You are on page 1of 2

Exam:

If you can argue it both ways, ARGUE IT BOTH WAYS


Forum Selection = PJ + Notice + SMJ + Venue
Assess SMJ on every claim filed in fed. ct.
Be very mechanical about every step. Memorize the rules and carefully apply.
Always analyze why can this happen? Dont just assume and state something.
o i.e., talk about all three reasons why a party would be necessary under RULE 19
Joinder tips:
o If it starts with C then it is a claim between existing parties (counterclaim/cross-
claim, claim joinder)
o If it starts with I you are joining someone new

PJ
o Statutory Test: there must be a statute that allows the exercise of in personam
jurisdiction
Long-Arm Statute
Always trying to get a non-resident
Almost always specific jurisdiction for something that non-resident did
in that forum.
Laundry List long-arm: lists various things that a D can do to subject
herself to jurisdiction.
o Constitutional Test
Is there a traditional test for jurisdiction?
Burnham talk about the split. 4 justices say its okay, 4 other say that
you must do International Shoe. Argue it both ways.
i.e., if not present, if not domiciled, etc.
International Shoe
Relevant contact between D and the forum.
o Relevant contact:
Purposeful Availment
D must have reached out to the forum in some
way. Targeting that forum.
Foreseeability
It must be foreseeable that the D could be sued
in that forum.
Assess whether this is general or specific jurisdiction.
o Relatedness
Does the Ps claim arise from the Ds contact with the
forum.
If yes: then specific jurisdiction.
If no: then only okay if there is general in
personam jurisdiction.
o General Jurisdiction
Continuous and Systematic Contacts with the forum
Goodyear: must go beyond; be essentially at
home.
Assess whether jurisdiction is fair.
o The burden is on the D to show that it is gravely inconvenient.
o Inconvenience for D and her witnesses.
o Forum states interest
o Ps interest
Maybe P is injured and cannot travel, etc.
o Legal systems interest in efficiency
o Shared substantive policies

Joinder
o Compulsory Counter Claim
Tell professor WHY it is a compulsory counter claim: against an opposing
party from the same transaction or occurrence
If you dont assert it here then you dont get to assert it anywhere
else
Does it have SMJ?
i.e., fails to invoke diversity jurisdiction b/c claim for less than
$75,000
Fails to invoke FQJ because no FQ about a car wreck
Is there supplemental jurisdiction?
1367(a)
1367(b)
The party may file a cross-claim
o DONT MENTION supplemental jurisdiction UNTIL you show there is no diversity
and FQ

You might also like