Mitch Williams – Civ Pro 2 – Keele – “Script” outline
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
SMJ refers to a courts power to decide a particular case. Thus, SMJ gives the
courts the authority to hear the subject of the case. In order for a federal court to
hear any case, they must have a constitutional grant and a statutory grant. For
the constitutional requirement for SMJ, Art. 3 Sect. 2 authorizes suits against
citizens from other states (diversity) and cases that arise under the laws made by
the Constitution (Federal Question).
o The purpose for diversity jurisdiction is to protect out of state litigants
from biased state courts. Diversity SMJ is constitutionally authorized by
Art 3 Sec 2 by allowing suits between citizens of different states. However,
Congress has limited this by statute, 1332, authorizing suits between
citizens of different states IF they are completely diverse and the amount
in controversy exceeds $75K. Following the Strawbridge rule, complete
diversity means that no Party can be from the same state. How do we
determine what states a Plaintiff is from? It depends on where they are
domiciled, and it depends if they are a citizen or a Business. If the party is
a citizen, we follow Gordon v Steel, which said their domicile is where
they are located and if they intend to stay indefinitely. If it is a business,
we follow Hertz, which said a Business has a potential for two (or more)
domiciles, because it is where they are incorporated and have their
principle place of business. Furthermore, 1332 requires the claims to
exceed $75k. The amount doesn’t have to be certain, but to a legal
certainty. Furthermore, claims can be aggregated to reach $75K if it is
done by the same P. No two Ps can aggregate claims to reach the amount
in controversy, unless .
o Federal Question SMJ is constitutionally authorized by Art 3 Sec 2,
allowing any claim that arises under federal law to be heard by a federal
court. To decide if a claim “arises” under federal law for constitutional
matters, we turn to Osborne, which says as long as the claim includes and
ingredient of federal law, it is good. However, Congress has passed 1331
which has a little more stringent requirement in order to equate federal
question. According to Grabel, which interpreted Holmes and Motley, a
claim it arises under if [1] in the complaint, a federal issue is brought up;
[2] that federal issue is actually disputed; [3] that federal issue is
substantial to the legal system; [4] a federal court can decide the issue
without disturbing comity of federalism.
Supplemental Jurisdiction allows a claim to be brought in that may not
ordinarily have federal jurisdiction. 1367 authorizes this, however all it did was
codify the common law ancillary and pendant jurisdictions. 1367(a) allows a
claim to be brought if [1] there is a claim already anchored and [2] it must have a
same nucleus of operative facts. However, just because 1367(a) gives one
Supplemental jurisdiction, one must check to assure 1367(b) doesn’t take it away.
1367(b) will strip Supplemental if [1] it is brought in diversity; [2] a plaintiff
brings the claim; [3] against someone joined by rule 14, 19, 20, 24.
A defendant can remove the case from state court to federal court, under 1441(a)
if [1] he does so within 30 days of being served; [2] the court he is removing to
has SMJ; [3] and he is compliant with all 1446 requirements. If there are multiple
parties, the D removing must get the consent from the other parties, and each D
gets their own 30 days.
Personal Jurisdiction
Personal Jurisdiction is jurisdiction over the person. It gives the court the ability
to subject the person to their authority. The 5th amendment requires all citizens
be given due process before the deprivation of life liberty or property. This
means they must be given fair play and substantial justice, thus no federal court
(or any court) can hear a case if they do not have PJ. PJ has had a bumpy road
since its conception. In Pennoyer v Neff, the beginning case for the Courts PJ
jurisprudence, the Court enunciated that PJ could be exercised if [1] a party
consents or [2] they are present in the state at the time served, [3] or they have
property in that state and it is properly attached. This means you can have the
“traditional methods” of PJ(that may have evolved), or you can go down the
evolved route of PJ, you can “shoe it.”
o Other than consent, the best modes of PJ are the “traditional methods”,
and the most prevalent of these are General jurisdiction, or transient
jurisdiction.
General PJ is the most basic, and most logical, form of PJ.
According to Daimler, as long as one is “at home” in the forum
state, they can be subject to PJ in that state. This is interpreted by if
their domicile is in the home state (presence and intent to stay
indefinitely) then they are subject to PJ in that state.
Transient Jurisdiction, according to Scalia, is a “traditional notion”
of PJ that has not been overruled since laid out in Pennoyer.
Presence in the state is always OK, the Shoe route is an alternate if
presence cannot be established. However, the concurring 4 think
the shoe fits, but they do agree that there was jurisdiction in this
case, but under INTL shoe.
o The “alternate route” that Scalia mentioned in Burnham is the INT’L shoe
route, the minimal contact route. In International shoe, the court said the
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice still exist, however,
you can also chief fair play and substantial justice by having minimal
contacts with the state. This court decision produced a string of cases to
determine when minimum contacts equate fair play and substantial
justice. [1] there must be minimal contacts equating to purposeful
availment. PA means one can anticipate litigation in that state. There are
several ways to do this. 1. TARGETING As the court said in Calder, if
your actions target that state, you can be subject to PJ; 2. RELATION As
the court said in BK, if you have a long relationship with the state, PJ; 3.
INJECT As the court said in ashai, if you are in the stream of commerce,
there MAY be PJ. However, the court was split on this, thus the may. Half
said that if you can merely anticipate litigation from that state, PJ, with the
other half saying it takes anticipation + targeting. [2] The claim must arise
out of your contacts with the state. There are two tests. 1. But for (but for
your contacts, this wouldn’t have occurred) evidence (two or so elements
of the claim relate to the contacts with the state.) [3] it must be reasonable,
1. D’s interest; 2. Forums interest; 3. Ps interest in quick resolution; 4.
Interest of the legal system.
o Pennoyer also established an IN REM jurisdiction; the courts authority of
property. However, Schafer said there must also be minimal contacts with
the state for the court to attach it and process it.
Quasi 1, the court has the ability to decide the actual owner
Quasi 2, if the court Attaches the property, it can sell it for money.
However, there must be minimal Contacts with the state.
Long Arm
Even if a Federal court has PJ, in order for them to subject an out of stater to the
PJ of that court, there must be a long arm statute that authorizes them to do so.
4(K)(1)(a) says federal courts are to evaluate long arm statutes according to the
statute of the state, as long as it is not constitutional.
Service
Furthermore, PJ is not effectuated until the D is served with the complaint and
the summons. This is called service of process, and is required to effectuate PJ.
Service of process is analyzed, essentially, by the Judge, case by case, and he
determines what is the best way to serve some one. According to rule 4, no
personal service is allowed, however, service can be given to the D In person or
can be left at their house or business if a competent person signed for it. Service
can be mailed, and can also be left on the door. According to Mullane, the
amount of notice required will be determined by a reasonable business man,
because it is assumed he will want to effectuate the service properly, at the
cheapest cost. Rule 4(d), however, allows waiver of service of process. I requires
the P to contact them and ask if they will waive it, if they say no then they have
to pay for the service of process. If they agree, they get 60 days to respond and
not 21.
Venue
Venue is founded on that even though a court has jurisdiction over the subject
and person, it still may not be the “most convenient” forum. 1391 authorizes 3
different “zones” of venue. 1391(a) says venue can be had in any district of state,
as long as all the Ds are from that state; (b) says that it can be in any district
where a substantial part of the claim comes from; (c) says that if neither of those
apply, it can be any district that any defendant is in
Venue can be challenged at the beginning of the suit, and the court can dismiss
the suit, according to rule 12, if venue is not proper. Although rule 12 requires
the challenge of venue to be done in first response or you lose it, venue can be
changed at any time. There are 3 possible ways venue can be changed. [1] if it is
the complete wrong venue, 1406(a) allows the judge to either dismiss the case, or
transfer it to the proper venue. If it is a proper venue, but not the best, 1404(a)
authorizes the judge to transfer the suit to any district where PJ can be had.
Furthermore, if transfer to a forum outside of the federal system, forum non
convenience allows a judge to dismiss and transfer if [1] adequate alternate is
available and [2] the public and private interests override the Ps choice of forum.
The private interests are the location of the witnesses, the preservation of
evidence, and the ability to enforce the judgment. The Public interests are the
effect on judicial calendars and the burden on the incoming court.
Erie
Swift v Tyson, at first, said that Federal courts are to apply federal common law.
However, Erie said there is no general (federal) common law, because each state
is to make their own substantive law. So how do we decide if something is
substantive or procedural? It is substantive if it governs the people, these are,
conceptually, what HLA Heart calls “primary rules of authority. The rules that
govern day-to-day life. Procedure is, conceptually, What Heart calls “secondary
rules of adjudication.” Those the rules governing the administrative process of
the court. However, the court has taken, I believe, to be a more difficult approach
to determine if it is procedure or not.
At first, Guaranty and York said use an outcome determinative test to decide.
However, this is misguided because it is easy to make anything outcome
determinative. Thus Hanna said that outcome determinative test is not good.
Hanna said that if a federal rule and state rule “directly conflict” then follow the
federal rule if it is valid. This is called the conflict tract, or Hana tract 2. A federal
rule is valid if 1. Congress has the authority to make that rule and 2. They
delegated this power to the Court. Thus, according to Scalia in Shady Grove, if it
is purely procedure, that’s the end of the evaluation. However, according to
Stevens, you must also evaluate if it abridges a state substantive right, meaning
interferes with a states right to govern day to day activity, not administration.
Furthermore, Hanna said that if there is no direct conflict between a federal law
and state law, but there is a relevant federal law, [1] do a Byrd evaluation and see
the states interests versus the federal interests, and then [2] evaluate the twin
aims of Erie (forum shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the
laws) to decide if following the federal law will open the floodgates to federal
litigation of that topic. This is called Hanna Tract 1, or the twin aims tract.
Walker said that federal laws govern when an action is commenced in federal
court, not a state law. The time for commencement must be uniform, however,
SOL don’t.
