Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
16Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Civil Procedure Outline

Civil Procedure Outline

Ratings: (0)|Views: 688|Likes:
Published by grad09

More info:

Published by: grad09 on Apr 24, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/14/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1 |
Page
 
Civil Procedure Outline: Fall 2009
Table of Contents
I.
Procedure
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
2
b.
Personal Jurisdiction
...................................................................................................................................................................
2
c.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
..........................................................................................................................................................
2
II.
Personal Jurisdiction
.......................................................................................................................................................................
2d
.
Specific Jurisdiction:
....................................................................................................................................................................
2iii
.
Minimum Contacts Test
..........................................................................................................................................................3
 4
.
 
Purposeful
Avai
lment
T
est
 
.....................................................................................................................................................3
 e
.
General Jurisdiction
....................................................................................................................................................................3
 
.
Consent to jurisdiction
................................................................................................................................................................
4
i
.
 
Not
i
ce
 
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
4 j
.
Long arm statute:
........................................................................................................................................................................
4
III.
Venue
.........................................................................................................................................................................................5
 d
.
USC 1
3
91 - Diversity
....................................................................................................................................................................5
 ii
.
Federal question venue- section 1
3
91(b) Venue is proper only in the judicial district where:
.......................................................5
 iii
.
Corporations- section 1
3
91 (c)
....................................................................................................................................................5
 
IV.
 
Subject
Ma
tter
J
ur
i
sd
i
ct
i
on
.........................................................................................................................................................5
 d
.
28 USC 1
33
1  Federal Question
..................................................................................................................................................6
 
iii
.
 
Rule 4(K)(2) -
W
ell Pleaded Complaint Rule
..................................................................................................................6
 e
.
28 USC 1
33
2 - Diversity
...............................................................................................................................................................6
 2
.
Amount in controversy:
I
n addition, the case must involve an "amount in controversy" in
excess
of 7
5k.
 
................................6
 
.
Article
3
, M
INI
MAL D
I
VERS
I
TY is enough
.
 
....................................................................................................................................6
 g
.
Diversity for Aliens 
...............................................................................................................................................................6
 V
.
28 USC 1
36
7 - Supplemental Jurisdiction
.........................................................................................................................................6
 V
I.
28 USC 1441 - Removal
...............................................................................................................................................................
7i
.
1447(c) supplemental and non supplemental claims all move together when removed
...............................................................
8V
II.
 
Er
i
e
D
octr
i
ne
 
..............................................................................................................................................................................
8
.
The substance/ procedural distinction:
........................................................................................................................................
8i
.
The Erie doctrine essentially provides that federal courts must apply state substantive rules of law except when deciding afederal question and federal procedural law
.
 
.......................................................................................................................................
8h
.
Rules Enabling Act - §2071
..........................................................................................................................................................
92
.
 
W
hen a federal rule conflicts with a state rule:
........................................................................................................................
9V
III.
Pleadings
....................................................................................................................................................................................
9b
.
Rule 8  Complaints
....................................................................................................................................................................
9d
.
Rule 7a: types of pleadings
..........................................................................................................................................................
9g
.
Bell Atlantic Corp
.
v
.
Twombly
...................................................................................................................................................
10h
.
 
I
qball
........................................................................................................................................................................................
10
k.
Rubric of burden of proof 
..........................................................................................................................................................
11
 
2
|
Page
 
vi
.
Rule 8 c - affirmative defenses
.
 
.............................................................................................................................................
11vii
.
Rule 11:
................................................................................................................................................................................
121
.
important for several reasons
.
 
..................................................................................................................................................
12l
.
Responding to the complaint
.
Rule 12
.......................................................................................................................................
1
3
 m
.
Rule 1
5
: amending pleadings
.................................................................................................................................................
14
IX.
Former Adjudication
.................................................................................................................................................................
14b
.
Claim Preclusion
.......................................................................................................................................................................
1
5
 1
.
Same claim
...........................................................................................................................................................................
1
6
 2
.
The ability to bring the claim in suit 1
....................................................................................................................................
1
6
 
3.
Same parties
.........................................................................................................................................................................
1
6
 4
.
Final judgment in suit 1  havent tal
k
ed about yet
................................................................................................................
1
6
 c
.
 
I
ssue Preclusion
........................................................................................................................................................................
1
6
 1
.
Same issue (claim/fact
..........................................................................................................................................................
1
6
 2
.
Actually litigated and determined
.........................................................................................................................................
1
6
 
3.
Final judgment
......................................................................................................................................................................
1
6
 4
.
 
N
ecessary to judgment
.........................................................................................................................................................
1
6
 
5.
Same parties?
I
f not, is it one of the exceptions?
...................................................................................................................
1
6
 vii
.
Difference between offensive and defensive use of issue preclusion:
................................................................................
17
I.
 
Procedure
a
.
 
Federal courts have limited jurisdictionarticle
3
says what
k
inds of cases can be filed in federal courts
.
 Diversity jurisdiction= controversy between citizens of different states
.
 
b.
 
Personal Jurisdiction
 
i
.
 
W
hat states can a  be forced to show up and defend themselves in
 
ii
.
 
Court have authority to enter judgment in relation to this particular 
 
c.
 
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
 
i
.
 
The issue is the power of the court to hear this
k
ind of case
.
 
ii
.
 
W
hen youre in federal courtthe outer boundaries of subject matter jurisdiction are set by article
3
of theconstitution
 
II.
 
Personal Jurisdiction
a
.
 
Definition:
i
.
 
W
hat state(s) can a  be forced to show up and defend themselves in?
b
.
 
Constitutional Basis:
i
.
 
I
f the courts dont have personal jurisdiction over that person, they would violate the due process clause of the 14
th
amendment
c
.
 
H
istorically:
i
.
 
I
n Personam: states have power over people within their state (non residents must be personally served withprocess while within the state)
ii
.
 
I
n Rem: state has power over a persons property present in the state
.
Allows for service of process bypublication in a newspaper
iii
.
 
Quasi in rem: allowing property to be attached to satisfy a claim unrelated to the claim  up to the value of the property
.
Must be attached at the beginning of the lawsuit
1
.
 
(Pennoyer): established personal jurisdiction if person had property within the state
2
.
 
Property = a contact
.
property does not establish jurisdiction because it is seized
3.
 
Shaffer says: no more quasi in rem jurisdiction
4
.
 
I
f youre proceeding against property only, that is pure in rem, not quasi in rem jurisdiction
d
.
 
Specific Jurisdiction:
 
3
|
Page
 
i
.
 
N
ot whether  can be sued about anything in the state but whether the  can be sued about this specificcase
.
May be specific jurisdiction in more than one state specific jurisdiction is always a case by caseanalysis
.
Must loo
k
at the contacts with the stateisolated contacts are not enough, but the word isolated isa value judgment
.
what youre suing/subject has to relate to the state
ii
.
 
1 contact can be plentydriving thru the state and hit a pedestrian, that 1 contact would be enough if thelawsuit directly comes out of it
.
 doesnt have to be physically present in the forum state
.
acts outside the jurisdiction as long as they have an effect w/in the jurisdiction may be enough
iii
.
 
Minimum Contacts Test 
1
.
 
From
IN
Shoe  (Shaffer expands min contacts to in rem juris & gets rid of quasi in rem)
2
.
 
Does the suit offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?
3.
 
Mi
n
i
mum
C
ont
a
cts
 
a
.
 
PJ: if the  have such minimum contacts with the state A
N
D
b
.
 
I
f it would be fair to require the person to defend the lawsuit in that state
4
.
 
Purposeful
Avai
lment
T
est
 
a
.
 
  
from
H
anson v
.
Denc
k
la (trust created in Delaware while widow living in Pennsylvania
.
 Beneficiaries are suing for jurisdiction after widow dies
.
Florida cannot have jurisdictionbecause the trust company did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conductingactivities in Florida
.
TEST: Did the  purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conductingactivities in the state 
iv
.
 
C
ont
a
ct
Ca
ses
re: PJ
1
.
 
McGee v
.
 
I
nternational Life
I
nsurance Co
.
 one contact can be sufficient, Texas Company acceptedpayment for life insurance policy from California resident, subjecting the company to California jurisdiction
.
Accepting the payment is a substantial contact
.
 
2
.
 
H
anson v
.
Denc
k
la  not sufficient contacts with a state
.
They mailed chec
k
s from the Delaware trustto Florida when the trustee moved
.
The trust company did not purposefully avail itself of theprivilege of conducting business in the state
.
 
3.
 
Burger King v
.
Rudzewicz  minimum contact established when Michigan residents signed a franchisecontract with a Florida corporation
.
 
v
.
 
Stre
a
m
 
of 
C
ommerce
Ca
ses
re: PJ
1
.
 
W
orldwide Vol
k
swagen v
.
 
W
oodson  company sold car in
N
ew Yor
k
that exploded in O
k
lahoma
.
 Company did not purposefully avail themselves of O
k
lahoma, they cannot
k
now where theirproducts will end up through the stream of commerce, does not subject them to jurisdictioneverywhere
.
Did the  target his activities with respect to the forum state that ma
k
es it fair to bringthe suit?
2
.
 
Asahi Metal
I
ndustry v
.
Superior Court  Tire blowout causes an accident
.
Asahi, Taiwanesemanufacturer of tire valve assembly, is not subject to California jurisdiction by selling a product onan international scale, they did not purposefully avail themselves of California
.
This would alsooffend our notions of fair play and traditional justice
.
Even if they had minimum contactsit wouldstill be unfair
.
Brennan was trying to sell his stream of commerce theory here, too
.
 
vi
.
 
I
nternet & Personal Jurisdiction
1
.
 
Pavlovich v
.
Superior Court  Texas resident posted a trade secret on the internet
.
California doesnot have jurisdiction over the Texas resident for violating a California companys copyright
.
 
e
.
 
General Jurisdiction 
i
.
 
Always jurisdiction in the state of domicile for individuals and in the states of incorporation and principalplace of business for corporations
.
Anything to do with what youre doing?
ii
.
 
Substantial Minimum Contacts
1
.
 
Domicile
2
.
 
Continuous and Systematic Activity in the Forum
a
.
 
Per
k
ins v
.
Benguet Consolidated Mining Company  Phillipines company doing business inOhio, the owner moved there and conducted all business from Ohio
.
General jurisdictionbecause the owner continuously and systematically did business in the state
.
(
N
ot specific jurisdiction because the claim doesnt have to do with the contacts the business made inthe state)
.
 
b
.
 
Purchase is not continuous/systematic contacti
.
 
H
elicopteros
N
acionales de Colombia v
.
 
H
all  no general jurisdiction, nor specific

Activity (16)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Norbert 1113 liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this
Chauncey Gibson liked this
shopperhq liked this
toymommy liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->