Civil Procedure Flashcards
(26 cards)
What are the two types of personal jurisdiction in federal civ pro? What’s the difference?
General personal jurisdiction and specific personal jurisdiction. The former relies on traditional notions of jurisdiction including consent, presence, or domicile. The latter depends the lawsuit arising out of or relating to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.
Describe the requirements for specific personal jurisdiction in federal civil procedure.
For specific personal jurisdiction to be constitutional, the state constitution and the United States Constitution must grant jurisdiction. The California long-arm statute grants the same amount of jurisdiction as the U.S. Constitution. To satisfy the constitutional requirements for specific personal jurisdiction, the defendant must have engaged in such minimum contacts such that it would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. To determine if there are minimum contacts, see if the defendant purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and protections of the state such that it was foreseeable that the defendant would be the subject of a claim in that state.
Describe the requirements for general personal jurisdiction in federal civil procedure.
A court has general personal jurisdiction over an individual or entity where there is consent, presence, or domicile in the jurisdiction. Consent may arise from a contract clause in the contract giving rise to the suit. Domicile for an individual refers to where the individual is at home and intends to stay indefinitely. Domicile for a company refers to the state where it is incorporated and the state that is its principal place of business.
What is the constitutional test for personal jurisdiction?
Personal jurisdiction is constitutional where it is authorized by both the state long-arm statute and the US constitution. The California long-arm statute grants the same amount of jurisdiction as the US Constitution. Under the US Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court (International Shoe Co. v Washington, among other cases), a defendant must have engaged in “minimum contacts” with the state. A person has minimum contacts with the jurisdiction if they “purposefully availed themselves” of the benefits and protections of the state such that it was “foreseeable” that they could be the subject of a claim in that state.
How can consent establish personal jurisdiction?
Consent can bypass the need to evaluate contacts under the due process clause. consent can be given via contract, stipulation within a litigation, or by failing to timely object to jurisdiction (usually in the first responsive filing, such as a 12(b) motion). Some states also deem certain actions to constitute constructive consent (e.g. driving on certain roads).
How can presence establish personal jurisdiction?
If a person can be personally served while physically present in the forum, even if briefly and for reasons unrelated to the lawsuit, this can establish personal jurisdiction for purposes of the suit. This is sometimes called “tag” jurisdiction. It does not work for corporations, and there are also exceptions for fraud or deceipt.
What is domicile-based personal jurisdiction?
A court has permanent, general jurisdiction over a person in their place of domicile. For individuals, this is their home and where they intend on staying indefinitely. For corporations, it is usually the state of incorporation and the principal place of business.
What is subject matter jurisdiction and how does it relate to personal jurisdiction?
subject matter jx is the power of a court to hear a certain type of case, while personal jurisdiction is the power of a court over a particular person.
How does the well-pleaded complaint rule figure into an analysis of subject-matter jurisdiction?
the well-pleaded complaint rule requires that the basis for subject-matter jurisdiction – the federal issue – be evident on the face of the complaint.
What are the four bases for subject matter jurisdiction? Briefly describe each.
- Diversity Jurisdiction. The case is between citizens of different states (or citizens vs. aliens) and involves an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 (exclusive of costs and interest). No plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant.
- Federal Question Jurisdiction. The case arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
- Supplemental Jurisdiction. Federal courts can hear state-law claims that are so related to a federal claim that they form part of the same case or controversy.
- Removal Jurisdiction. Allows a defendant to remove a case from state court to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction. In diversity cases, removal is not allowed if any defendant is a citizen of the state where the action was filed. Generally must be removed within 30 days of service.
How does 1367(b) restrict supplemental jx over certain claims in diversity cases?
This restriction is designed to prevent plaintiffs from using supplemental claims to circumvent the complete diversity requirement of § 1332. Where federal jx is based solely on diversity, supplemental jx is not allowed where it would defeat diversity. e.g. Kroger v Owen Equipment
How is domicile determined for purposes of diversity jx?
- For an individual, where they intend to stay (expat who will retire in CA, probably CA. Texan student in NY, probably Texas). 2. For a corporation, principal place of business ( Defined as the “nerve center” — usually where executives direct, control, and coordinate the company (Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010)).) or state of incorporation. 3. For unincorporated associations/partnerships, all the states where its members/partners are citizens. Must be based on domicile of members, can be harder to establish.
What does the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process clause require when it comes to notice?
Before the government deprives a person of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, the individual must be given (1) adequate notice, and (2) a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
What is the constitutional standard for Due Process?
Notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the action and allow them to respond.”
Actual notice is not required, but the method must be reasonable.
When assessing whether notice has been “reasonably calculated” to apprise interested parties, what are the factors of reasonableness?
Nature and seriousness of the deprivation.
Whether the identity and location of the person are known or knowable.
Availability and reliability of alternative methods.
If personal service is possible but ignored, notice might not satisfy due process.
What are methods of service in FCRP Rule 4?
- Methods of Service (Rule 4(c)-(j))
A. On Individuals in the U.S. (Rule 4(e))
May be served by:
State law methods where the federal court is located or where service is made.
Personal delivery to the defendant.
Leaving copies at the defendant’s home with someone of suitable age and discretion.
Delivering to an agent authorized by law to receive service.
B. On Corporations/Associations (Rule 4(h))
Serve an officer, managing or general agent, or authorized agent.
May use state law methods for serving corporations.
C. On Individuals in a Foreign Country (Rule 4(f))
By international agreement (e.g., Hague Convention).
Or other methods reasonably calculated to give notice, if allowed by court.
What does FCRP require with respect to a summons?
Issuance of the Summons (Rule 4(a)-(b))
The summons must:
Name the court and parties.
Be directed to the defendant.
State the time within which the defendant must appear.
Be signed by the clerk and bear the court’s seal.
After a complaint is filed, the plaintiff is responsible for serving the summons and complaint.
What is the time limit for service in the federal rules?
Service must be completed within 90 days after the complaint is filed.
If not, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice unless:
The plaintiff shows good cause, or
The court, in its discretion, extends the time.
How may service be waived?
Plaintiff may request that the defendant waive formal service.
Defendant has 30 days (60 if outside the U.S.) to return the waiver.
If the defendant refuses without good cause, they may be required to pay service costs.
What case set the constitutional due process standard for notice?
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank
Summarize Mullane v Central Hanover Bank
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) – Partial compliance upheld
Facts: A trust company notified beneficiaries of a judicial settlement of accounts by publishing a notice in a newspaper.
Held: For beneficiaries whose addresses were unknown, publication was sufficient.
Rationale: When a party’s address is unknown and no reasonable way exists to discover it, publication can be acceptable.
Summarize Jones v Flowers (regarding notice and Mullane standard)
- Jones v. Flowers (U.S. 2006) – Extra steps required
Facts: The state sent a certified letter to a property owner about a tax sale, but the letter was returned “unclaimed.” No follow-up was attempted.
Held: Due process was not met, but the Court clarified that if additional reasonable steps (like sending regular mail) would likely provide notice, they should be taken.
Rationale: Though the Court ruled against the government, it suggested that had such follow-up occurred, the Mullane standard could have been met.
Summarize Dusenberry case (Mullane standard)
Dusenbery v. United States (U.S. 2002) – Standard satisfied despite nonreceipt
Facts: Government sent certified mail to a federal prisoner about the forfeiture of his property, but he never received it.
Held: Notice was sufficient.
Rationale: The method of certified mail to a known address (prison) was reasonably calculated to give notice, even if it failed in fact.
Give three examples of where Mallone standard was not met
Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams (U.S. 1983)
Facts: A mortgagee (lender) was not notified of a tax sale of property. The state published notice in a newspaper even though they knew the mortgagee’s address.
Covey v Town of Somers - notice to person known to be mentally incapacitated was not effective, they should have taken extra steps.
Robinson v Hanrahan - notice sent to home when state knew he was in jail.
