You are on page 1of 9

Notice

[
FRCP4
]
Hasnoticefailed?
Timing Form

before
Notice deprivationofrights Reasonablecalculationunder
circumstances[ Mullane
]*constructive
Inlightofthemethod,were
Reasonablealternativesconsidered
basedonthecontextofthesuit?
Greene
[ ]
Ifthemethodofnoticewas
ineffective,werereasonablesteps
takentogivetheDactualnotice?
Jones
[ ]

PersonalJurisdiction
Whichstatecanyousuein?
Canyouexercisejurisdictionoverdefendantinthatparticularstate?

1. Lookatstates
longarmstatute
toseeifthereisjurisdictionover
defendant?[EVENIFTHEREISCONTINUEWITHA
CONSTITUTIONALANALYSIS]
2. Isthere
general
jurisdiction?[morecontact;lessrelatedness](Goodyear;Helicopteros;Perkins;
Daimler ]
a. CorporationAnalysis
i. Continuousandsystematicastorenderathome?
1. Istheirprincipleplaceofbusinessinthestate,wishingtoexercise
jurisdiction?Isthebusinessincorporatedintheforumstate?
b. Individual
Analysis
i. Istheindividualdomiciledinthestate?[Mas]
1. Residence?
2. Intenttoremain?(votersregistration,driverslicenses,statetaxpayment,
mortgage,etc.)
3. Isthere
specificjurisdiction?
a. MinimumContacts
i. Purposeful
availmentDidthedefendantpurposefullyavailthemselvesofthe
lawsandbenefitsofthatstate?
1. Streamofcommerce McGree
[ Hanson
, WorldWideVolkswagen
, Asahi
, ,
Keeton Calder
, ]

a. Wastherearegular flowofsales bythedefendantintheforumstate?


[ifpresentitwillbeinfactpattern]
b. Weresalespurposefullydirectedtowardsthestate?
i. AdditionalFactors(FlowofSalesPLUS)
1. Designforproductinforumstate?
2. Agentstargetingtheforumstate?
3. Advertisinginthestate?
4. Customerserviceinthatstate?
2. Libel[Keeton Calder
, ]
a. Wheredoestheproductexitthe chainofdistribution [disseminated]?
i. Assessthedistributionoftheproduct[ Keeton ]
ii. Assessintentbehindinjury(targetofinjury)[ Calder]
1. Istheforumstatesomehowtargeted/focusedonby
defendant?
3. Contracts [BurgerKing ]
a. PriorNegotiations
b. CourseofDealing
c. TermsofContract
d. ContemplatedFutureConsequences
4. Consent:
5. ForumSelection CarnivalCruises
[ ]
6. Property [Shaffer]
a. quasi/inremjurisdiction
7. Presence [Burnham ]
b. Foreseeability:Wouldthedefendantreasonably
anticipatelitigationinthisstate?
c. Doesthenatureofthesuitarisefromcontactsintheforumstate?
d. Reasonableness/FairnessFactors
i. Burdenonthedefendant
ii. Affordingtheplaintiffaneffectiveandconvenientforum
iii. Theforumstatesinterestinadjudicatingthecase
1. Whywouldthestatewanttoadjudicatethedisputehere?
iv. Theinterestoftheinterstatejudicialsysteminefficientresolutionofdisputes
1. Whereisthebulkofrelevantevidenceandwitnesseslocated?
v. Thesharedinterestsofseveralstatesineffectuatingtheirsubstantivepolicies?
1. Isthereasocialpolicyinterestinadjudicatingthedispute?(Ex:protecting
welfareofchildren)

SubjectMatterJurisdiction
Doesthefederalcourtshavejurisdiction?
1. Diversity:1332
2. FederalQuestion

1. Diversity

a. Completediversity:claimantsfromdifferentstates
i. Acorporation'sprincipalplaceofbusiness,forfederaldiversityjurisdiction
purposes,referstotheplacewherethecorporationshighlevelofficersdirect,
control,andcoordinatethecompanysactivities.[ Hertz
]
b. Amountincontroversyisover$75,000
i. Ifdefendantbringscounterclaim(eitherrelatedorunrelated)itmustmeetthe
minimum
1. Ifitiscompulsorythenitcanbebelowtheminimum
c. MultiplePlaintiffsandOneDefendant
i. Individualplaintiffsmuststillmeetthemin.requirementseparately,regardlessof
aggregateamount
d. MultipleDefendantsand OnePlaintiff
i. Individualdefendantsmustalsostillmeetthemin.requirementseparately,
regardlessofaggregateamount
1. However,asabove compulsorycounterclaimsdonotneedtomeettheamount
incontroversy
2. FederalQuestion
a. Doestheoriginalsuitariseunderfederallaw?[ FranchiseTaxBoard]
b. Hasthecomplaintbeen
i. Plaintiffhastoshowthatcomplaintisgroundedinfederallaw, without
referenceto
thedefendantsclaims.[ Mottley ]
1. Thefederalquestionmustbe necessaryand
substantial FranchiseTax
[ ]
a. Necessary: FederalquestionHAStobeadjudicatedtosolvethe
dispute(cannotbeadjudicatedunderstatelaw)
b. Substantial: claimisnotfrivolousorwithoutmerit.

SupplementalJurisdiction:1367
1. OriginalJurisdiction?
2. GibbsTest :Doesthefactualrelatednessofthesupplementalclaimarisefroma commonnucleus
ofoperativefacts ?
a. Gibbstest
i. Commonnucleusofoperativefacts
3. Limits:
a. (b): SHALLNOTHAVEsupplementaljurisdictionundersubsection(a)overclaimsby
plaintiffsagainstpersonsmadepartiesunder RULE14,19,299R24 ORaddedplaintiffs
under RULE19 OR
RULE24
b. (c): DiscretionaryFactors(todenysupplementaljurisdiction)
i. Claimarisesoutofacomplexornovelissueofstatelaw
ii. Iftheclaimissubstantiallypredominatedbystatelaw
iii. Ifallclaimsaredismissedandthefederalcourthadoriginaljurisdiction
iv. Wheneverthecourtdecidethatthereiscompellingreasonnotto[(c)(1)(4)]

Removal:1441
Canthedefendantremovethecasefromstatetofederalcourt?
1. Analysis:
a. Doesthefederalcourthavesubjectmatterjurisdiction?
i. Diversity
ii. FederalQuestion
2. Limitations:
a. 1441(b)(2):homestatedefendantscannotremove
b. Youcannotremoveonceayearhaspassedsincethelitigationbegan
c. Youhave30daysonceyouthinkacasemightberemovable[ Caterpillar
]
i. Plaintiffsalsohavea30dayremandtimelimit
d. Forcaseswithmultipledefendants,alldefendantsmustconsenttoremoval

Remand:1447
Cantheplaintiffremandthecasebacktostatecourt?

Finn Grubbs Caterpillar

Timingofdiversity Notatremovalor __ Atjudgment


judgment butnot
removal

Partychallenging Removingdefendant ___ Plaintiff


judgment

Partyraising ___ Appealscourt


sua Plaintiff
jurisdictionalchallenge sponte

Timingofjurisdictional ____ Aftertrialand Attimeof


challenge judgment removal

Venue:1391
district
Inwhich inthefederalsystemcanplaintiffsuein?
Isvenueproper?

1. FORAVALIDJUDGMENTYOUREQUIRE:
a. Notice
b. PersonalJurisdiction
c. SubjectMatterJurisdiction
i. *theseareallconstitutionalrequirementsunderthe5thAmen.DPC[appliedtostate
courtsunderthe14thAmen.]
d. Venue[ YOUAREHERE ]>purelyacreatureofstatute
i. Objectionstovenuemustberaisedinfirstresponsemotionorpleading

2. Acivilactionmaybebroughtunder1391(b):
a. Wherethedefendantresides IF
ALLDEFENDANTSARERESIDENTSOFTHESTATEIN
WHICHTHEDISTRICTISLOCATED
b. Whereasubstantialpartofthearisingclaimoccurred
c. Wherethedefendanthaspersonaljurisdiction[ ifitsnotthefirsttwo
]
3. IfvenueisproperBUTinconvenientthenthecourtcandismissfor forumnonconveniens
(discretionarypower)
a. However,thecourtcanalsotransfervenueunder1404
i. Under1404:[FORUMNONCONVENIENS]fortheconvenienceofthepartiesand
witnesses
ii. Notoftenused,asthecourtdoesnotwishtointerrupttheplaintiffschoiceofforum
iii. Ifthecourtwouldusuallydismissthecase,itmightusethisinstead
4. IfvenueisIMPROPER:courtcandismissortransferunder1406,
a. Rule12(b)(3)isanaffirmativedefensethatmustberaisedinthepleadingoritiswaivedto
dismissforimpropervenue.
5. ForumNonConveniens :discretionarypowerthatallowscourtstodismissacasewhenanother
forumismuchbettersuitedtohearthecase
a. Notallowedtobeusedasastrategytoplacesubstantivelawinyourfavor[ PiperAircraft
]
i. GilbertForumNonConveniensTest
1. PrivateInterestFactors Basicallyconsidereaseofbringingcasefor
plaintiff/convenience/efficiency
a. Relativeeaseofaccesstosourcesofproof[evidence]
b. Availabilityofcompulsoryprocessandcostsofwitnessattendance
c. Possibilityofviewofpremises
d. Ease,expeditiousnessandexpense
2. PublicInterestFactors Weighholdingcaseagainstefficiencyofcourt
system.
a. Courtcongestion
b. Localinterestinlocalcontroversies
c. Trialofdiversitycaseinforumathomewiththeapplicablelaw.
d. Avoidunnecessaryproblemsinconflictoflawsorapplicationof
forumlaws.
i. BiggestissueinPiper WouldhavetoapplyCAchoiceoflaw
againstPipersodismiss
e. Unfairnessofjuryduty,dutyburdeninunrelatedforum.

ChoiceofLaw:ErieDoctrine
BasicRule
:fordiversitycasesapply
statesubstantive
lawand proceduralrules
federal .

ConstitutionalErie:Federalismfedgovtislimpowers.Fedjudgesshouldntbeabletomakemorelawsthanfed
legislators?(StateConslimbyindividualrights)
PracticalErie:Losingtheincentivetoforumshopstatevfederal(vertical)shiftsittodifferentstates(horizontal),but,
stillreduces

StatutoryErie:
JudiciaryActVehiclethroughwhichtheother3arereflected
PhilosophicalErie:
ShiftawayfromNaturalLaw,etc

Erieapplicable
1. Is atall?
a. Primarilyarisesindiversityquestions
i. Sometimesitcomesupinsupplementaljurisdictioncases[butthisissodifferent
thandiversity]
2. Whatkindoflawsareinvolved?
a. Federalconstitution,federalruleorjudgemadelaw?
i. Samequestiononthestateside
b. Ifitsafederalcommonlawtherearetwopossibleoutcomes
i. Vs.stateprovision =stateprovisionprevails[ Woods;York;Cohen;Ragan ]
ii. Vs.statecommonlaw =balanceinterestlaidoutunder Byrd
c. Ifitsafederalprovision,youmustaskifitisconflictingwithstatelaw?
i. Ifno,
thenstatelawapplies
ii. Ifyes,
1. Isitvalid?
2. Doesitabridge,enlargeormodifysubstantivelaw?[ RulesEnablingAct ]OR
doesitconflictwiththeConst.[ Hanna ]?
3. Ifvalid ,federallawprevails
a. If not
valid,statelawprevails
BreakthisdownintotheScaliaandStevenstestinShadyGrove
Talkaboutrecognizingaconflictbyviewingitbroadlyormorenarrowly(i.e.
Ginsburgvs.Scalia/Stevens)
Ginsburgwouldarguethereisonlyaconflictwhenafederalruleisso
broadthatitcontrolstheissuebeforethecourtsomuchitleavesno
roomforthestatelaw>Eriethencommandstheenforcementofstate
law
ScaliaassumesanyFRCPisinherentlyproceduralandwouldnot
analyzewhethertheyweresubstantive
Thendoanalysisunder Hanna
Whatisprocedure:thejudicialprocessforenforcingrightsandduties
recognizedbysubstantivelawandforjustlyadministeringremedyand
redressfordisregardorinfractionofthem
TEST :Ifitgovernsonlythemannerandthemeansbywhichthe
litigantsrightsareenforceditisvalidifitalterstherulesofdecision
bywhichthecourtwilladjudicatethoserightsitisnot.
Thecourtonlywantstoadjudicateruleswhichonlyregulate
theprocessofenforcingrights,notalteringthemorthe
remediesortherulesofdecisionwhichareused.
Byrd
3. * balancingtest:balancingstateandfederalinterests
a. Avoidforumshopping(becauselawwillbedifferentbasedonwhetheryouapplydifferent
statelawversusdifferentfederallaw)

b. Avoidinequitabledistributionofthelaw
i. Statelawfavorsplaintiff
ii. Federallawfavorsdefendantbecauseofdiversityjurisdiction

HannaProngAnalysis [federallawonpoint]
1. Isthereafederalprovisiononpointthatdirectlyconflictswithstatelaw?
a. Yes ,thenapplyfederallaw,aslongasitisvalid.
i. ThisisdecidedundertheSupremacyClauseoftheConst.
1. DirectlyinConstitution?valid
2. Federalstatute?validundertheREA
3. FRCP?
a. LooktoREA(Section2072):Federalrulesarevalidiftheydonot
abridge,enlargeormodifyasubstantiveright?
i. Arguablyprocedural?Ifarguablyprocedural,thantherecanbe
noeffectonasubstantiveright,sotheruleis
valid.
ErieProngAnalysis [nofederallawonpoint]

1. OutcomeDeterminativeTest York
[ ]
a. Ifweusestatelawthanthecaseisdismissed[becauseitsbarredbySOL];Ifweignore,then
itwouldproceed
b. Thatchangestheoutcomeandthecourtsaysthereshouldnotbedifferentresultsinstate
andfederalcourt,thereforethefederalcourtmustapplystatesubstantivelaw.
i. Itlooksbadforthesystem
ii. ThisisPracticalErie,tolimitforumshopping
iii. Criticism: hereSOLisobviouslyproceduralandthecourtnowcallsitoutcome
determinative,whichmeansarguablybothproceduralandsubstantivelaware
outcomedeterminative
2. ByrdBalancingTest
a. Doesthefederaljudgehavetofollowstatelaw,[noFRCPorfederalprovisiononpoint]?Is
theallocationofauthoritybetweenjudgeandjuryisa
i. Outcomedeterminativetestwouldnothelphere
b. Ifaprovisionisnotclearlysubstantive,thefederalcourtshouldapplythestatelaw
UNLESSthefederalcourtsystemhassomeinterestindoingitdifferently
i. Matterofallocatingauthorityofjudgejury;thefederalcourtsshouldbeallowedto
dowhattheywant,theydontneedtobeboundbystaterule
1. Nointerestonthestatesidehereandsothefederalinterestwins
3. TwinAims[ Hanna ]
a. Avoidforumshopping[Practical Erie
]
i. Ifthefederaljudgeignoresthisstatelaw,willitcausepartiestoflocktothefederal
courttoforumshop?
1. Ifso,thatisbadbecausewedontwanttofacilitateforumshopping,itis
unfairparticularlytoinstatepartieswhocannotmove.
b. Avoidtheinequitableadministrationoflaw

US FedStatute FedRuleCiv Federal


Constitution Pro CommonLaw

Statelaw US Fedstatute FRCPwinsif Statelaw


(statues, Constitution winsifvalid validunder wins(York,
rules,etc) wins underUS USConst.& Cohen,Ragan,
[Supremacy Const.&US USREA Woods)
ClauseArt.VI, REA (Hanna)
2)

State Balance
commonlaw interests;
consider
Eriesaims
Byrd
( )

Finality
ClaimandIssuePreclusion
1. Claim preclusionbarsthe entireclaim
a. Itrequirestheidentityofthepartiestobethesame
b. Whateverclaimswerebroughtandfinalbutalsowhat couldhavebeenbrought
2. Issuepreclusionbarsonly specificissues,nottheentireclaim
a. Doesntrequirebothparties,justone
b. Whatwasbroughtandlitigated,fairly,fullyanddetermined
3. OffensiveUseofCollateralEstoppel :aplaintiffisseekingtoestopadefendantfromrelitigating
issueswhichthedefendantpreviouslylitigatedandlostagainstanotherplaintiff
4. DefensiveUseofCollateralEstoppel :aplaintiffisestoppedfromassertingaclaimthatthatthe
plaintiffhadpreviouslylitigatedandlostagainstanotherdefendant[ BlonderTongue]
5. Mutuality :nopartcanbenefitfromajudgmentinwhichtheywerenotalsoatrisk[ Parklane ]

ClaimPreclusion
1. validfinaljudgmentinfirstforum
a. Wheretheentireclaimisbarredandtherecannolongerbeanysuitsforthesameevent
andthejudgmentisreceived
b. Decisionneedstobeonthemerits
i. Onmerits:MSJ,motiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaim(12b6)(dismissalwith
prejudice?)
ii. Notonthemerits: LackofPJ,SubjMatterJur,defaultjudgment,factsadmittedin
answer
iii. Ithastobe
valid
:propernotice,SMJandPJ
2. samepartiesfromoriginalsuit(ORprivytothefirstclaimants)
3. sameclaim

a. Theclaimthatwasraised
ANDalltheclaimsthatcouldhavebeenraisedaswell]
b. Needstoarisefromthesamefacts(sametransactionoroccurrence);time,origin,
motivation,overlappingwitnessorproof

IssuePreclusion
1. finaljudgment
2. fullandfair,actuallitigation
3. canessentialissueoffacttothefinaljudgment;meaningitwouldhavechangedsomethinginthe
trialoutcome
4. determined:theverdictneedstopointtoacleardeterminationofthefacts
5. issueisbeingassertedagainstapartyorprivy
a. Mutuality ;bothoffensiveanddefensive
i. Issuepreclusionappliesonlywhereboththepartyseekingtouseitandtheparty
itsmeanttobeusedagainstwerepartiestotheprioraction
ii. Themoderntrendistoabandonthis

You might also like