I.

INTRODUCTION
1) Benson’s Triangle of Power and the Procedure for Federal Civil Procedure
a) Without all three elements, plaintiff’s complaint will be barred from Federal court.
b) The ultimate goal is to get into federal court.





Can the action be removed to Federal Court?
o Removal must be made within 30 days
o Under Diversity or FedQ
Is Venue Proper?
o If no, then motion to transfer.
Is there Personal Jurisdiction proper?
Was Notice proper?
Was Service proper?
Did the complaint state a claim?

Power of the Federal
Court
Personal
Subject
Jurisdiction
Matter
Jurisdiction

Notice

II. STANDING
1) A plaintiff may assert an issue in court when they have:
a) Article III of the Constitution requires a concrete particularized injury traceable to the challenged conduct that is
likely to be remedied by a favorable decision, or
b) The authorization to represent the interest. Hollingsworth v. Perry.
i) State’s Interest Need the authorization to represent the state’s rights. Once that authorization has been
removed, there is no longer authorization.
ii) Third Party Interest Individual legal rights must be asserted. Cannot assert claims on behalf of others
unless they too have suffered injury in fact.

III.REMOVAL 28 USC §§ 1441, 1446 & 1447
1) Can a state court complaint be Removed to Federal Court?
a) (To remove, the Federal Court needs SMJ under Diversity or Federal Question)
2) 28 USC § 1441 - Removal of a Civil Case
a) (a), Generally
i) Moving a lawsuit from state court to federal court.
(1) The suit is removed to the federal district court that embraces the place where the action is pending in
state court.
(a) I.e. NYS Supreme NY County  SDNY. Once removed, the suit can be transferred to a different
district.
b) (b) Removal based on Diversity of Citizenship
i) Fake defendants are disregarded (obvi)
ii) All defendants that are properly joined and served must be completely diverse.
(1) Unanimity Rule  If 3 ∆s are named, and all reside outside the forum state, and only two ∆s are properly
served, the two that are served can seek removal and it will be proper.
c) (c) Joinder
d) (d) Actions against foreign State
e) (e) Multiparty, Multi-forum Jurisdiction
f) (f) Derivative Removal Jurisdiction
3) 28 USC § 1446 – Procedure of Removal
a) (a) Notice of Removal Pursuant to Rule 11 (ethical standards)

i)

Filed with the district court containing a plain statement of the grounds for removal along with all process,
pleadings & orders.
b) (b) Requirements
i) (1) Notice of Removal must be filed within 30 days after receipt of complaint or summons if the complaint is
not required to be served.
ii) (2) Additional
(1) Solely for 1441(a) All properly served ∆s must join in or consent to removal
(2) 30 days
(3) A later-served ∆ filing a notice of removal can be joined by an earlier-served ∆ even if they did not
previously initiate or consent to removal.
iii) An Amended complaint may create the basis for removal
c) Requirements for Removal Based on Diversity of Citizenship
i) If amended complaint gives basis for removal, removal is improper after 1 year of commencement of action
ii) Sum demanded is the amount in controversy made in good faith except that
(1) Non-monetary relief in complaint can be given dollar figure in notice
(a) State statute precludes demand for a specific sum or excessive amount demanded, AND
(2) If District court says the amount in controversy exceeds the amount specified.
iii) Amount in contro, con’t.
4) Judge has a duty to check the SMJ, however SMJ cannot be waived.
a) Collateral Attack:
i) ∆ intentionally fails to answer complaint filed outside ∆’s home state. Default Judgment entered. Π then tries
to enforce DJ at a court within ∆’s home state. ∆ contests the DJ on
(1) Baldwin
b) Direct Attack:
i) ∆ specially appears in π’s state court to challenge personal jurisdiction

IV. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
DIVERSITY 28 USC § 1332
1) Non-Diverse parties cannot consent to Federal Court Jurisdiction. (Removal §1441(b))
2) Diversity jurisdiction needs diversity from the parties + the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000.00
i) Complete Diversity All plaintiffs must be different citizens from all defendants. Strawbridge v. Curtiss
3) Citizenship
a) Of a Natural Person is determined by Domicile.
i) Domicile Residence with intent to remain.
(1) Mas v. Perry
(a) Marriage to a foreigner does not assume the domiciliary status of the foreign spouse.
(b) Domicile does not rest on whether or not there is intent to return to the state in which one is
domiciled, but rather intent rests on whether there is intent to remain.
ii) Natural Person Hypos
(1) US Citizen Living abroad
(a) Intent to remain abroad = US citizen with no state citizenship in US. No diversity, b/c outside the
statute
(2) Foreign citizen Living within US
(a)
(3)
b) Citizenship of a Corporation
i) State of Incorporation Randazzo v. Eagle-Picher Industries

or treaties of the United States” 28 U. v. Common citizenship between even just one plaintiff and one defendant in multiparty actions will break complete diversity. Single ∆ (1) Plaintiff can aggregate all her claims to meet the requirement even if the claims are unrelated legally or transactionally. 5) For Exam: a) A Federal Court has subject matter jurisdiction b jurisdiction and is permitted to hear causes of action generally reserved for courts of general jurisdiction. (i) CA not proper jurisdiction despite the state’s large contribution to revenue because the corporate directors and business decisions took place in NJ and made that the nerve center.000 USD and is subject to a reasonableness calculation. The amount in controversy must be a good faith claim in excess $75. ii) Partnership/LLP (1) The LLP is a citizen of state of which any partner is a citizen and there will be no diversity. directs. ii) Burden is on the challenger to show that as a matter of legal certainty…plaintiff cannot recover greater than the amount in controversy. (Aggregation of the claims is appropriate in certain circumstances such as a single Π v. Nerve Center Test is Fact based analysis a.” i) A good-faith claim by a plaintiff in excess of $75. Paul Indemnity b) Aggregate claims against single ∆ only i) Single π v.(1) Principal place of business = Nerve Center manages.000 satisfies the amount in controversy requirement even if the actual amount recovered may be less. if it multiple ∆s are jointly and severally liable.) FEDERAL QUESTION § 1331 1) “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution. Friend (a) The Hertz Corporation derives nearly 40% of its business from rentals in the California marketplace.S. (1) St. ii) Multiple π with single claim (1) Generally. iii) Amount in Controversy = $75. Champaign Market Place (1) For LLC. The burden will be on the challenger to show as a matter of legal certainty. (a) However. the claim(s) is(are) incapable of exceeding that amount. when the parties are completely diverse from one another and the statutory amount in controversy has been met. iii) Limited Liability Corporation/LLC Belleville Catering Co. § 1331 2) Arising Under A Federal Question suit arises under the federal law or Constitution only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon the constitution or those laws. aggregation is not allowed when more than one plaintiff or more than one defendant. Objective indicia of the management or control of the company. Hertz v. Complete diversity means that all plaintiffs are citizens of states different than all defendants. single ∆.C. . multiple defendants is ok only when jointly & severally liable. (1) Good Faith (a) Reasonableness Calculation (2) Legal Certainty (a) Are there any statutes or regulations that cap certain damages? (b) As a matter of law plaintiff is entitled to damages and the claim is colorable (reasonable). (Same rules as LLP. citizen of a state of which any general or limited partner is a citizen. laws. controls. the business activity.000+ Burden on the challenger to prove as a matter of legal certainty that the complaint cannot exceed the amount.) 4) Amount in Controversy a) “The amount in controversy is determined by the amount claimed by the plaintiff in good faith…and jurisdiction is not lost because a judgment of less than the jurisdictional amount is awarded. 1.

Judgment of a patent’s validity invokes Federal Jurisdiction bc the patent holder could just have easily sought damages or an injunction for the patent’s infringement. the cause of action must come from a federal law. Judgment not been sought. Mottley (RR free pass for life K case) (a) The statute that prohibits the conduct (b) For a Contract: WPC includes. (1) It is not merely enough to allege that an anticipated defense will invalidate the cause of action through some provision of the Constitution or Federal Law. Skelly Oil Co. look to the elements of the claim itself. Because the claim for trade libel was based upon state law.) 1. (ii) Application of WPC rule & Dec. a. there was no federal question jurisdiction. HELD: Where it appears that the plaintiff’s right to relief depends upon the construction or application of the Constitution or laws of the US. iii) Federal Law Central to A State Law Claim (1) Is Federal Law sufficiently central to the asserted state law claim within a well-pleaded complaint? (a) The federal issues must be part of the WPC. it is not the basis for the claim. 2. 2) Breach. and the claims must be part of a well-pleaded complaint. Phillips Petroleum. . 2) Breach. (e) Declaratory Judgment Actions. had the Dec. 1. (a) Plaintiff sues Defendant for trade libel law. Π asserted that such an investment was illegal according to Missouri baking law because the FFLA was unconstitutional. Kansas City Title & Trust  Yes. and although may connect to a Federal issue. v. but must also be a sufficiently central part of the dispute to justify jurisdiction in causes of action over state law claims. Plaintiff alleged Defendant wrongfully accused the plaintiff of infringing Defendant’s patents. Basically Dec.  No Fed. 4) Damages (d) Counterclaims arising under Federal law do not invoke Federal Question Jurisdiction. Judgment action only if the coercive action that would have been necessary. Fed. “A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action. If the complaint contains material beyond that which is necessary to the claim. Q Jurisdiction. ii) Well Pleaded Complaint: A complaint that sets forth only a claim unadorned by anticipated defenses or other extraneous material. 1) there was a K. (i) Smith v. Q Jurisdiction. a. District Courts have jurisdiction. Π brings suit seeking to enjoin trust company from using corporate funds to invest in bonds issued under the Federal Farm Loan Act.” (ii) Moore v. Federal Court will hear a Dec. i) Creation Test (1) American Well Works v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. (b) In other words. 3) Π satisfied K conditions (limited. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. The cause of action arose from the violation Missouri banking laws and that FFLA was unconstitutional i.a) A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action. HELD: The case did not arise under federal law. That is. 3) Causation.” CREATION TEST 2. A tort or breach of contract arises from state law. Q Jurisdiction. (i) The cause of action is libel regarding a federal issue (patent infringement. v. such as diversity or federal question. (i) Declaratory Judgment actions are proper in Federal court under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act only if the cause of action is supported by an independent basis of jurisdiction. Layne & Bower  No Fed.) (c) For Torts: WPC includes 1) there was a Duty. the court will look to only what would have been included if the complaint had been well pled. might have been so brought. Judgment 1.

AND c. Q Jurisdiction. 2. Thompson  No Fed. State law claim necessarily raises a state federal issue. Permits claims that don’t follow the creation test to be tried in federal court if the court decides that the state law claim necessarily raises a stated federal issue. One is claim was negligence per se based on the assertion the drug was misbranded and violated the Federal Food. i. such as anticipatory defenses.C § 1331.1. One of the statutes was the Federal Safety Appliance Act a. or iii) A Federal Law is a Substantial Issue to a State Law Claim. is actually disputed and substantial. ii. (1) A court may exercise Fed Q SMJ for claims that don’t follow the creation test if it is necessary to prove a substantial issue or ingredient of federal law in order to establish of cause of action from a state law claim. Drug & Cosmetic Act. Q Jurisdiction. FOLLOWS CREATION TEST American Well Works line… (iii) Merrel Dow v. a federal issue does not exist merely from a plaintiff’s anticipation that a defendant's possible defense will be a . Π sued under a state employers’ liability act stating that contributory negligence could not bar an employee’s recovery if the employer had violated a statute enacted for the safety of the employees. Q jurisdiction if the federal interest were sufficiently substantial.S. Πs sue over birth defects from ingestion of the drug Bendectin. And the Federal is particular suited to hear the claim 3) Basically… a) SMJ is granted for § 1331when: i) Creation test  The suit arises under a federal law that creates the cause of action. HELD: Defendants may not deviate from assumption that cause of action derives from the state level unless it is proven very obvious that it does not. AND b. As held in Mottley. Inc. v Darue Engineering  Yes. 1. which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. the complaint must be well pleaded. Federal court may entertain the claim without disturbing any congressionally approved balance between federal and state responsibilities. a. Federal Issue is actually disputed and is substantial. (iv) Grable & Sons Metal Products. (Smith is still good law and a state-created claim could invoke Fed.) iii. Majority relied heavily that the Act did not create a private cause of action. 5-4 decision in favor of NO Fed. 2. A suit presents a federal question and passes the creation test by alleging claims stemming from a federal law that creates the cause of action. AND d. FOLLOWS CREATION TEST American Well Works line… v. 1. 4) For Exams: a) Under 28 U. Q Jurisdiction. Obviousness is determined by looking to see how express the language within the statute is to indicate the legislature’s intended purpose. AND ii) Complaint is Well Pleaded  plaintiff’s claims allege the violation of a federal law unadorned by extraneous material. Fed. In addition. (a) Grable Test (i) Raises a federal issue (ii) The Federal Issue is actually disputed and substantial (iii) The Federal forum hearing the claims won’t disturb any legislatively imposed balance between state and federal judicial responsibilities (iv) The Federal forum has expertise in hearing the matter. iv. law and treaties of the US. federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction for civil actions arising under the Constitution. Four Factors: a. meaning that the claims must arise solely from plaintiff’s own cause of action.

(1) After 120 days. Rather. or sometimes. the complaint can be dismissed without prejudice by the court or on motion.) i) Service should be completed at the corporate HQ.) ii) 4(d)(2) Failure to Waive ∆ on the hook for expenses if ∆ fails without good cause to return a waiver request iii) 4(d)(3) Time to Answer after Waiver (1) 60 days to answer after sending in waiver. or 90 days if outside the US iv) 4(d)(4) Results of Filing a Waiver (1) Filing of a waiver eliminates need to prove service of summons. Several factors used to decide if the federal issue is substantially central to the claim are if the claim: i) necessarily raises a stated federal issue. 2) FRCP Rule 12(b)(4)(5)  a) (b)(4) Insufficient Process . V. or ii) 4(e)(2) either: (1) Personal delivery of complaint and summons to the individual (2) Leaving a copy of the complaint & summons at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion (Nat’l Dev. ii) the federal issue is actually disputed and substantial. Waiver implies a summons and complaint had been served at the time of filing the waiver v) 4(d)(5) Jurisdiction & Venue (1) Waiving service of a summons does not waive any objection to PJ or Venue c) Serving an Individual within a Federal District Service can be performed in Federal Court by: i) 4(e)(1) Following Courts of General Jurisdiction (State Court) rules. Π can show good cause for extension ii) 4(c)(2)  By Whom? (1) Person 18 + and not a party to the action must effect service on defendant. as determined in Grable. b) However. the court will disregard any extraneous material within the complaint. Π can request defendant waive service of a summons. (2) If good cause is shown. See A-G for info to be included in request form (at least 30 days to respond to request. claims that don’t follow the creation test may tried in federal court if a federal issue is an essential ingredient to the claim. Co. the state’s incorporation secretary can act as an agent for the corporation to accept service. and iv) the federal court has any expertise necessary to resolve the dispute. NOTICE 1) FRCP Rule 4 a) Service i) 4(c)(1) In compliance with 4(m)(1) Service within 120 days otherwise dismissed without prejudice. and the determination of a federal question will be based solely on the elements needed to make the complaint well pleaded. court must extend time for service to an appropriate period. d) Serving a Corporation (not being covered in class. iii) 4(m) Time limit for Service: A defendant must be served within 120 days after the complaint is filed.reliance on a federal statute. iii) the federal forum hearing the claims won’t disturb any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. 60 if outside the court’s jurisdiction. v. i) Application on the Creation test and WPC Rule. b) Waiver i) 4(d)(1) Request for Waiver ∆ is under a duty to avoid unnecessary costs. and also part of the WPC. Triad) (3) Delivering a copy of the complaint & summons to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service.

” VI. In other words.. (2) Notice must be reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the litigation. under Mullane. listed in a bail application… (b) Khashoggi was living at the apt at the time service was made and. At most it was occasional. v Triad Holding Corp.b) (b)(5) Insufficient Service of Process 3) Constitutional Requirement a) Mullane i) Central Bank Petitioned for a judicial settlement of a trust and provided notice by publication to everyone in the trust. 1) “Doing Business Test” a) Under § 301. (a) Basically the best notice practical under the circumstances. (a) “Khashoggi owned an furnished the apt. if a state court has personal jurisdiction. spent considerable money remodeling it. property or status as might have been exercised heretofore. GENERAL JURISDICTION NY LONG ARM STATUTE § 301 . PROPERTY OR STATUS § A Court my exercise such jurisdiction over persons. (1) Solicitation needs to be substantial and carried on with a considerable measure of continuity and from a permanent locale within the state 2) “Heretofore” also allows for general jurisdiction under the 4 traditional methods. P 245 FCRP RULE 4(K)2 1) When only on Fed Q SMJ. (1) Notice by publication fails to comply with due process where the names and addresses of the parties are known. provided each contains sufficient indicia or permanence. a federal court located in the same state will as well. PJ for contacts within the entire country can provide basis for PJ for foreign residents. 4) Statutory Requirement a) Nat’l Dev. a non-domiciliary is subject to NY personal jurisdiction when engaged in a continuous and systematic course of doing business so as to warrant a finding of presence in NY. i) Sending a cease and desist letter to Beacon and selling an unspecified number of mail-order products are insufficient to satisfy § 301. but with a fair measure of permanence & continuity. could “reasonably [be] calculated to provide actual notice of the action. 2) “[A] federal court has personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant only if the state in which that federal court sits would have personal jurisdiction. i) What is a dwelling or usual place of abode sufficient for notice & service under FRCP 4(e)(2)? (1) There is nothing startling in the conclusion that a person can have two or more dwelling houses or usual places of abode. Co. PERSONAL JURISDICTION FCRP RULE 4(K)1 1) Federal Courts have no more authority to assert PJ than the state in which it sits. Doing Business in NY means to conduct business not occasionally or casually.JURISDICTION OVER PERSONS. a) Consent i) Express voluntary submission to the power of the court by answering the complaint .” Freer. Beacon.

Owns. in the state. regardless of where it was signed. b) Residence c) Presence & Service (Burnhan) i) Corporations cannot be tagged and served because corporations d) Quasi In rem i) Pennoyer ii) Schaffer SPECIFIC JURISDICTION NY LONG ARM STATUTE § 302 . but there is no sufficient nexus between the shipment of goods and Beacon’s cause of action. except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the state. Basically Is there a connection? b) Beacon i) The sale of goods through the mail may be enough to satisfy § 302(a)(1). and generating sales between Olympus’ NY head quarters and Cisco’s customers outside the state. or 4. a court my exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary. or 3. Pawloski Court upholds the Massachusetts statute that PJ can be acquired by implied consent by driving through the state. (1) “A single act may constitute a transaction within the ambit of the long-arm statute…so long as the ∆’s activities were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim. ii) First Requirement: Transaction of business within the state. MVA registrar is appointed as agent to accept service. (1) Nexus = connection. except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act. (1) The foreign defendant’s transaction of business in NY must bear a substantial relationship to the transaction out of which the instant cause of action arose. the execution of an employment agreement. Commits a tortious act within the state. or (ii) Expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.Transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state: or a) Opticare: Nexus between the cause of action and doing business in the state i) Cause of action must be related to the business the non-domiciliary conducts in the state. was sufficient to create a substantial relationship.” (a) As in Opticare. in Parke purchasing paintings by telephone at auction and not paying for them was enough to be considered engaging in purposeful activity (c) In Olympus.ii) Implied (1) Hess v. or his executor or administrator. ∆ generated a stream of local commerce from which he earned his livelihood from attending trade shows in NY. iii) Second Requirement: The cause of action sued upon must arise out of the transaction. § 302 APPLICATION 1) § 302(a)(1) . who in person or through an agent: 1. Transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state: or 2. As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section. uses or possesses any real property situated within the state. or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered. Though they sold products outside of NY. their activities affected commerce in NY. if (i) Regularly does or solicits business or engages in any other persistent course of conduct. Commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or property within the state.PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY ACTS OF NON- DOMICILARIES § (a) Acts which are the basis of Jurisdiction. . (b) Similarly.

(Pennoyer). even though no consent to be sued or authorization to an agent to accept service of process has been given. offices. THERE IS NO JURISDICTION. but also give rise to the liabilities sued on. b) 302(a)(3)(ii) – Should one expect or reasonably expect the acts to have consequences in the state? Factual analysis i) Were the effects felt? Keeton v. yet with no authority to make a sale or accept money. the property must now be related in part to the action (Schaffer). c) Rules and Application i) Box I Rule A court always has GENERAL JURISDICTION when a cause of action arises from defendant’s contacts within the state and defendant has continuous and systematic activities within the state. the state has Constitutional grounds of PJ. (2) Continuous & Systematic Contacts: (a) Individuals  Pretty much. Hustler articulating the Effects Test. Residency status (domicile + intent to remain).(a) 302 is typically invoked for a cause of action against a defendant who breaches a contract with plaintiff. and consent. b) If the defendant owns property in the state and the property is the subject of the cause of action. 2) § 302(a)(2) – Tortious action within the state a) Factual analysis 3) § 302(a)(3) – Tortious action without the state causing injury inside the state. both express and implied (Hess).) a) The traditional bases for PJ that comply with Due Process are presence within the state (Pennoyer aff’d in Burnham). In rem action. using or possession any real property within the state IF THERES NOTHING THAT CAN BE USED ABOVE. AND a) 302(a)(3)(i) – Is there a substantial amount of revenue received from commerce within the state? Factual analysis. (1) “‘Presence in the state in this sense has never been doubted when the activities of the corporation there have not only been continuous and systematic. (i) The cease and desist letter led to the creation of controversy out of which the action started. IF THE STATUTE APPEARS TO HAVE JURSIDCITION. The letter did not invoke the benefits and protections of NY law. 2) Minimum Contacts – Are the quality and nature of the contacts with the forum state sufficient such that exercising jurisdiction over a non-resident would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice? Int’l Shoe. ANALYSIS CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS 1) Traditional Forms – (No need to bring back up if already discussed under statutory analysis. ONTO THE CONST.” Int’l Shoe. i) Look to the facts to see what could be alleged in complaint to support evidence of substantial revenue. 4) § 302(a)(4) – Factual analysis of facts regarding owning. Company failed to pay taxes on the sales from those employees’ actions. etc… . Modern view. (a) Int’l Shoe Yes. General Jurisdiction (i) 13 employees selling products of the company over a number of years. residence… (b) Business  Int’l Shoe – Employees. c) Attaching property owned by the defendant to the summons when the property isn’t related to the cause of action was sufficient to assert PJ. but the action does not arise from the letter. a) Can the court exercise jurisdiction over non-residents within the limits of the constitution? b) The supreme court has given a series of tests: i) Rule statement for the test as identified in Int’l Shoe.

drew paycheck. then you’ll have to report to the court. (1) “Finally. Denkla No Jurisdiction. was occupied by the Japanese.” a. (b) Perkins v. or No Specific Jurisdiction (i) ∆ (Delaware bank) was a trustee of a trust.. single solicitation of reinsurance. a MA Corp. 1. Basically If you make money of the citizens of a state. sold to valves to a Pennsylvania company. Specific Jurisdiction (IL Sup. but moved to Florida by its creator .” Int’l Shoe. Injury caused by defective roof installation in VT. $1 Million). (d) Burger King Yes. What was ∆’s intent? (a) Bryant v. hosted meetings with the company’s directors…) iii) Box III Rule A court may have SPECIFIC JURISDICTION when the cause of action arises from defendant’s contacts within the state and the defendant has isolated or casual activities with the state. American Radiator  Yes. Important to note. Specific Jurisdiction. Specific Jurisdiction (i) ∆. Airline maintained small office in NY with seven employees. (2) Is it reasonable to anticipate litigation in this jurisdiction in connection with this tortious act/contact breach? Focus on the quality of the contacts and the cause of action. (2) Is it reasonable to anticipate litigation in this jurisdiction in connection with this tortious act/contact breach? Focus on the quality of the contacts and the cause of action. indirect benefit sufficient to “hold it answerable. Specific Jurisdiction (i) Franchise contract with Burger King. Twin State Yes. even when it arises outside the state. (b) McGee Yes. Rationale: Defendant sold its products for use in other states. (The far end of what it is “enough” to consider SJ) (i) Defendant (Texas life insurance company) purchased an Arizona life insurance company with one policyholder in California. Rationale: Life insurance company made a voluntary contractual relationship with grieving mother of California resident (c) Gray v. (1) “[T]here have been instances in which the continuous corporate operations within a state were thought so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities. and caused explosion in Illinois – No evidence Δ dealt directly with Illinois. Made no sales but handled publicity work. although the commission of some single or occasional acts of the corporate agent in a state sufficient to impose an obligation or liability on the corporation has not been thought to confer upon the state authority to enforce it…other such acts. RUN means. Factually. What was ∆’s intent? (a) Smyth v.ii) Box II Rule A court may have GENERAL JURISDICTION when the cause of action arises outside defendant’s contacts within the state only if defendant has continuous and systematic activities within the state.. ∆ is a sophisticated accountant 1. installed one roof in Vermont. events in both states. 1. Benguet Consolidate Mining Company Yes. a radiator valve manufacturer in Ohio. 1. may be deemed sufficient to render the corporation liable to suit.” Int’l Shoe. General Jurisdiction (i) Plaintiff was hurt at Paris airport. maintained bank accounts. The trust was created in Pennsylvania. but at least some elements of the cause of action (damage) arose within the forum state (Florida) (e) Hanson v. NOT SCOTUS!!!) (i) ∆. the company was RUN in Ohio during the period the foreign corp. General Jurisdiction (i) The daily management of a foreign corporation by its president residing in Ohio is sufficiently substantial and of such a nature to permit the state to entertain a cause of action. Finnish National Airlines Yes. Ct. a Florida corporation with its headquarters in Florida (20 years. because of their nature and quality and the circumstances of their commission.

∆ negotiated and bought $9M helicopter in Texas. from OK residents. (f) World-Wide VW No Specific Jurisdiction (i) WWVW is a local VW dealership in upstate NY. Sent payments by check through Texas. Burden on the Defendant 2.) (e) Daimler No Jurisdiction . (d) Goodyear Dunlop No Jurisdiction (i) Wrongful death suit. France. The plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief 4. Defendant has distributor in US. Sold an Audi involved in a crash in OK. 2 boys die in bus accident near Paris. McIntyre No Specific Jurisdiction (i) Π’s fingers were cut off from a machine that defendant manufactured abroad. The shared interest of the several State in furthering fundamental substantive social policies (h) J. (g) Asahi No Specific Jurisdiction (i) Brennan’s theory Stream of Commerce 1. (ii) O’Connor’s Theory Stream of Commerce PLUS 1. (ii) “The foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis is not the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum state. it is that the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. trained its pilots in Texas.” Int’l Shoe. Cooper No Jurisdiction (i) Solicitation of mail orders and promotional agents in South Carolina. Neither the explosion nor the manufacturing took place in California. Goodyear Turkey. Rather. There is a contact with the forum state when there is a reasonable anticipation that your product will get to the state PLUS an intent to serve the state (iii) Burdens: 1. Reasoning: Unilateral third-party act. Passengers injured and claimed product liability and sought to bring dealership into OK court. There is a contact with the forum state when a product is placed into the stream of commerce with a reasonable anticipation it would get to the forum state. (b) Ratliff v. Therefore would be unreasonable to subject the seller to a suit if the car was the source of injury. The interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution or controversies 5. Luxembourg. iv) Box IV Rule A court NEVER HAS JURISDICTION when the cause of action arises outside defendant’s contacts within the state and the defendant has isolated or casual activities within the state. However the sale of the car did not serve the OK market because the car was sold in NY and was not directed to derive a benefit. etc. Drugs purchased and consumed in other states led to birth defect. No Jurisdiction (i) Gas explosion in Idaho caused by defect manufacturing at IL factory. (a) Fisher Governor Co. can’t find that defendants “purposefully availed” themselves of benefits of doing business in Florida.” (iii) Basically It is foreseeable for a car to wind up in a state otherwise than where it was sold. Goodyear. Π sues Ohio Company and subsidiaries. financial or otherwise. The interests of the forum State 3. There was one employee in California. The existence of one distributor that places goods into the stream of commerce with the expectation they will be purchased is not enough to satisfy jurisdiction. (c) Helicopteros No Jurisdiction (i) Helicopter crash in Peruvian mountains. (1) “Conversely it has been generally recognized that the casual presence of the corporate agent or even his conduct of single or isolated items of contacts with a state in the corporation’s behalf are not enough to subject it to suit on causes of action unconnected with the activities there.1. 1.

Woodson. f) Reasonableness and Fairness Under Asahi & WVW v. VENUE 1) Is the current district court proper? .(i) At Home Test (ii) California follows the constitutional basis d) Cause of Action i) Arises from Contacts or Separate from Contacts (1) Referring to the analysis done under the long arm statute. the cause of Action does/does not arise from defendant’s contacts within the state. property] [occurred/is located] [within/outside] the forum state iii) Based on this. i) Here. the state’s interest in protecting it’s residence. yet is still subject to burdens and interests factors such as the defendant’s burden to litigate. and the plaintiff’s interest in the case. they are the same quality and nature as compared to [CASE COMPARISON] where… ii) The cause of action [arises/does not arise] out of defendant’s contacts with the forum state because. sporadic or isolated] contacts. To determine if the exercise of jurisdiction is constitutional. A court [may/always/never] have [specific/general] jurisdiction over a defendant when the cause of action [arises/does not arise] from the defendant’s contacts with the forum state and the defendant has [continuous and systematic/isolated. the defendant’s contacts with the state are [BLANK]. i) Last. the judicial system’s ability to effectively hear the case. ii) Burdens and Interests factors (1) Plaintiff’s Interests (2) Defendant’s interests (3) Judicial Interest (a) Efficacy of litigation within the forum state (4) Interest in State/Public Policy (5) Multi-state shared interest In Substantive Policy 3) For Exams a) A finding of statutory long arm jurisdiction must still be within the bounds of the constitution. e) Specific/General Jurisdiction i) Because Personal Jurisdiction can only be gained through General or Specific Jurisdiction. it appears the court has General/Specific Jurisdiction over Defendant. This exercise of jurisdiction is foreseeable/not foreseeable] because it is [reasonable/unreasonable] for the defendant to anticipate being haled into court in light of the burdens and interest on the parties. the [tortious act. (2) If no long arm. contract breach. there is [specific/general/no] jurisdiction. VII. if Specific/General jurisdiction is found. and in light of the [continuous & systematic/casual. we ask if the quality and nature of the contacts with the forum state are sufficient such that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. This exercise of jurisdiction must be such that it would be foreseeable for the defendant to anticipate being haled into court. sporadic or casual] activities with the state. jurisdiction is still subject to reasonableness/fairness. This qualifies as [continuous and systematic/isolated or casual] because. (1) The court must weigh and balance the reasonableness factors (a) Interest of the plaintiff (b) Burden on the defendant (c) State’s interest (d) Judiciary’s ability to efficiently hear the case (e) Interstate bullshit.

1. or i) Basically. (a) Rule 8(a) requires the complaint to contain a short plain statement of the claim showing plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. b) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. then all elements of the K claim must be pled with factual sufficiency. (i) The standard calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the claim. Two principles: (i) Court must still accept as true all allegations contained in the complaint. however… (b) Iqbal – Reaffirms Twombly and extends the standard to all civil cases in Federal Court. but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. then litigation can continue. Originally this case was just about antitrust claims. (b) However Conley clarifies factual sufficiency by saying that the function of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. VIII. or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated. the test is: Did a substantial portion of the cause of action arise within the forum? (1) Protect defendant’s against unfair or inconvenient trial locations (2) Location of evidence & witnesses (3) Federal Judge’s familiarity with the statute in question (4) Π’s convenience is not a relevant factor (5) It is rare for there to be more than one district in which a claim can be said to arise. if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located. . Generally – a civil action may be brought in: a) a judicial district in which any defendant resides. ii) Factual Sufficiency (1) Notice Pleading Federal pleading rules generally require only that a pleader put the other side on notice of the claim being asserted.2) 28 USC § 1391 Venue. It does not require a heightened fact pleading of specifics. detailed assertions of facts of the underlying claim are not required. MOTIONS. (c) The factual allegations of a complaint must cover all elements of the claim. c) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section. will the law provide a legal remedy? (a) If the answer is yes. ANSWERS & REPLIES PLEADINGS & STANDARDS 1) Rule 8a a) A pleading requires: i) Short & plain statement of the court’s jurisdiction ii) Short & plain statement of the claim iii) Prayer for relief b) Short and Plain statement of the claim i) Legal Sufficiency (1) If all the facts within the complaint are assumed to be true. but that tenet doesn’t apply to legal conclusion. any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. If there is a claim arising form a contract. PLEADINGS & STANDARDS. (i) In how much detail must they be pled… (2) Plausibility Standard (a) Twombly – Retires the Conely no-set-of-facts requirement. COUNTERCLAIMS. Dioguardi.

(iv) Swanson – CA7 case. plead a C/A for Negligent infliction of emotional distress. Leatherman a) Reaffirms the Conley notice pleading standard. Perhaps one reason to have the plausibility standard is to ensure discovery and litigation is reserved for those who need it. Failure to do so is a waiver. file a motion and raise any or all of the following defenses Rule 12(B): i) Rule 12(B)(1) Lack of SMJ (1) Can be raised at anytime. even on appeal. and at the same time. not. HEIGHTENED PLEADING STANDARD – Rule 9 1) A heightened pleading standard is not imposed on civil rights liabilities under 42 U. religion or national origin. It provides that in all averments of fraud or mistake. than litigation can continue. but rather a sufficient articulation of the plausibility of the claim. “To prevail on that theory. Could these things have happened.” (iii) Simplified version of Twombly & Iqbal Not a heightened pleading standard. the circumstance constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity… i) A party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud and mistake (1) There is a higher burden of proof with fraud and mistake (clear and convincing evidence) so must plead with more facts and particularity because claims like fraud are so stigmatizing (2) Special Damages: must be specifically stated 2) Pleading Inconsistent Facts and Alternative Theories . ii) Rule 12(b)(2) Lack of PJ (1) Must raise at the time the first motion or answer is filed – whichever is first. and prayer for relief). b) However. Rule 9(b) does impose a particularity requirement in two specific instances.(ii) Only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief will survive a motion to dismiss and determining whether a complaint states plausible claim for relief will be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. 1. the complaint must contain facts plausibly showing that petitioners purposefully adopted a policy of classifying post-Sept 11 detainees as “of high interest” because of their race. Still good law.Rule 8(d)(3) a) A party may set out as many separate claims or defenses it may have regardless of consistency. iii) Rule 12(b)(3) Improper Venue (1) Must raise at the time the first motion or answer is filed – whichever is first. § 1983. 1.) c) Basically: i) Does the complaint conform with Rule 8(a) (short and plain statement of the court’s jurisdiction. ii) If all the facts within the complaint are assumed to be true. . iii) Does the complaint give fair notice to the defendant about what it is she is being sued for? All elements of the claim present? (1) If yes.: a complaint can plead a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. did they happen? 2. litigation can continue. if he chooses. the defendant may. This the complaint fails to do. short and plain statement of the claim. (v) Plausibility standard is not a probability requirement (vi) The plaintiff must give enough details about the subject matter of the case to present a story that holds together. litigation can continue. Failure to do so is a waiver.C. (Discovery is expensive. will the law provide a legal remedy? (1) If yes.g. i) It is permissible to plead inconsistent facts (1) E.S. PRE-ANSWER MOTIONS – Rule 12 1) Pre-Answer Motions a) Prior to filing an answer. and (1) If yes.

etc. vi) Rule 12(b)(6) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (i. 2) Time a) If NO Rule 12 motion is made. Rule 8(c) i) E. or admissions and any affirmative defenses a) The answer must contain a specific denial or admission of each averment (allegation of fact or claim in the pleading) or general denial with specific admissions to certain averments. § 1367: If the original complaint is based solely on diversity jurisdiction.C. b) Asserted by pleading in the answer to a complaint or a reply to a previously asserted counterclaim. failure of consideration.C. and a responsive pleading is required. a permissive counter claim must satisfy either diversity or federal question on its own. i) Because they do not arise out of same transaction or occurrence. statute of limitations. Failure to do so is a waiver. statute of frauds. Failure to do so is a waiver. xiii. See 28 U.S. res judicata.S. a) Must be asserted in the pleading or they are waived. v) Rule 12(b)(5) Insufficient service of process (1) Must raise at the time the first motion or answer is filed – whichever is first.g. supplemental jurisdiction is tricky…must be able to get into federal court on its own two feet meaning diversity or federal question ii) 28 U. b) Failure to assert in pleadings: does not bar permissible counter claim and it may be asserted at a later date. pleasers have only three options i) Admit ii) Deny iii) State lack of knowledge or information necessary to admit or deny (1) Where defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to for a belief. a statement to that effect constitutes a denial c) A failure to deny constitutes an admission d) The answer also must contain any affirmative defenses. waiver. ones that do not satisfy federal question or diversity nevertheless usually meet the requirements for supplemental jurisdiction.e. duress. a) Must satisfy requirements of SMJ.Rule 13(b): any other counterclaim is permissive and may be asserted even though there is no connection at all between it an the plaintiff’s claim. Rule 8(b) b) In other words when an allegation had been asserted against them. relief could not be granted) (1) 12(b)(6) can be brought at anytime prior to trial. and the court doesn’t fix another time. responsive pleading (answer) must be served within 14 days of court’s denial or postponement of the motion c) A defendant to whom complaint was mailed and who waived formal service must answer within 60 days after request for wavier has been mailed 3) Effect of Failure to Answer a) Default Judgment COUNTERCLAIMS 1) Compulsory Counterclaim . contributory negligence. 2) Permissive Counterclaims . vii) Rule 12(b)(7) Failure to join a party needed for just adjudication (1) 12(b)(7) can be brought at anytime prior to trial. it is a compulsory counterclaim and must be pleaded or it will be barred.Rule 13(a): If a counterclaim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as one of the plaintiff’s claims.Rule 7 1) A reply by the plaintiff to defendant’s answer is required only if court orders plaintiff to file a reply . i) Because compulsory counterclaims must arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s claim. ANSWER 1) Must contain denials. fraud. § 1367. a defendant who was formally served with a summons and complaint must serve and answer with in 21 days after service b) If Rule 12 motion is made. even if plaintiff’s allegation are true. at sec.iv) Rule 12(b)(4) Insufficient process (1) Must raise at the time the first motion or answer is filed – whichever is first. estoppel. REPLIES . illegality. c) Must satisfy SMJ.

a pleading may be amended only by written consent of adverse party or by leave of court upon motion 4) Unless the court orders otherwise. any required response to an amended pleasing must be made within time reaming for responding to the original pleading or within 14 days of the amended pleading." b) If there is no issue of material fact.a) Plaintiff need not replay to affirmative defenses and is deemed to deny the allegation Rule 12 AMENDMENT AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING .Rule 41(a) a) Without a court order – within a certain time b) With a court order – after a certain time. or that the contrary evidence makes so that the party can't meet its burden of proof. SUMMARY JUDGMENT & DIRECTED VERDICTS 1) Rule 56  SJ a) There's only one summary-judgment standard and it's right in Rule 56(a): "The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In cases with a higher burden of proof. must have leave from court. a motion may be filed seeking leave of the court to amend. DISMISSAL – Rule 41 1) Voluntary Dismissal . DISCOVERY 1) Rule 11 Sanctions! Not to be tested on final..Rule 41(b) a) Except as otherwise noted. Rule 15(a) directs the court to i) Grant leave to amend “when justice so requires” ii) Burden is on the opposing party to show the motion to amend should not be permitted 6) Some courts will hold where a complaint’s deficiency could be cured by amendment the court must grant leave. then a court may grant summary judgment.g. IX. 2) Involuntary Dismissal . 2) Rule 50  JMOL . clear and convincing evidence) and how that impacts whether there is a "genuine dispute" as to material facts. c) What the cases discuss is what happens in the event of a higher evidentiary burden (e.RULE 15 1) A pleading may be amended once within 21 days of serving it 2) If pleading is a complaint (one to which an answer if required) it may be amended with in 21 days of a) Service of the answer or b) Service of 12(b) motion c) Which ever is first 3) Other amendments: thereafter. 2) Rule 26  Interrogatories and Discovery Requests X. which ever is later 5) Granting Motions to Amend after 21days a) Only with opposing parties consent. If consent is given there is no need to get court’s permission b) Leave of Court: if amendment can’t be filed as right (with in 21 days) and the opposing party does not consent. it may be that a reasonable jury could not find that a party meets its burden of proof with the evidence it has. a plaintiff who fails to prosecute may have the complaint involuntarily dismissed with prejudice.

Wears new costume and breaks back during performance while traveling in IL. Shady Grove. apply Federal law. its constitutional because there has never been rule declared unconstitutional. Hanna. FRE. the Federal Law is on point. (i) Applies to FRCP. (1) Valid (a) Rules Enabling Act: If there is a federal directive on point. it would make it outcome determinative.XI. If procedural. no Eerie Issue. is there a federal directive on point? i) The federal law is on point if it’s valid and intended to cover the issue. Stevens Purpose of the rule. b) FRCP 35 – right to independent medical examiner v. then… b) To determine if it’s substantive: i) Is it outcome determinative? (1) Will the law change the outcome of the case? (a) Statute of Limitations is always substantive. 2) What happens if there is a conflict between the state and federal law? a) Is the law substantive or procedural? If substantive. We apply NY law. (Ginsberg dissent) iii) Step 3: Assuming it’s on point. it’s the state in which the tort happened. ii) Is the law an element of the claim? (1) Elements of the claim need to be proved and absent that proof. ii) Step 2: Is the Federal rule on point to cover (1) Shady Grove: Scalia Text of the rule v. Correct states. Benson hires Joe for acrobatics. 3) Should we apply the state or Federal law? a) To determine if procedural ask. Joe sues in NY. the Byrd balancing test i) How outcome determinative is it? ii) Is there Federal interest in uniformity? (1) In other words. We’re already discussing Federal Law. (a) Mini dispute here is if the tort happened where the injury happened or where he was give the defective costume. c) If still not clear. but NY law says to apply the law where the tort happened. iii) If no. Guaranteed Trust.WHAT LAW APPLIES IN FEDERAL COURT? 1) In Diversity or Supplemental jurisdiction. the case’ can’t be proved. i) In NY. CT Rule that says right to privacy. (1) We are in NY Federal Court. EERIE DOCTRINE . PRECLUSION DOCTRINES . etc… (2) Intended Purpose (a) Legislature’s intent was designed to cover the issue and the rule is broad enough to cover the issue. ii) In K. (b) Text of the Rule v. Klaxson. ii) If the answer is yes. or unclear.) a) Federal Court applies the law of the state court in which it sits. c) Conflict between Rule 35 and CT rule that says Privacy i) Step 1: Klaxson. iv) Step 4: Does following Federal Rule lead to forum shopping? v) Step 5: Outcome Determinative Test XII. apply state law. Since we’re analyzing CT v Federal. if it’s a tort. which state law applies? (If Fed Q. Purpose of the Rule. The analysis is done. (b) FRCP is (always) procedural. assume the tort happens in CT. So CT. Benson CT. will it lead to forum shopping? (2) Would it be inequitable to administer the federal law? 4) Hypo – from small review session a) Facts: Joe NY. is the rule on point is it valid. its choice of law in the K.

iii) R2d of Judgments 24 Transactional approach. Final. Carter v. City of Maple Heights. a) Same claim i) Majority property and PI must all bring the same claims (1) If a claim that comes from the same tort is not brought with the first case. (1) Are the claims closely connected in “time. Improper venue 3. Contributory negligence wasn’t essential because Davis could have . AND final. Hinkle.CLAIM PRECLUSION – Res Judicata 1) When is a previous lawsuit going to preclude future claims? Three Part test. origin. c) Essential  If the case was litigated again. There is a final order from the court. that’s a judgment on the merits (i) 41b Exceptions 1. a) Valid. so it would be unfair to the plaintiff for them to try to support all of their claims in a single action. if the defendants was incentivized to litigate. and if there are new procedural opportunities. litigated and determined. ISSUE PRECLUSION – Collateral Estoppel 1) When is a previous lawsuit going to preclude future issues? 2) Once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment. or motivation. if there are prior inconsistent judgments. (a) It would be more efficient and expedient to litigate in one suit. but not required. iii) Interpleader claims not ruled out. it will be precluded from the second case Rush v. i) Rios v. ii) Minority these are two separate COAs they have separate elements and therefore are different and warrant a different claim. it would be decided the same way. Valid judgments on the merits (can trigger and Eerie issue) i) Valid was there PJ SMJ and Notice? (1) Needs a basis of power to hear the first case ii) Final (1) No appeal pending. 2) A claim will be precluded when it is the same claim or claims. 3) An issue will be precluded when it’s a final. (a) Plaintiff therefore is permitted to bring a separate action. Same transaction or occurrence. c) Final. that decision precludes relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case. PJ 2. (1) Different evidence may be required to support the separate claims. Failure to join a party  could present an Eerie analysis for Rule 20. Those who can raise issue preclusion are traditionally only the two original parties but the modern rule is IP can be raised so long as one of the parties was a party in the first action. could the form a convenient unit for trial purposes b) s i) Same identical parties ii) Compulsory counterclaim Rule 13 would be ruled out. Davis. Would depend on if NJ would apply NY rules of state civil procedure. iii) Merits (1) If the first case was dismissed on the merits (a) Elements  yes (b) Rule 41b says if dismissed with prejudice. valid judgment on the merits. valid judgment on the merits. and essential to a claim.” and (2) If taken together. space. AND same party or party in privity. Further a defendant’s successful raise of issue preclusion against a separate plaintiff will depend on four fairness factors such if the π could have intervened. Judgment on the Merits i) Same as claim preclusions b) Same issue litigated & determined i) Litigated  Means actually litigated ii) Determined  judge has made a ruling and determination.

19. that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party in the first case. the plaintiff should have joined the first case. (b) P v. or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19.C. It P2 waits to see how the first case plays out so he can bring a second case and he knows he’s going to win. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION . b. when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of § 1332 (diversity).(1) Think. . ii) Non-Mutual Offense of Issue Preclusion (1) Allows the second defendant to assert issue preclusion. Federal courts won’t have jurisdiction over claims against joined or impleaded parties if doing so would break complete diversity. c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if— 1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law. Not a due process requirement and is not rooted in due process at all so it can be changed. If it’s exactly the same issue. Necessary: Once a court has decided an issue of law or fact necessary to it’s judgment. Park Lane factors. a. (a) P v. In other words. the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14. If it’s the exact same issue. D and D wins. Are there multiple. plaintiff should have joined the second defendant. D2 (i) Can a separate defendant estop the plaintiff by raising issue preclusion? 1. b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on diversity jurisdiction. Should this be allowed? Courts are worried about free riders. Are there any procedural opportunities available to defendant in the second suit that were not available in the first? XIII. the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. it’s an issue of fairness. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties. The biggest development has been the evolution of non-mutual preclusion. or 24. § 1367 a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute.28 USC § 1367 AND JOINDER OF PARTIES AND CLAIMS 28 U. in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction. a) Doctrine of Mutuality  Traditional view i) Only people who can sue are the people who would be bound by the judgment in case 1. Fed Q only – 4 fairness factors to determine validity of the Offensive Non-Mutual Collateral Estoppel: IIPP i.S. (1) Same plaintiff against same defendant (a) Old view. Did defendant have incentive to litigate the first action? iii. b) Non-Mutual Doctrines i) Non-Mutual Defense of Issue Preclusion (1) Allows the second defendant to assert issue preclusion. 20. (a) P v D and D loses (b) P2 v D (i) Can a separate plaintiff assert same claim against the same defendant? 1. a. Could the party trying to assert Collateral Estoppel have intervened in the earlier suit? ii. or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule. prior inconsistent judgments? iv. 4) Who can Raise IP? Due process says you can only assert if the party was a party in case 1.

there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.: Federal Age Discrimination & Contract Breach. 3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 1) Rule 13(g) – Cross claims a) A pleading may state as a cross claim any claim against a co-party. or 4) in exceptional circumstances. JOINDER OF PARTIES – Rule 14. counterclaim.) (1) Plaintiff sues defendant for violation of a Federal law & for a state law claim. 15. Parties are not diverse. 22 & 24 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Rule 14 Rule 15 Rule 20 Rule 22 Rule 24 . 5) When a plaintiff brings a suit that invokes federal subject matter jurisdiction. 1. cross-claim. the Federal Court can hear other claims arising out of the “same nucleus of operative fact. i) 2) Rule 18 – Joinder of Claims a) A party asserting a claim. which is the same nucleus of operative fact. The K breach claim is proper because the breach and discrimination both arise from the termination of employment. a) Pendent Jurisdiction & the Gibbs Tests i) So long as the plaintiff asserts a proper claim based on Fed Q or diversity. ii) Just because they can hear the case doesn’t mean they’re required to do so. (a) The state law claim is proper if both claims are based on the same dispute (i) E.2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction. The dismissal of a worker based on age can be a Fed Age Discrimination case and also K breach at the same time. a Federal Court can choose to hear a cause of action that is normally reserved for a court of general jurisdiction only when that C/A so closely relates to the underlying dispute as to constitute part of the same case or controversy.g. Basis of SMJ is Fed Q. 20. (1) Does it make sense for the court to hear the case? (a) Look at the § 1367(c)(1-4) JOINDER OF CLAIMS – Rule 13 & 18 For joinder of compulsory and permissive counterclaims. if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or counter claim.” (Gibbs. see Rule 13(a) & (b) in sec. or third-party claim may join…as many claims as it has against an opposing party. vii.