Civil Procedure Jurisdiction is proper because CASE tells us that RULE. The def.

will try to appeal to the court using the ____ approach

I.

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to exercise power over an individual or entity and to adjudicate their rights. Personal jurisdiction analysis involves two main steps: 1) determination of whether a states long arm statute confers jurisdiction! and ") an analysis of whether the jurisdiction is in accordance with the #.$. Constitution %particularly the &ue Process Clause of 1'th amendment and the (ull (aith and Credit Clause of Const. )rt *+. )s an initial matter! the first response to a defendants %df) challenge of personal jurisdiction %P,) is to ensure that df has not waived its P, challenge. STEP 1 (federal or state court-) Possi!le "ai#er under 1$(!%($%- . (ederal rules of civil procedure /ule 1" re0uires that df raise any challenge to personal jurisdiction in in initial response or challenge is waived. C&EC' (ACT PATTERN %if so! P, is valid) State Court 1 go to step " ederal Court: 1. Rule )(*% . '%2)%1)%a) 1 +ILL ,E -OST CASES P, is determined w3reference to whether a court of the state where fed court is located. 4ust satisfy long arm and constitutional analysis. 1) Rule )(*%(1%(!% !""#$ile bulge rule .applies and P, valid if party joined 5y rule 1' or 16 and served in a judicial district not more than 177 miles from place of summons. ") Rule )(*%(1%(c% ederal statutory authori%ation . does a fed. stat. ena5le P,- *f so then P, is valid 8) Rule )(*%($% . alien provision . *f a plaintiff cannot reach a defendant through any individual states 9ong )rm $tatute! then the plaintiff can reach the defendant in federal court is claim arising under federal law against a person not su5ject to P, in state . if so! there must 5e min. contacts with #$ country rather than state %$:;P 8 analysis)

*f either 1! "! or 8 not valid then chec2 for general jurisdiction in state where the district court is located . go to $:;P " STEP $ (9ong )rm $tatute) *t is necessary to determine is the states long arm statute authori<es personal jurisdiction. :here are two types of long arm statutes conferring a states scope of jurisdiction. :here is the is: R.ode Island /odel that is authori<es courts to exercise jurisdiction to the constitutional limit. *f present then you can move to $:;P 8 Ne" 0or* Enu/erated Act /odel is limited in its scope 5ecause it specifically articulates circumstances where courts may exercise personal jurisdiction authority. Chec2 if case facts are in enumerated category. &es 1 Proceed to $:;P 8 'o 1 no P, STEP 1 (Constitutional )nalysis% 2 /ention eac. ste3 in essa4 anal4sis5 e#en i6 not a33lica!le =ecause the terms of the long arm statute are satisfied! we proceed to the constitutional analysis. *n0uiring first into the traditional bases of for jurisdiction derived from Pennoyer v. Neff. :here are four ways a court may o5tain jurisdiction over a defendant: ) defendant may explicitly consent! 5e present in the state at the time of service! 5e a citi<en or domiciled within the state! or initiate contacts arising out of! or connected to! activities within that state. chec2 to determine if: 1. Persons a. >as defendant served with process in the forum state- %see In2state Ser#ice)

Civil Procedure
5. *s defendant domiciled in the forum state-d. &oes the case involve adjudication of status! e.g.! divorce$. Cor3orations a. *s defendant incorporated in the forum state5. &id defendant consent to jurisdiction8. Pro3ert4 (In re/% if so! then Shaffer v. Heitner states that it will almost certainly satisfy the 4C test 53c the & has ?continuous and systematic@ contact w3the forum state 5y virtue of the propertys presence! and since this is an in rem action! the property is certainly related to the cause of action. In2state Ser#ice %transient presence): %RULE DOES NOT APPL0 TO CORPORATIONS) )s we learned from (urnha$ ). Superior Court! service of process while in forum state is always enough to assert personal ,urisdiction. *n instances of transient presence! there are two dominant views. 1 :he view voiced 5y ,ustice $calia! and also what the plaintiff will contend is that transient presence $AP is valid to authori<e general jurisdiction so long as not the result of fraud! coercion! etc. %judicial administration issue) " :he def. will try to appeal to the court using the ,ustice (rennan * +thers approach in that the standard of minimum contacts set forth 5y *ntl $hoe must 5e applied and that their contacts are scanter than in =urnham %CO-PARE (ACTS AND ANAL07E) E8CEPTIONS *f there is no traditional 5asis we then chec2 for: ". Consent P, valid if df consents. +as t.ere a (oru/ Selection Clause Consent9. ) forum selection clause in a contract with a conflict of laws element allows the parties to agree that any litigation resulting from that contract will 5e initiated in a specific forum. )s we learned in the Carni)al Cruise case! forum selection clauses are generally enforcea5le as long as they are reasona5le. )ppealing to the view expressed 5y ,ustice =rennan 5oth parties must have e0ual 5argaining power B 5argain must ta2e place. %C&EC' (ACT PATTERN) *n Carni)al the selected (9) was for convenience! not to gain unfair adv. %CO-PARE (ACTS). )ssuming that a (9) is reasona5le! it must also 5e presented to the plaintiff with sufficient notice to act. CC P, also valid when: state citi:en! joined to a case alread4 ";PJ! esto33el.

<ERI(0 53c insufficient notice in itself is #nconstitutional! ends in0uiry 8. Su66icient Notice: &ue Process 1 Dotice B Apportunity to 5e heard %at a minimum) :otality of Circumstances . method availa5le vs practical 5urden ,as notice reasonably calculated -what.s at sta/e0 Cost0 Li/eliness to reach012 under all the circu$stances2 to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford the$ an opportunity to present their ob3ections0 Ade=uate in6or/ation Ti/eliness %reasona5le time to appear)-et.od %desirous) Mullane ?/easona5ly calculated! under all circumstances! to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action! and afford them an opportunity to present their o5jections.@ 1) /easona5ly expect person to receive notice %reasona5ly certain to inform) ") 4ethod must 5e ?desirous of actually informing the party@ 8) /easona5le amount of time %go 5ac2 and record time on precedent cases) Property . sei<ure )9>)E$ serves as sufficient notice %mention 5riefly) Dusenberry )ctual notice is not re0uired! only reasona5ly certain to inform Feroic ;fforts are not re0uired 4ailed notice to 2now address is )9>)E$ ade0uate %reiterated in &usen5erry) Jones v. Flowers *f P 2nows that & didnt receive notice! then P must ta2e additional reasona5le steps ?)ctions unreasona5le.. not of person desirous of actually information@ >eigh what is at sta2e in evaluating 5urden vs certainty to reach ?especially for something as serious as losing a home@

Civil Procedure
'. >eneral Jurisdiction #nder general jurisdiction! the cause of action may 5e completely unrelated to the defendants contacts with the state! so long as the defendant possesses considera5le contacts within the forum *f Corporation has 5usinessmen in state! enough for jurisdiction. Court will consider 1) extent of 5usinessG ") relatedness of activities to suitG 8) 5enefits to employees of 5eing in stateG ') convenienceG H) state interest.I (irst determine if contacts are systematic and continuous or sporadic and isolatedG and whether contacts are related or unrelated to the cause of action Continuous and S4ste/atic and Related Keeton v. Hustler -4 .s regular circulation of $aga%ines in the foru$ state2 coupled w5 '.6..s interest in redressing in3uries that occur w5in $a/e 7J )alid1 Continuous and S4ste/atic !ut Unrelated %)rgue on 7er/ins56elicol continuum) 0ES ? Perkins # 4ust 5e su5stantial in the vein of those found to 5e sufficient in case -7J )alid b5c foreign co$pany president drew salary chec/s2 $aintaining ban/ accounts2 hosting 4irectors. $eetings, HQ in foru state for S!"#$S a%%roval1 NO 1 Heli&o% -sporadic 8 fortuitous business transactions 9 4 will argue contacts less than this 1 6igher $i$i$u$ contacts test is re:uired of a foreign corporation. NO 1 'oodyear . is the co. ?)t Fome@ in the forum state %does not mean effectively FJ in that state! 5ut are the contacts so continuous and syste$atic such that it is AL,A&S A;R to sub3ect the$ to suit in the foru$ state. Sin@le A Isolated and Unrelated 1 no P,

H.

S3eci6ic Jurisdiction $ingle B *solated and /elated Cite (nt)l Shoe 9 The Supre$e Court in ;nternational Shoe ). ,ashington2 first adopted a standard that allows for 3urisdiction in a state when there was sufficient <$ini$u$ contacts< with a state. =ini$u$ contacts are understood to $ean2 >A parties contacts with a foru$ state $ust be such that $aintenance of a suit within the foru$ state co$ports to traditional notions of fair play and substantial 3ustice?. Contacts w3 forum %" prong test refined in ,,@,) " Purposeful )vailment %to 5enefits and protections of forums laws anticipate 5eing) a. Purposeful act aimed %foresee vs intent) 6anson 5. $ought mar2et ii. Compare facts to precedent cases a. $tream of Commerce %*sahi! M&(ntire) 'ote that four Justices in Asahi would re:uire additional conduct.A ;n a fractured decision2 the Supre$e Court in Asahi held that <$ere awareness< is not sufficient to satisfy the $ini$u$ contacts test. ;n this case a foreign defendant2 Asahi =etal ;ndustries2 was aware that the tire )al)es it $anufactured2 sold and transported would find their way to California. The issue was whether the awareness that the tire )al)es would find their way to California was sufficient for 3urisdiction. The court held that a defendantBs awareness is not sufficient to satisfy 4ue 7rocess. ;nstead2 there $ust be <an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the foru$ state.< ECa$ples of these actions $ay include ad)ertising in the foru$ state or pro)iding regular ad)ice to custo$ers in the foru$ state. Although the concurring Justices in =c;ntyre agreed the defendant.s contacts did not warrant 3urisdiction in the foru$ state2 the Court did not produce a $a3ority decision. =oreo)er2 the outco$e in =c;ntyre suggests that foreign defendants could be insulated fro$ 3urisdiction throughout the United States2 despite specifically targeting the country. Unli/e A$erican businesses2 which will be sub3ect to 3urisdiction at least in their ho$e foru$2 the decision in =c;ntyre suggests that a foreign co$pany could concei)ably a)oid litigation in the United States altogether2 si$ply by hiring a national distributor.

Civil Procedure
5. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. :ort . ;ffects %!alder) *nternet %+i%%o 1 &(G (nset 1 K) #nilateral %,,-,! Hanson! Kulko) Contract plus analysis %.ur/er Kin/! M&'ee) . no L need purposeful Juasi in rem %Shaffer 0 legal fiction! use *ntl shoe standard) 9ove :riangles %&( (orum $tate 9itigation) 9ong . )rm $tatute etc

Cases on Contacts a. (a#orin@ jurisdiction 1) ) single contact may justify jurisdiction! depending on 0uality and nature! i.e. tort! contract is ?um5rella@ of contacts %'ray, M&'ee5 .K &f. ,orld0,ide, *sahi% ") Plaintiffs contacts with forum may ?enhance@ jurisdiction! i.e. conduct 5y & from without aimed at P within forum state may constitue contacts if it creates ?effects@ within state %!alder &f. S&hwar1ene//er) 1. =#: generally Ps! :s contacts dont matter %6anson2 ,orld#,ide2 Deeton) 8) & purposefully availed himself of 5enefit of forum states laws or mar2et! could foresee 5eing haled into court there %'ray, M&'ee, .K &f. Hanson, ,orld0,ide) ') & purposefully directed conduct in state through ?stream of commerce plus!@ i.e. mar2eting! distri5uting! etc %*sahi) H) & 5enefited from protection of state services! laws during unrelated visit to state %(urnha$! =rennan op) M) Claim relates to the contact 5ut does not arise out of it %6eli! =rennan) !. A@ainst jurisdiction 1) Contacts are ?stale!@ from childhood or past life %Dul/o) ") Contacts resulted from ?unilateral acts of third party@ %6anson2 ,orld#,ide) 8) ?Center of gravity!@ or having convenient forum not enough w3o contacts %6anson) ') :ype of contact alleged would lead to universal jurisdiction %Ereen2 7ebble (each2 ,orld#,ide) H) Contacts relate to domestic partnership rather than commercial % Dul/o *D:;/D;: contacts 1. *nset $ystems: :he presence of a we5site advertising ones product is sufficient to esta5lish purposeful availment in every state where the we5site is availa5le! 5ut DA AD; /;)99E #$;$ :F*$ :;$: )DE4A/;. ". Nippo: ) we5site alone is not enough to support jurisdiction. *t depends on how interactive site is. a. *f passive Do Purposeful availment 5. *f active purposeful availment c. *f interactive Purposeful availment depends on degree of interactivity and commercial nature of the we5site. :he more interactive and commercial the site is! the more li2ely it is that P, will 5e found. d. *f purposeful availment is found! go to P, 8c. ") /easona5leness fair play and su5stantial justice. %would the exercise of P, 5e unreasona5le-) Cite ,,-,A ;n ,orld#,ide @ol/swagen Corp. ). ,oodson2 the Supre$e Court stated the defendant.s contact with the foru$ state should also be foreseeable to satisfy the due process re:uire$ents for personal 3urisdiction. )sahi H factor test! factually argue other cases re: reasona5leness %CCCfirst 8 may 5e determinative) a. ,urden on de6endant %would it impact &(s a5ility to defend-)

Civil Procedure
5. (oru/s StateBs interest %does state have strong interest in dispute-) i. Citi<ens %w3o interest may 5e argua5ly slight)! corporations! laws or policy at sta2ec. PBs interest in complete %sue 'em all-) B effective %exp. /elative to judgment) relief d. E66icienc4 o6 Interstate Judicial S4ste/ i. efficiently tried in forum state 53c witnesses and evidence there e. S.ared Interstate Social Polic4 i. /arely comes up. ECA Preventing 5adly mfg products from going around

II.

SU,JECT -ATTER JURISDICTION

$u5ject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of a court over the nature of a case and the type of remedy demanded. >hile state courts are usually courts of general jurisdiction! federal court jurisdiction is confined to a particular type of case that may 5e exercised only under statutory limits and prescriptions. #nli2e personal jurisdiction! an affected party to a case may not waive su5ject matter jurisdiction. :he #$ Constitution )rticle 8 O " extends power to federal courts in Di#ersit4 Cases %5etween citi<ens of different states! including foreign)! and (ederal Cuestion Cases %arising under (ederal 9aw) =urdens of Pleading =A Pleading is on party that invo2es (ederal $4, . courts will otherwise assume to lac2 $4, =A Proof is on the party that challenges (ederal $4, STEP 1 (EDERAL CUESTION JURISDICTION :he Constitution and "P #.$.C. O 188" vest federal courts with jurisdiction to hear that ?arise under@ federal law. (ederal law includes any Const. provision! act of Congress! admin. regulation! executive order! or federal common law provision. 1. ESSENTIAL (EDERAL ELE-ENT D does CA) contain essential fed. ;lement- %i.e patent infringement) a. Creation Test . *s claim created 5y or pursuant to fed. 9awi) "P #$C O 1881: )ctions with a federal 0uestion. ii) "P #$C O 188Q: )ctions arising under a federal law that concerns commerce. iii) "P #$C O 1''": )ctions involving federal officers. Ees 1 chec2 if well pleaded Do 1 Su!stantial (ederal Interest test a. *f state CA) does Ks relief depend on interpretation or application of fed lawEes 1 (J, . see 'rable v. Darue 2 Do 1 no (J, ". +ELL PLEADED CO-PLAINT RULE . Mottley a. R must present (ederal element in well pleaded complaint. 5. (ederal /esponses *gnored D i. defenses or anticipated defensesG Hays v. .ryan !ave 33P ii. counter claims %see Hol es v. -ornado) c. NO Art6ul Pleadin@ 2 4a2ing claim appear to raise3deny (ederal claim. ) court will have (J, over a plaintiffs claim that turns on an issue of federal law even if the plaintiff did not explicitly plead the federal issue in the complaint. d. Co/3lete Pree/3tion Doctrine . K cant file $tate CA) when (ederal law o5viously pre empts. Ees 1 (J,

STEP $ DI<ERSIT0 JURISDICTION 2 )ccording to "P #.$.C. O 188"5 district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of SQH!777! exclusive of interest and costs! and is 5etween . . .citi<ens of different $tates. Complete diversity among the parties is not a constitutional re0uirement. /ather! the complete diversity rule is the result of a $upreme Court interpretation of the statutory grant of diversity jurisdiction 1. &etermine Citi<enship

Civil Procedure
Indi#idual . 5ased on domicileG must 5e physically present in a place and have the intention to remain there for an indefinite period. %Mas v. Perry) Cor3oration . 5ased on place%s) of incorporation and place where principle place of 5usiness is %nerve center 3FJ). 4ay 5e in " locations i.e. nerve in T)! w3FJ in $C. 111$ (c%(1% (Hert1 !or% v. Friend4 Partners.i3 and Unincor3orated Assn. D citi<en of every state and country where mem5ers are. Le@al Re3s D citi<en of state of party they represent E 111$(c%($%

CCCCPermanent /esident aliens are treated as state citi<ens Di#ersit4 eFa/3les

-UST 5e complete diversityUUUU Strawbrid/e v. !urtiss $. TI-E O( (ILIN> &, depends on where parties were domiciled at time of filing! not time of incident. %'ru%o Dataflu5 v. *tlas). EFce3tionGGG . *f party that destroys complete diversity is later dismissed! there is &, A-OUNT IN CONTRO<ERS0 . "P #.$.C. O 188"%a) dictates that the claim must exceed SQHV Punitive damages included Cost and prejudgment interest is eCcluded )ggregation is permissi5le provided: o 4ultiple claims 5y 1 plaintiff v. 1 defendant o 4ultiple plaintiffs with 1 undivided interest %Del <ecc.io% o Claims alleging joint B several lia5ility against multiple defendants are valued 5ased on whole claim.

1.

STEP 1 SUPPLE-ENTAL JURISDICTION *f the facts of the situation do not present a federal 0uestion %)PP9E ()C:$)! and the parties involved are not diverse %J#)9*(E)! the court will only have jurisdiction over the CA) if the re0uirements of supplemental jurisdiction statute "P #.$.C. O 18MQ are satisfied. Codified in !FF" 9 Eibbs is prior to codification2 but lays >+perati)e acts? fra$ewor/ Eibbs 9 #.$. Const. art. *** ss " ?relationship 53t claim and st claim permits conclusion that the entire action 5efore the court comprises 5ut one constitutional case@ >7 clai$s are such that he would ordinarily be eCpected to try the$ all in one 3udicial proceeding? E 11HI(a% D 5road grant of $upplemental ,urisdiction. Tives federal courts jurisdiction over supplemental claims when they arise from the same case or controversy under )rt. *** O ". :hus federal courts limited to power of Constitution. $upplemental claim need not 5e federal 0uestion! just appended to case or controversy that federal court can hear. 1. $. (reestandin@ clai/ is it s claim in which court has original jurisdiction %i.e. diversity! fed. Juestion) Co//on nucleus o6 o3erati#e 6acts: significantly related to free standing claim %$nited Mine ,orkers v. 'ibbs) (irst! O 18MQ%a) contains a 5road grant of supplemental jurisdiction for claims that ?are so related@ to a case already properly 5efore a federal court ?that Wthe claimsI form part of the

Civil Procedure
same case or controversy under )rticle *** of the #nited $tates Constitution.@ "P #.$.C. O 18MQ%a). Claims meet this ?so related@ re0uirement when the claims ?derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.@ #nited 4ine >or2ers v. Ti55s E8CEPTIONSGGGGGG E 11HI(!% D *f O 18MQ%a) is satisfied! does %5) 5ar- I( 1 0ES to 6ollo"in@ ? no su33le/ental jurisdiction 1. *s action 5ased $A9;9E on diversity- i.e. claims arising under 1881 B 188" don't apply $. *s the additional claim 5rought 5y the plaintiff- Do 1 e0uals no exception if common nucleus of facts %655on Mobil v. *lla%%attah) 1. *s it against a party under rule 1'!16!"7!"' %original K) OR 5y K under rule 16!"' %joined 5y K 5y 16 or "') %noteA clai$s by G 3oined under HI or H" $ay be supple$ental 3oined in di)ersity is not )iolated) /ule 1'. :hird Party Practice /ule 16. /e0uired ,oinder of Parties /ule "7. Permissive ,oinder of Parties /ule "'. *ntervention STEP ) RE-O<AL JURISDICTION /, is the transfer of an action from state court to federal court. *n removing a case to federal court! a litigant must show a valid 5asis for federal jurisdiction. Courts don't automatically invo2e! must 5e filed. 1. Ori@inal Jurisdiction2 $J U.S.C. E 1))1(a% would federal court have jurisdiction over CA) if filed in federal courta. Ees 1 ensure either di)ersity or federal :uestion Jperfor$ S=J analysis 5. Do 1 not remova5le CCC(orum $tate &efendant /ule i. Dot remova5le if any defendant is citi<en of state in where P 5rought action #D9;$$ claim 0ualifies for federal 0uestion $. Di#ersit4 !asis 2 $J U.S.C. E 1))1(!% . if claim could have 5een 5rought under diversity! is the df who is see2ing removal a citi<en of forum state- ! year fro$ co$plaint li$itKKKKK a. Ees 1 cannot remove 5. Do 1 removal may 5e proper chec2 next steps Ti/e Li/it . $J U.S.C. E 1))H(!% . has it 5een more than 87 days since the df received service of the initial pleadinga. Ees 1 df waived right to remove 5. Do 1 removal may 5e proper chec2 next step &a#e all d6 a@reed to /o#e9 a. Ees 1 removal is proper 5. Do 1 case may 5e remanded for removal (ederal Cuestion !asis D if claim could have 5een 5rought on (J! then it is remova5le as long as all &(s agree and the 87 day limit has not expired -otion to Re/and . if action has 5een removed! df may see2 to remand to state court if filed within 87 days of notice of removal. /emand motion for lac2 of $4, may occur at )DE:*4;

1.

). K. H.

Class )ction (airness )ct $J U.S.C. E 1)K1 Aver SH aggregate! &s citi<enship irrelevant! any & can remove

III.

<ENUE

>hile jurisdiction considers whether the court has power to hear the case! venue concerns where the actual occurs. ;ven within one jurisdiction! there can 5e many places to hold the trial. +enue is a level of protection for the defendant! or conversely! a statutory limitation on where the plaintiff can 5ring the trial. (ederal Court venue can 5e waived

Civil Procedure

I< Erie Doctrine Te/3late :he issue is which law applies in the current controversy. "P #.$.C O 1MH" provides :he laws of the several states! except where the Constitution or treaties of the #nited $tates or )cts of Congress otherwise re0uire or provide! shall 5e regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the #.$.! in cases where they apply. )ccording to the doctrine of ;rie v. :omp2ins! state su5stantive law! whether statutory or common! should apply in federal courts sitting in diversity! and the right should 5e preserved for federal courts to apply federal procedural law in the same. :he pro5lem is determining whether a law is su5stantive %providing rights and o5ligations) or procedural %enforcing rights and o5ligations). $ince a federal rule3statute is applica5le! a different analysis is re0uired. #nder Fanna v. Plumer! the first issue is whether the federal law conflicts with the state law. :o determine the conflict! we loo2 to the purpose of the respective rules and whether the federal law is sufficiently 5road to cover the point in dispute. Fere! the purpose of the federal rule is... :he purpose of the state law is... :he federal rule is sufficiently 5road to cover the disputed point 5ecause... :he respective laws conflict 5ecause... :hus! the federal law is applica5le and in conflict with the state law. $ince the federal law is applica5le! the next step under Fanna is whether the federal law is constitutional! or whether the federal law is a valid exercise of congressional power. *f the federal law present is a statute and is constitutional! the statute applies. *f the law is procedural! it must 5e promulgated under E $LI$5 Rules Ena!lin@ Act! which states ?:he $upreme Court shall have the power to prescri5e general rules of practice and procedure and the rules of evidence for cases in the #.$. district courts and courts of appeals.@ and also ? $uch rules shall not a!rid@e5 enlar@e5 or /odi64 an4 su!stanti#e ri@.t. )ll laws in conflict with such rules shall 5e of not further force or effect after rules have ta2en effect.@ :o 5e valid! a (/CP must 5e ?argua5ly procedural@ in nature. $ince the $upreme Court! the federal judiciary committee! and congress participate in drafting and approving federal procedural rules! there is a presumption of constitutionality. A/... Fere! a federal rule is involved 5ecause... *t is promulgated under the /;) 5ecause... o :he rule does not enlarge! a5ridge! or modify su5stantive rights 5ecause... :hus! the federal statute or rule is procedural and applies to the current controversy. )ssuming the federal law failed any part of the Fanna test! a true ;rie analysis applies to determine whether the law is su5stantive or procedural. :he test contains two parts. (irst! under Tuarantee :rust v. Eor2! the test of ?su5stantive@ was whether the law significantly affects the result of litigation. :he outcome &eterminative :est focused chec2s to see if application of federal judge made law would lead to forum shopping or su5stantial divergent outcomes. Fere! applying federal law would not significantly affects the outcome 5ecause... )pplying the federal law is li2ely to result in a different outcome 5ecause... *fX. Do 1 apply (ederal /ule Ees Fere! a federal statute is involved 5ecause... *t is constitutional 5ecause... :herefore the federal statute applies.

:he second step is the =yrd =alancing :est! which test the twin aims from ;rie. *f the federal court ignores the state law and it would encourage litigants to go to federal court %forum shopping)! or would result in an ine0uita5le administration of laws! the federal law is su5stantive and cannot apply.

Civil Procedure
:he state has a su5stantive policy issue interest 5ecause... :here is a countervailing federal interest 5ecause... :he federal law would encourage forum shopping 5ecause... )pplying federal law would result in ine0uita5le administration of the law 5ecause... :herefore! the federal law is su5stantive and cannot apply. $tate law governs the dispute.

III.

PERSONAL JURISDICTION CASE ANS+ERS

INTERNET Courts have struggled with the *nternet as a source of minimum contacts. )lthough not determinately esta5lished 5y the $upreme Court! many courts use the Lippo test!W1'I which examines the 2ind of use to which a defendant's we5site is 5eing put. #nder this test! we5sites are divided into three categories: 1. passi)e we5sites! which merely provide information! will almost never provide sufficient contacts for jurisdiction. $uch a we5site will only provide a 5asis for jurisdiction if the we5site itself constitutes an intentional tort such as slander or defamation! and if it is directed at the jurisdiction in 0uestionG ". interacti)e we5sites! which permit the exchange of information 5etween we5site owner and visitors! $ay 5e enough for jurisdiction! depending on the we5site's level of interactivity and commerciality! and the amount of contacts which the we5site owner has developed with the forum due to the presence of the we5siteG 8. co$$ercial we5sites which clearly do a su5stantial volume of 5usiness over the *nternet! and through which customers in any location can immediately engage in 5usiness with the we5site owner! definitely provide a 5asis for jurisdiction.

under +i%%o there may 5e personal jurisdiction over an internet company if people in the forum are simply purchasing the product on an interactive we5site! under the 'icastro pluralitys reasoning there may not 5e jurisdiction unless the company is specifically mar2eting to the particular forum.

STREA- O( CO--ERCE )sahi 4erely placing products in the Ystream of commerceY is insufficient to provide minimum contacts with the states where the products end up. :he defendant must ma2e an effort to mar2et in the forum state or otherwise purposefully avail himself of the resources of that state. Fowever! since only four of the nine $upreme Court ,ustices joined the opinion that re0uired a defendant to do more than place his products in a Ystream of commerce!Y some lower courts still rule that doing so is ade0uate for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction. :he Dicastro pluralitys emphasis on a strict interpretation of purposeful availment 5ased on sovereignty values rather than reasona5le ness values will li2ely serve to restrict the situations in which personal jurisdiction can 5e exercised over defendants engaged in internet commerce. (irst! 5y characteri<ing ?sovereign authority!@ not ?fairness and foreseea5ility!@ as personal jurisdictions ?central concept!@6Q the pluralitys reasoning instructs lower courts to place more emphasis on consummated transactions themselves rather than on general notions of what the defendant could or should have expected 5y placing his products on the internet. E66ects Cases *n the YeffectsY cases! the $upreme Court 5ased jurisdiction on the principle that the defendant 2new that her action would 5e injurious to the plaintiff! therefore she must reasona5ly anticipate 5eing haled into court where the injury occurred. :he YeffectsY cases are of particular importance in cy5erspace 5ecause conduct in cy5erspace often has effects in various

Civil Procedure
jurisdictions. *n Calder v. ,ones! the actress $hirley ,ones who wor2ed and lived in California 5rought a li5el suit in California against a reporter and executive for the Dational ;n0uirer. :he defendant had only 5een to California twice! and neither of these visits was connected in any manner with the ,ones claim of li5el. Fowever! the court held that 5ecause ,ones caused the story to the pu5lished which he 2new would have a Ypotentially devastating impact . . the 5runt of that injury would 5e felt 5y WplaintiffI in the state in which she lives and wor2 and in which the Dational ;n0uirer has its largest circulation!Y the defendant must Yreasona5ly anticipate 5eing haled into court there.Y 'MH #.$. at QP'! 17' $.Ct. at 1'P'. :he court in Calder emphasi<ed was this was a case of an intentional tort that was highly foreseea5le to cause damage in California. :he court also found significant that the effects of the article were centered in California! 5oth in the content of the story as well as where the harm would 5e suffered. :hus the Calder case is considered a classic effects case! 5ecause jurisdiction was 5ased on the effects of the defendants conduct. *n another effects case! Veeton v. Fustler 4aga<ine! *nc. concerned allegedly li5elous statements made in Fustler maga<ine. :he plaintiff! 5rought the action in Dew Fampshire! despite not 5eing a resident of Dew Fampshire. Fustler maga<ine's only contacts with the forum were the 17!777 to 1H!777 copies of its maga<ine it sold every month. :his lead the court to the conclusion that Fustler's contacts with Dew Fampshire could not Y5y any stretch of the imagination 5e characteri<ed as random! isolated or fortuitous.Y :he court then continued its analysis 5y loo2ing at the additional factors that 5ore on the fundamental fairness of Fustler 4aga<ine 5eing sued in a distant forum. )n important element in the court's analysis was that Dew Fampshire had a legitimate interest in the controversy! despite the fact that the suit was 5rought 5y a nonresident. :he 5asis for the legitimate interest was the injury to the state's residents 5y 5eing misled 5y the defendants statements.