Personal Jurisdiction

In Personum Personal Jurisdiction Long Arm Statute Constitutional Requirements Attacking PJ : -can make special appearance to file 12(b)(2)= direct -can collaterally attack when attempt to enforce

How is Personal Jurisdiction Created? -instate tag service of process -citizenship/ domicile -court appearance -divorce -consent -minimum contacts & fair play -owning property

Call individuals back to state to defend Limited or Unlimited

Minimum Contacts

Fair Play & Substantial Justice

Does the long arm statute extend to local business?

How extensive do these need to be? (More Contacts, more likely) How good do the contacts have to be? (don t have to be that great) Did D purposefully avail self to privilege of conducting business in the state? (WWWV) Where in the stream of commerce is D located? Just putting in stream not enough (Asahi) How foreseeable was litigation in the forum state?Forseeability not enough, must purposefully avail. (WWWV) Merely injuring a plaintiff in a different state is not min. contacts

Balancing Test (Burger King) Burden on D in this forum (very P friendly) Forum State interest in adjudication Interstate judicial system interest in obtaining most efficient resolution Shared interest in substantive policy Burden on the plaintiff

In Rem Personal Jurisdiction

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

MUST Have: -minimum contacts (Shaffer) -Claim related to land -attachment/ garnishment

Settles ownership of property

Presence of property alone does not create jurisdiction Allows the court to determine claims in property

General jurisdiction Individual can always be sued in the state where they are domiciled Corporations can always be sued in state of incorporation and the headquarters General Established: -domicile -in state tag service (Burnham) -consent (Carnival) -extensive systematic and continuous dealings (Helicopteros)

Notice: -know what claims are against you -FRCP 4

Consent: -can consent to PJ though K

logically related (broad discretion) **connection must be operative** (a) Limits in diversity: no Supp when party brought through FRCP 14. NM. CO v. Czech v. hard to get diversity -family law does not go to federal court More than $75K on claims against individual D (can join claims NOT parties to get to amt) Individual: domicile. 24 (b) Court discreation to decline to exercise Forum Transfer 1404 -movement btwn fed. only D can remove. just move 1406 Diversity 1332 Amount in Controversy Complete Diversity (NOT CONSITUTION) (Must be at the time lawsuit filed) Corporation: state of incorporation and principle place of business General Rules: -can only change diversity by changing parties -partnerships don t have a place of incorporation. all D must agree -ONLY if fed ct originally -cannot be removed if D citizen no prejudice (diversity cases) -can remove entire case -removal within 30 days -federal court can remand unless SMJ -D loses personal jurisdiction defense unless ans. Pre-removal 1332(a): permanent resident is citizen of state of domicile.Mottley: initial pleading must raise federal question Subject Matter Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens(move to more convenient) -for Defendant -not for federal. Districts -lack of jurisdiction can transfer time of filling 1631 -improper venue. intent to destroy diversity between citizen and alien Party must be actual citizen of another country CO. Czech v. Germany= YES . NM v. NM=YES Cannot have foreign party on one side without having on other CO. only state Federal Question 1331 1331:Arising under the constitution. 1446 -remove from state to federal MUST: district where state action pending. Germany=NO CO. intend to reside indefinitely Removal 1441. NM= NO CO. 20. laws or treaties of the US MUST be part of the complaint Important Issue of federal law requiring resolution NO arise under Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Can a federal Court Even Hear this case Supplemental Jurisdiction 1367 You can hang state claims on federal claims: (a) Common nucleus operative facts. 19.

1D Can join any claims. Juris. in controversy -no supp. 19 &20 FRCP 14: Impleader (permissive joinder by D) 1P v.Joinder Use when ordinary SMJ satisfied by diversity or fed question FRCP 22: Rule Interpleader Interpleader: make Ps argue it out then sue D FRCP 19: Compulsory Joinder Simplifies jurisdiction problems: minimal diversity. AND interest not adequately represented -may lose claim if don t intervene 24(b): permissive intervention at ct. Ct. each claim must independently satisfy SMJ -can aggregate the amt in controversy FRCP 13: Joinder of claims by D FRCP 24: Intervention 13(a): compulsory counter-claims -same transaction or occurrence -D must bring up or lose the claim -supplemental Jurisdiction applies 13(b): permissive counter-claims -D can assert unrelated CC -must independently prove SMJ 13(g): cross claims -D can bring optional claim against co-D. in controversy in supplemental -P can join D this way but must independently satisfy PJ for each D becomes 3rd party P 14(a): D has right to implead new parties that may be liable to D for all or part of P recovery (a)(3): no effect on the SMJ of original. Except diversity) -arisen out of same transaction or occurrence -pleading. more than $500 1335: Statutory Interpleader P s must sue together IF: -jurisdictional req. but must be SMJ over implead claim (can be supp. same transaction or occurrence or 18(a) -can use supplemental jurisdiction FRCP 20: Permissive Joinder -Federal statute OR -Interest related to property/ subject. met -cannot give complete relief without party OR -action would impair interest/ give rise to inconsistent obligations -19(b) court must determine whether to proceed if not feesible (factors) -not compulsory if destroy diversity. discretion (must independently SMJ) P can choose to join IF: -same transaction. or no amt. even unrelated -permits joinder does not require it -in fed. occurrence or series -question of law or fact common to all P -must have complete diversity. but may be able to aggregate amt. US service. service same as original claim . disposing of action would impair or impede. FRCP 18: Joinder of Claims Putting Claims or Parties Together Joinder of Claims Joinder of Parties 14. no long arm.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful