JURISDICTION:  1) territorial  2) subject matter  3) venue  4) w/stand forum non conveniens

in deciding juris:  -proximity  -diff. procedural rules  -diff. substantive law  -jury/judge bias

Personal Jurisdiction:  power of a court to adjudicate

in personam     jurisdiction over your person

in rem                         jurisdiction over every owner of the property

quasi in rem     Type I: dispute re: property       

                                   Type II: dispute not about property

Restatement 2nd of Judgements §4 (comment a): states/nations defined by geographical boundaries; place of a transaction important

Fed. Judiciary Act 1789: if state court has jurisdiction, so does a federal court

Jurisdiction Considerations:

1) Claim to be asserted: 

a)    a claim is a legally enforceable right that confers a duty on someone

b)    res judicada (civil) and double jeopardy (criminal) means you must try all your claims in one suit

  Why prohibit res judicada?

  1) finality is important to justice system

  2) contradictory verdicts undermine people's faith in judicial system--kills basis of C/L

  3) efficiency of the court system; much proof would be the same; sep. trials are redundant

2) Who to include as a party in the suit: 

      a) collateral estoppel: discourages multiple suits for one crime on different parties

3)  Where to Sue:  Jurisdiction

      a) territorial:  geographic limits by state

      b) venue:  geographic limits by county (state level) or district (fed. level)

      c) subject matter: what types of cases a court can hear (Fed:  fed q, diversity)

Appeals:

1.       Direct Attack: to raise an issue that you think was a mistake in ct. where suit filed

2.       Collateral Attack:  only used for 2 claims:  (1) no jurisdiction  (2) no notice

Case                                       Personal Jurisdiction rule           

Pennoyer v Neff:                       presence (in personam and in rem--prop. in state)

      example:  in personam presence:  I can be sued in CA no matter what I'm doing there, what I'm being sued for, as long as I'm served while I'm physically present.

        example:  in rem presence:  If I have a boat off the Pugeot Sound, anyone can go to WA and file suit in rem against me and use my boat to get jurisdiction--even if the suit has nothing to do with WA or the boat.

        Good law or bad law?  If it is unreasonable for me to defend myself in WA in personam, it makes it no more reasonable for me to defend myself there in rem (in unrelated matters to my boat or WA contacts--which I have none but boat)

International Shoe                      in personam:  min. contacts;  in rem:  presence (Pennoyer)

        example:  in personam minimum contacts: 

        Good law/bad law?

        Standards for minimum contacts established: comport w/ traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (Miliken v Meyer)

Perkins v Benguet                     continuous & systematic contacts:  general jurisdiction

        Corporations so many contacts with the state that it would always be reasonable for them to be sued there (HQ)

            People so many contacts in the state where you live, it is always reasonable to sue you there

McGee v Internat'l Life             minimum contacts:  specific jurisdiction

Hanson                                     minimum contacts

Shaffer v Heitner                      1) minimum contacts for  in personam and in rem

                                                           2) related to lawsuit (specific jurisdiction only)

        example:  a person can sue you in their state if you assaulted them in their state because the fact that you were there and assaulted someone is a minimum contact and the contact (assault) is related to the lawsuit

        Importance: did away with in personam and in rem distinction

World-Wide VW                       1) minimum contacts

(specific jurisdiction)                       2) related

                                                           3) purposeful

Burger King v Rudz                   (specific jurisdiction)                             

When is a contract a contact?    -when buyer sues seller in buyer's home state: always

                                                           -when seller sues buyer in seller's home, K must be:                                                                                     1) negotiated

                                                                       2) long term relationship

                                                                       3) large K ($ at stake)

                                                                       4) helps if buyer had to travel to sellers' home

Asahi                                                   1) minimum contacts:

                                                           2) related

                                                           3) purposeful (awarenss+ or awarness of eventual sales there?)

                                                           4) Reasonableness test: only for foreign D and out of state P

                                                                       1) burden on D

                                                                       2) forum state's interests

                                                                       3) P's interests

                                                                       4) judicial system's interests

                                                                       5) all state's social policy interests

Helicopteros                              1) continuous & systematic contacts:

(general jurisdiction)                                        2) at the time the suit is filed

                                               *Texas has a long, long-arm statute

Holt v Harvey                           *general and specific can be viewed in aggregate to find minimum

(gen. & specific juris)                                   contacts when there is some contact btwn case & forum

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION (purpose: liberty interests in not being haled into a distant or inconvenient forum)

I.    Presence (in persoman only: personal service)

II.   Minimum Contacts (specific juris)

         1. contacts

           a) a K is always a contact for seller; for buyer it is if:

                                   i) LT

                                   ii) negotiated

                                   iii) large K ($ at stake)

                                   iv) P requ'd to travel to forum

         2. suit arises out of contact

         3. purposeful (by actions of seller, not consumer; must end up for sale in forum)

      4.  reasonable (only is foreign D and out of state P)

           a) burden on D

           b) forum state's interests

           c) P's interests

           d) judicial system's interests (i.e. if 2 diff. cts. could decide diff. things; economical to decide at once)

           e) all states' "social policy" interests          

III. Continuous & Systematic Contacts (general juris)

      A. people:

           1. where domiciled (where you intend to indefinately remain)

               2.  where you work (suggested)

      B. corps:

           1. where incorp.

           2. principal place of business

           3. where you have other "continuous and systematic" activities @ time suit is filed

CONSENT TO JURISDICTION: forum-sel clauses, waiver...

Carnival Cruise                         decided by S.Ct. (Art 3 §2: admiralty) so doesn't apply to states

forum selection clauses                             each state can make it's own law re: forum sel. clauses (see Texas' below)

When are forum-sel. clauses not enforceable?

                                   -extreme inconvenience (local dispute in remote alien forum)

                                   -bad faith (clause is trying to avoid all lit. altogether)

                                   -fraud (did they hide the clause?)

                                   -no notice of clause (although not much notice in Carnival)

When are forum-sel clauses enforceable in Texas?

         -consumer has notice of clause prior to purchase

         -consumer had a choice to accept/not accept clause ("choice" not yet interpreted...)

      -place picked is "reasonable" (rznble not yet interpreted--prob. somewhere that would have had juris anyway)

         -in action less than $50k, not enforceable unless set out by typeface

CHALLENGING JURISDICTION Defects in terr. juris. are waivable - you can directly/collaterally attack juris. voluntarily or impliedly consent to juris.

Rule 12 (Federal)                                

1) say in responsive pleading OR

2)  in a motion before you file answer OR (if denied, 10 more days to answer 12(a)4A

3)  if you find in 20 days, in amended answer

can't:  collaterally attack terr. juris--> if already gen. appearance

can't:  rule for summ. judgement based on no terr. juris b/c not brought up in pleadings

a)  when

(1)  answer

(a)  within 20 days of service

(b)  if waiver (4d), 60 days

(2)  cross-claim: 20 days

(3)  on US: 60 days

(4)  motion

(a)  deinied: answer in 10 days

(b)  motion for more definitive stmt: 10 days

b)  How Presented

(1)  s.m. juris

(2)  personal juris

(3)  venue

(4)  process

(5)  service of process

(6)  failure to state a claim

(7)  failure to join a party under Rule 19 (persons needed for just adjudication)

  motion must be filed prior to pleading; can join

c)  Motion for judgement on the pleadings

After pleadings closed; can’t delay trial (this is not summ jdgmt - R 56)

d)  Prelim Hearings

e)  Motion for more definitive stmt.: must point out defects in answer; amend answer in 10 days or can be striken

f)     Motion to strike: 20 days after pleading; for insufficient defense, redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter

g)  consolidation of defenses in a motion: may join motions

h)  Waiver

(1)  Personal juris, venue, process, service is waived if

(a)  If omitted from motion (g)

(b)    Neither made by motion nor in answer or amendment made per R 15(a) as a matter of course

(2)  failure to state claim, R. 19 (indispensable party) can be made at any time

(3)  s.m. juris can be made at any time by any party

Rule 120a (Texas rule on special appearance)

only by motion filed prior to all other motions and answers (can be in same doc as anser, but file first)

Ct must rule on prior to eveything else.

Tx Rule 37 b - sanctions for not complying with discovery

NOTICE AND PROCESS

Sufficiency of Process & Notice: 

      Constitutionally must  be rzbly certain to convey the info/give ample time to respond under the circumstances

      Benchmark:  what businessmen would expect

RCP 4: 

summons: proper form, P serves after sealed by Ct., include copy of complaint, one for each D; must serve with/in 120 of filing suit; service by a non-party (unless mailed) over 18

Waiver: req'd or else Ct. can impose costs of process on you; gives you 60 days to answer

Service: according to laws of state where district Ct. is (or according to laws of state where D is served, if there is general terr. juris) as long as service comports w/ due process

·         personal best

·         can leave at dwelling where they reside (if rzbly calculated)

·         mail (for waiver)

   TEXAS:  authorizes by mail, personal, publication, other, but in many cases it will not be constitutionally adequate, so it is best to personally serve (esp. on corps.)  R. __

LONG ARM STATUTES

Texas has a long-long-arm statute (Civil practices and Remedies code is confusing, but the Ct. has interpreted it as going as far as the Constitution allows in Helicopteros)

1.  Is the territorial jurisdiction Constitutional?

2.  Is it authorized (that far) by the state?

RCP 4k:  Federal Long Arm Statute:

      - same as state where Dist. Ct. located

      - bulge juris:  party joined by Rule 14 (3rd party Ds) or 19 (Joinder of necessary parties)

                       can be served w/in 100 mi of courthouse (Const’l b/c w/in US - forum where conflict arose)

      - when authorized by statute (there are some nationwide service of process statutes)

      - 4k2: service allowed on one who is not subj. to the juris of any state (state's w/ short-long arms)

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION   **not waivable**

Purpose:  to protect the cts and serve institutional interests, therefore, not waivable - any party can move for dismissal based on lack of s.m. juris at any time [direct attack only] (Rule 12 b1; 12h3)

Constitution:  Art. III, §2 "all cases arising under" + specifics, incl. btwn citizens of diff. states

Statutes:  Art III, §2 gives Const. authority, but enabling statutes are still required

Types of cases 1. action at law              2. probate

                                   3. title of real prop.        4. amt. in controversy (add 1 Ps claim; not 2 P's claims)

Fed Q                                                  §1331

Diversity                                               §1332

   Citizens of diff states

   citz. of state & citz of foreign state

   foreign state (P) v. citizens of state

admiralty                                               §1333

US a party                                            §§1335, 1336

ambassadors, consuls...                          §1351

S.Ct. Original Jurisdiction:                      §1251

a) State v state (exclusive)

b1) foreign heads of state

b2) US & State

b3) State (P) v citizen

Appeal to S.Ct.                                     §1257

      if validity of fed. laws in q.

      if validity of state law in q. on grounds of violating fed. law

some statutes give Fed ct exclusive jurisdiction (like bankruptcy, §1334)

Citizenship:  people       where domiciled (or last place domiciled; only changes w/ intent to remain)

                       corps.               where incorporated; HQ

                       Insurers                        where insured is citizen (unless insured is joined as D)

                       rep. of estate     where decedent was citizen

FEDERAL QUESTION S.M. JURISDICTION  §1331

“When Federal Law creates the cause of action.”  --Holmes

      (appl:  b/c the law D violated is not a federal law...)

“well-pleaded complaint rule”: P must assert, not D and not speculated to be defense or only real issue

      if Declaratory action: from pov of “hypothetical complaint” filed by hypo. P (Skelly Oil)

DIVERSITY JURISDICTION §1332

a)   Complete diversity of citizenship (complete: every P from every D per

·         state citizenship = domicile; at time suit filed

·         to change domicile:

            -take up residence

      -intend to indefinitely remain

·         UC citizens domiciled abroad, not state citizens

·         Corporations: (1) incorporated (2) principal place of bsns (primary production, HQ, both)

·         Unicorporated Assoc.: all states where members live

·         Trust: where trustee is citizen (not beneficiaries)

·         Interpleader does not require complete diversity (3 parties; 1 party requires 1st 2 to decide whom he is liable to before they sue him; requires part. diverstiy)

b)   Amt. in controversy over $75,000

·         must be reached by each P individually

·         can claim amt. in good faith (if P filed in Fed. Ct; awarded < $75k, Ct. can impose costs on P)

·         if D can prove to a "legal certainty" that P cannot recover damamges over $75k St. Paul Mercury.

·         Valuation:

·         -punitive damages: included, judge discretion

·         -injunctions: hard to value; usually look at value of injunction from either P or D

·         -aggregation of claims:

·                     2 Ps--ea. must meet (unless same __________)

·                     1 P, 2 claims--can add

·         -class actions

*Probate, domestic relations:  not handled by fed. ct. even if diversity juris (Akenbrandt)

Supplemental Jurisdiction, Joinder

§1367: Supplemental Juris.

  a) if fed. q juris => supplemental juris over claims  (including joinder)

            --w/ same CNOF

            --and is Constitutional

  b) if diversity juris only, no supplemental jurisdiction (ie supp juris cannot defeat complete diversity)

  c) ct. can decline to hear added claim if

            1. novel/complex issue of state law

            2. new claim predominates

            3. ct. has dismissed al original juris. claims

            4. exceptional circumstances

  d) if supp. claim dismissed, SOL tolled for 30 days to allow time to refile in state ct.

R. 13 Counter- & Cross-claims

a) compulsory counterclaims

            must be stated in answer or lost

            arise out of same s.m.

            cannot require 3rd parties that ct has no juris over

b) permissive counterclaims

            claim not related to answer (only thing you can join that is unrelated is counterclaim)

            must state in pleadings

f) can amend to include a counter-claim if justice requires

g) cross-claims

            same s.m. (of original claim or a counter-claim)

h) can join parties necessary to adjudicate cross-claims (R. 19, 20)

R. 14 Third-Parties (Impleader)

a) D = 3rd party P; can bring in 3rd party D

b) P = 3rd party P; can bring in 3rd party D (P would do this to defend original D's counter-claim)

R. 18: party may join claims and sequential remedies

R. 19 Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication

            must not defeat s.m. juris; must be subject to ct's personal juris

            must be necessary for complete relief

R. 20 Permissive Joinder

a)  all potential P's or all potential D's may join together if same claim will be asserted by / against them (arising out of same transaction)

b)  separate trials may be ordered to keep from embarrassment, delay, expense...

R. 22  Interpleader  (see interpleader section)

     can join if P may be subject to double liability

R. 23  Class Actions

REMOVAL

28 U.S.C. §1441

a) may be removed by D from state ct to federal ct IF fed. would otherwise have juris.

b) unless it would be removed to a Fed. Ct. where D is a citizen of forum

c) supplemental juris. claims can be removed

Note: if removal improper, P challenging files a motion to remand

§1446: Removal Process

a) 1) Notice of removal: file in fed. ct

     include ground, copy of papers, R. 11 signature

     2) Notice to attys.    

     3) file copy with state ct so they know it has been removed

b) must remove within 30 days after receipt of paper showing grounds for removal

c) if you do something to take use state ct's resources after rt. to remove = waiver of removal; almost anything beyond filing an answer in state ct. is a waiver

d) all D's must agree to removal; 30 days starts when 1st D served

*  decide diversity when removal occurs!

VENUE  (Fed. Q & Diversity) §1391

1.       DISTRICT  where all D’s reside (if D a corporation, it is deemed to “reside” wherever it is subject to personal jurisdiction)

2.       DISTRICT  where substantial part of events occurred (note: “substantial” construed liberally)

3.       IF 1 and 2 don’t work:  Wherever subj to personal jurisdiction (almost never happens: must have foreign person and state w/ short-long-arm statute)

§1404 Transfer for convenience

            may transfer to any district where could have been brought

                        -convenience of parties / witnesses

                        -interest of justice

            you cannot “transfer” from state to state: must get FNC motion w/ condition

§1406  Transfer due to improper venue

            ct. can dismiss or transfer

FORUM NON CONVENIENS:  c/L, no statute

            Dismissal, not a transfer!!!

·         Relative ease of sources or proof

·         witnesses and costs

·         Possibility of viewing premises

·         Local interests in having matter adjudicated at home

·         Unfairness to forum citizens: burden

·         Having case tried in a forum that is familiar with the law

·         Avoiding unnecessary conflicts of law

·         Application of foreign law?

·         Court congestion

Often granted with conditions like:

·         submitting to juris

·         tolling SOL

·         complying with discovery

·         complying with foreign judgments

Choice of Law Principles:  The Erie Problem

“Do not say that Federal Courts use State Substantive law and Federal Procedural Law!”

Don’t talk about choice-of-law unless there really is a conflict of laws.

Hanna’s twin-aims of Erie:

1.       prevent forum shopping

2.       equitable administration of the laws (ie, same outcome, uniformity)

Federal Courts:  §1652: Rules of Decision Act  “the laws of the several states” unless Federal laws apply & conflict

State Courts:  Art. VI §2 (Supremacy Clause)

            “Use state law unless conflicting Federal law”

Federal law:  Constitution, Treaties, Statutes, Fed. R. Civ. P. (unless unconstitutional, i.e. substantive)

State cause of action in Federal Ct: (apply individually to each claim)

·         Use state law unless conflicting federal law

·         Use FRCP (must be w/in the Rules Enabling Act, i.e., not substantive:

Justice Harlan says it’s substantive if it “would substantially affect those primary decision respecting human conduct”)

·       Use federal “decisional practices” (c/L) IF it passes the outcome-determinative test (if it does not affect where someone would initially file the claim.)

Erie Guess                                                        Reverse Erie Guess

Federal Ct. must answer a q.                             State ct. must decide on

of state law not yet decided by                           a federal law/issue not yet

the State’s supreme court.                                             decided by the U.S. S.Ct.

[does not have to follow what                             [does not have to follow what

state cts. have said]                                           the Circuit Ct. in it’s district has said]

If Federal Q is filed in State ct use:

·         Federal statute (coa)

·         Federal c/L (viewed as an interpretation of the statute)

·         Always use state procedural law in state ct (unless written into statute, like removal)

PLEADINGS

Purpose:  to inform D of lawsuit

Specificity required: minimal but must be enough to allow D to admit or deny (respond)

            Must be pleaded specifically:  fraud, mistake, special damages (only occur b/c of a special circumstance; general damages necessarily result from the misconduct alleged; fuzzy line? Plead specifically)

1.       Q of fact: did D do what is alleged

2.       Q of law: does it matter

Normally, we don’t plead the law; when would you?

·         In very imp. cases to get the judge on your side

·         to get good negotiating power (scare tactic)

·         if Fed. and state law give the same coa and you don’t want your case removed

Prima Facie Case: who has the burden of pleading?

·         99% of the time, you can look at history, but the underlying questions are  “what is the purpose of the element and whom was this element designed to protect?”

Normal Case:    burden of pleading:        P          affirmative defenses: burdens on D

                        burden of production:     P

                        burden of persuasion:     P

Title VII case:   burden of pleading:        P

                        burden of production à Presumption created

D (if met => P  get persuasion back)

                        burden of persuasion                 

ANSWER:  D’s options

            1) File a 12b motion (or include w/ answer) or answer:

·         deny

·         admit

·         “don’t know” (deemed denial)

·         ignore (deemed admission)

·         admit & counterclaim (affirm. Defense)

·         general denial: very limited per R. 11 (in Tx general denial is very common)

2)  File a 12e motion for more definitive statement:

            Amendment to cure defects granted liberally (far more than 12b6);

okay as long as still arises out of same CNOF

Rule     11b) certify your pleading 

11c) sanctions

            * doesn’t mean your allegations are necessarily warranted by law that stands today,

but that you have a good, well-founded case for changing the law.

12 b 6: 

·         if a claim is ambiguous, it is never appropriate to dismiss per 12b6 b/c ct. doesn’t yet know what the claim is, much less if it is valid and if relief can be granted

When do you file a 12b6?

·         Incomplete: you can’t tell if all elements are present, but you think they’re probably not

·         You can tell from the fact of the pleading that they don’t have all the elements for their coa

REPLY:  7a - only reply to a counterclaim (or if ct. directs)

            If P anticipates an affirmative defense, P can rebutt in his claim so case won’t be dismissed

PRESUMPTIONS: fact taken as true unless/until evidence is offered to the contrary; presumptions shift the burden of proof temporarily.

       Title VII “b/c of race” presumption:  P                                                        D

                                                Burden of pleading

                                                            production                                 presumption

                                                                                                            persuasion;

                                                                                                            (to rebutt presumption)

if met

persuasion

R. 8e2: inconsistency allowed (but is only effective in the pleading stage)

AMENDING PLEADINGS

R. 15a) · once as a matter of course

            Within 20 days and before answer!

            · Leave of the court freely granted “when justice so requires”

                        Justice             1) legitimate reason (new info.)

                                    2) atty has been diligent in trying to obtain the info.

   15b) doesn’t have to conform to evidence (means if not plead and evidence produced, can be added to the jury charge!)

   15c) Relation Back:

·         when premitted by law that gives the SOL or

·         same CNOF

·         if changes party or names party:

·         same CNOF

·         timely notice:  within the time allowed for service (R. 4m: 120 days from filing)    

·         adequate notice:  must know “a lawsuit has been filed & but for a mistake, it’d be me”

(normal interp. of “mistake” unless 7^th Cir. Ill, WI, IN)

R. 16b) Scheduling order:  deadline for doing things

            If the amending pleadings deadline has passed:

1.       get ct’s permission to amend schedule

2.       then get ct’s permission to amend your pleading

12h: judgment on the pleadings: allows D to challenge the substance of the pleadings at any time up until evidence has been produced; once evidence shows there is a claim, it doesn’t matter if the pleadings are sufficient.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

R. 56

a)      When? P can file for SJ 20 days after commencement of action

b)                  D can file for SJ at any time

c)      motion made 10+ days before SJ hearing

no genuine issue as to any material fact

1)      on all or part (Ct. will determine what gen. issues of fact remain)

2)      all written evidence; must be R. 11 certified

3)      if you can’t get defense/affidavits together, adverse party can use 56f

4)      absence of genuine issues of fact

5)      showing one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law

6)      viewed in a light most favorable to nonmoving party

Adickes standard:  disprove every element of adverse party’s case (used in Tx); if the party moving doesn’t meet his burden, the other party (even if it’s the party w/ the burden of persuasion) doesn’t have to show anything.

Celotex standard:  aligns burden same as at trial; if moving party does not have the burden of persuasion => can specifically point out in the adverse party’s record why it is clear they cannot meet their burden; then adverse party can try to rebutt; if they cannot, SJ is granted

                                    Type II (P proves P), III (D)                      Types I (D v P) II (P-> D)

If moving party  =          burden of persuasion (rare)                does not have burden of persuasion

                                    Must show evidence that                       must show that other party has no

                                    if true, establishes there is                      evidence can est. at lease one essential

                                    no genuine issue of fact                         element of their case;

for every element of your case               must specifically pt. to absence

               12b6                                     SJ                                                Trial    

no evidence                               evidence presented                                evidence

pleadings only                            pleadings & production                          plead, produce, persuade

legal sufficiency of                    legal sufficiency of evidence

            pleadings                                  

no valid claim                            valid claim, can’t prove             

                                                affidavits, written docs                           live, oral testimony

                                                no jury                                                  can be jury

                                                no credibility determinations                   can determine credibility

RES JUDICATA                      COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

Claim preclusion                      Issue preclusion

Merger & bar

1.       judgment in 1^st case

2.       final

3.       valid

4.       same claims

5.       same parties

All participants in the study group must always follow the BSL Honor Code.