurisdiction: QUASI IN REM JURISDICTION

Answer 8

Jurisdiction based solely on property in state that is unrelated to controversy

• MUST fulfill minimum contacts requirement of International Shoe
• Property cannot be the only way because if there’s no additional contact, it wouldn’t be fair to avail themselves of these laws

Question 9

Personal Jurisdiction: GENERAL

Answer 9

via Pennoyer v. Neff

* States have jurisdiction over citizens and property within the boundaries of their territory.

Question 10

Venue: FORUM NON CONVENIENS

Answer 10

• Strong presumption in in favor of plaintiff’s choice of forum, BUT
• Where private or public interest factors point toward an alternative forum, it will be overcome

Question 11

Personal Jurisdiction: ELEMENTS

Answer 11

(1) D purposefully availed himself to the forum
(2) Claim arises from D activity within the forum
AND
(3) It would be reasonable for the D to be hauled into court in the forum for FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE

Question 12

Personal Jurisdiction: FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE

Answer 12

(1) Burden on the defendant (most important factor)
(2) Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
(3) Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
(4) Interstate judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution
(5) Shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies
- -> BALANCING TEST

Question 13

Domicile

Answer 13

• Presence within the state
• AND *
• Intent to remain
• -> At the TIME OF FILING
• -> If you are held to a domicile in one place, you are held to that domicile until you do something to connect yourself to another domicile
  
  • Must do something PRO-ACTIVE to be established in another domicile

Question 14

Zippo Test

Answer 14

• The more active the website, the more likely there is PJ.

* The less active the website, the less likely there is PJ.

Question 15

Calder Effects Test

Answer 15

Under the Calder effects test, online conduct cannot be directed at entire world; it must be directed at the forum state or at the forum resident with knowledge the harm will be felt in the forum.

Question 16

General Jurisdiction

Answer 16

Continuous, substantial, systematic that the contacts do not need to be related to the suit

Question 17

Diversity Jurisdiction: STATELESS PEOPLE

Answer 17

Stateless persons who are not citizens of any nation, and American-citizen expatriates domiciled abroad, ARE NOT CITIZENS OF ANY STATE OR FOREIGN NATION and cannot be original parties to a suit in which COMPLETE DIVERSITY IS REQUIRED

Question 18

Diversity Jurisdiction: AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

Answer 18

Pleaded amount needs to be over $75k

• Jurisdiction turns not on the sum contained but on the good faith allegation in its complaint of an adequate jurisdictional amount
• The total amount is decided at the end of the trial THEREFORE it doesn’t make sense to hold a threshold that would adjust throughout the trial
• To not meet threshold, must show LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY to reach the amount in claim
• -> SO outlandish that good faith is doubted

Question 19

Minimum Contacts: CONTACTS RELATED TO THE CONTROVERSY

–> Single or Isolated Activities

Answer 19

Via McGee v International Life Insurance Co.

• A single instance can be sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction

Question 20

Minimum Contacts: CONTACTS RELATED TO THE CONTROVERSY

–> Sufficient Related Contacts Found

Answer 20

Via Burger King
• Where a form state seeks to assert specific jurisdiction over a non resident, the fair warning requirement is satisfied if defendant has purposely directed activities at residence of the form state and litigation results from a legit injuries that arose out of, or related to those activities

Question 21

Minimum Contacts w/ Forum State for Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 21

A court has personal jurisdiction over an out of state defended if defendant has the requisite minimum contacts with the state and exercising jurisdiction over the defendant is fair.
• In order to acquire personal jurisdiction over defendant, that individual must have purposely availed themselves to the state’s laws
• AND •
• The possibility of being hauled into court within the state MUST BE foreseeable.

Question 22

Minimum Contacts: CONTACTS RELATED TO THE CONTROVERSY

–> Insufficient Related Contacts Found

Answer 22

The foresee ability inquiry asks NOT whether it is foreseeable that a product might end up in a particular state
• BUT RATHER whether a defendant can foresee being hauled into court there because she purposely availed herself of that state’s benefits

Question 23

Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Answer 23

• State courts have general jurisdiction and can hear state claims and federal claims with the exception of the federal carve-outs
• Federal courts have limited jurisdiction
  –>Can hear things based on federal law or a federal question
  –> OR
  –> Can hear by diversity jurisdiction
  All Ps are diverse from all Ds and amount in controversy is over $75k

Question 24

Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction: TYPES OF CASES

Answer 24

Cases involving:
• A federal question
   ▪︎Admirality
   ▪︎ United States as a party
   ▪︎ Arising under Fed. K, Fed. law, or a Treaty with US
• Diversity Jurisdiction 
• Supplemental Jurisdiction

Question 25

Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction: ADMIRALTY

Answer 25

Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases involving acts committed on the high seas and those involving contracts and transactions connected with shipping on the seas

Question 26

Federal Subject Matter: UNITED STATES AS A PARTY

Answer 26

Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases where the United States is a party

Question 27

Federal Subject Matter: ARISING UNDER FED. K, FED. LAW, OR A TREATY W/ US

Answer 27

Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases and lot equity arising under the US constitution, federal laws and treaties

Question 28

Diversity Jurisdiction

Answer 28

Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different States and cases between citizens and foreigners, where the some of the value or amount in controversy exceeds a certain amount, even where there is no issue of federal law.

Question 29

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Answer 29

Once a federal court has jurisdiction over a claim, it may hear all claims that are related to the claims over which it has original jurisdiction * “derive[d] from a common nucleus of operative fact.” * Same set of facts? Derived from a common nucleus * Embedded federal question

Question 30

Removal Jurisdiction

Answer 30

Defendant can usually "remove" a case filed in state court if plaintive could have originally filed the suit in federal court, so long as defendant does so at the onset of a case • Removal is not available and I diversity jurisdiction case in which plaintiff instituted the claim in the defendant's home state court.

Question 31

Minimum Contacts w/ Forum State for Personal Jurisdiction: CONTACTS UNRELATED TO THE CLAIM

Answer 31

Via Helicopteros • For a court to exercise in personam jurisdiction, a defendant must engage in systematic and continuous contacts with the forum state. • For a single contact to form the basis of impersonal jurisdiction, that contact would need to be the subject of the litigation

Question 32

Minimum Contacts w/ Forum State for Personal Jurisdiction: COMBINING RELATED AND UNRELATED FORUM CONTACTS

Answer 32

Via Keeton | • An aggregate of related and unrelated contacts with the forum state are sufficient for personal jurisdiction

Question 33

Minimum Contacts w/ Forum State for Personal Jurisdiction: NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY AND JUSTICE

Answer 33

Via Asahti • The substantial connection between defendant and the forum state necessary for a finding of minimum contacts requires demonstration that defend it purposely directed its activities towards the state. • The fact that a product made its way into the state, alone, is insufficient

Question 34

Venue Changes in the Federal Court System

Answer 34

Defendant can object to the location of the court where plaintiff filed a lawsuit and request that the case be removed to a new location. • Such transfer requires that the case was originally eligible to be commenced in the alternate venue

Question 35

Venue Changes in the Federal Court System: REMOVAL

Answer 35

Defendant can "remove" a case filed in state court if • Plaintiff could have originally filed suit in federal court • AND • • The state court in which plaintiffs commenced suit is not the defendant's home state in a case being removed to federal court on diversity grounds

Question 36

Venue Changes in the Federal Court System: TRANSFER

Answer 36

If a defendant moves for forum non convenience on the grounds that there is a more convenient forum, the district court can "transferred" the case to another district instead of dismissing it, so long as it could have originated there to begin with

Question 37

CONCURRENT JURISDICTION

Answer 37

Absent exclusive jurisdiction (only come from statutory carve-outs), almost all cases that can be held in federal court, can be held in state court as well

Question 38

Res Judicata

Answer 38

Same P, same D: should have been filed together

Question 39

Erie Doctrine

Answer 39

US courts MUST APPLY the law of the K or federal statutory law, but otherwise, it is the law of the states that apply * Tests to find out if a law is substantive or procedural BECAUSE states are allowed to make their own procedural law

Question 40

Outcome Determinative Test

Answer 40

The outcome of their case was dependent on whether the party was in state or federal court. * For this reason, when determining whether to apply federal or state law, courts should consider the outcome of the litigation. * If applying federal law would result in a substantially different outcome, then the court should apply state law.

Question 41

Rule from Hanna

Answer 41

When a federal rule of civil procedure is different from state law in a head-on conflict, the federal law trumps the state law.