Civil Procedure Exam Outline

8/3/2019 Civil Procedure Exam Outline

1/6

Civil Procedure Exam OutlinePersonal Jurisdiction: The power of a court to require a defendant outside the state to defend a lawsuitinside the state.Important Cases!International ShoeMinimum Contacts.

1. In Personam Jurisdiction established when presence in state is continuous and systematic.2. No In Personam Jurisdiction when presence is casual or isolated.3. Specific In Personam jurisdiction may result from a single act of a particular quality and nature.

This jurisdiction is limited to claims arising out of the specific act. (McGee v. International Ins.)4. Continuous but limited activity will result in specific jurisdiction which is jurisdiction over claims

arising out of that continuous activity. (Burger King v. Rudzwicz)5. Substantial contact with forum state will result in General In Personam jurisdiction. The defendant

may be sued in the state for any claim even those unrelated to in-state activities.6. Minimum Contacts is limited to claims arising from/ related to the defendants contacts with theforum state.7. A states power to adjudicate In Personam is governed by traditional notions of fair play and

substantial justice.< A corporation that enjoys the benefits and protection of law of a forum state is also subject to any obligations thatarise from the corporation activities in the forum state.>Gavil Says:

Shaffer v. Heitner In Rem/Quasi In Remmust now apply International Shoe as not to violate due process.1. Quasi In Rem based on attachment or seizure of property present in the jurisdiction, not on

contacts btw defendant & state.2. In Rem or Quasi In Rem judgment is limited to the property that supports jurisdiction and imposes

no personal liability on the property owner since they are not before the court.3. Since the state in which property is located is considered to have exclusive sovereignty over that

property, In Rem actions could proceed regardless of owners location. (Pennoyer v. Neff)4.Full Faith and Credit Clause makes the valid In Personam judgment of one State enforceable in all

other States.5. Concludes that all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards

set forth in International Shoe and its progeny. Fair play and substantial justice now apply to In Remjurisdiction.< The fiction that an assertion of jurisdiction over property is anything but an assertion of jurisdiction over the ownerof the property supports an ancient form (Pennoyer) w ithout substantial modern justification. Its continued acceptancewould serve only to allow state-court jurisdiction that is fundamentally un fair to the defendant.>Gavil Says:


2/6

Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson - How to define quality and nature that makes a contactsufficient to support jurisdiction. (Purposeful Availment)

1. Compares McGee (relaxedlimits on state jurisdiction) to Hanson (Due process ensures fairness &orderly administration of the law)

2. The burden of the defendant, while always a primary concern, will in an appropriate case beconsidered in light of other relevant factorsmodern transportation and communication havemade it less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself in a state where he engages ineconomic activity (McGee)

3. The requirements for personal jurisdiction over nonresidents have evolved from the rigid rule ofPennoyer to the flexible standard of International Shoeit is a mistake to assume this is the demiseof restrictions on personal jurisdiction of state courts. Those restrictions guarantee immunity frominconvenient distant litigation and are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of therespective StatesMere unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresidentdefendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. (Hanson)

4. Foreseeability alone is not a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under Due Process.5. Foreseeability that is critical to due process analysisthe defendants conduct and connection with

the forum state are such that he can reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.Gavil Says:

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court The Application of Purposeful Availment.1. OConnor mere awareness that the stream of commerce may sweep goods into the state the state

after leaving defendants hands is not enough to establish purposeful availment. The substantialconnection between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimumcontacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forumstate. (Stream and intent to serve - protective of defendant)

2. Brennan As long as a participant in the process is aware that the final product is being marketedin the forum State, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise. Nor will the litigationpresent a burden for which there is no corresponding benefit. A defendant indirectly benefits fromthe sale of the final product in the forum State.

< The strictures of Due Process forbid a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction under circumstances that wouldoffend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. A court must consider the burden of the defendant, theinterests of the forum S tate, and the plaintiffs interest in obtaining relief.>Gavil Says:


3/6

Statutory Limits on Personal Jurisdiction:Long Arm Statutesauthorize a states court to exercise jurisdiction over defendants based on specifictypes of contact with the forum state. (Reach out of the state to call nonresident defendants back into thestate to defend lawsuits).Reasons a state would choose enumerated act long-arm statutes instead of the constitutional scope are:

1) Historically done that way , reluctant to change2) Provides guidance to nonresidents about the jurisdictional consequences of their choice to conduct

particular activities in the state.3) Legislators may not want to authorize jurisdiction in every case that barely satisfies the scope of the

constitution.All long-arm statutes that base personal jurisdiction on specific enumerated acts require that the claim ariseout of that act. (International Shoe held that limited in-state contacts only support jurisdiction over claimsthat arise from those contacts).Challenging Jurisdiction (rendering court):Special Appearance defendant is allowed to appear before the court at the beginning of the action for thesole purpose of challenging the courts power to exercise personal jurisdiction over her.Any defense on the merits will allow the court to conclude that she has waived her jurisdictional objection.A lot of states have done away with the special appearance approach and have adopted the Federal Rule 12(b)(2) which allows defendant to appear before answering to the merits of the complaint and object topersonal jurisdiction. The defendant may also raise other objections at the same time, without waving theobjection to personal jurisdiction.Under the either approach, the objection to jurisdiction must be raised immediately.In most states a defendant who challenges jurisdiction at the beginning of the suit and loses may defend themerits of the suit without waving her objection to the courts jurisdictional ruling.Challenging Jurisdiction (enforcing court)Domesticating the judgment when a party seeks to enforce a default judgment they can file a new actionon the judgment in the enforcing state (judgment on the judgment). The second method would be to simplyfile a certified copy of the rendering states judgment.Full Faith and Credit Clause U.S. Constitution (Article IV 1) requires the courts of each state to honorthe judgments of other states by entering judgments upon them and allowing out of state creditors to usecourt process to collect them. The enforcing court may always inquire as to whether the rendering state hadjurisdiction in the original action and refuse enforcement if they did not.Collateral Attack on the judgment allows the defendant to challenge the original courts jurisdiction in theenforcement action rather than directly in the original suit.


4/6

Although the Collateral attack strategy allows for the jurisdictional issue to be tried close to home thedefendant will not be able to reopen the merits of the underlying libel action. If defendant loses thejurisdictional challenge the default judgment will be valid and enforceable under Full Faith and Credit.A defendant may not challenge personal jurisdiction in the enforcement action if she has already done so inthe original action. Collateral Estoppel provides that a party who has fully litigated an issue in one actionmay not relitigate it in another.Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Federal Questions and Federal Cases):Federal Court hears very limited types of cases. State Courts will hear any case that does not fall withinArticle III 2 of the Constitution. It makes sense that federal courts should be able to hear cases thatinvolve the application and interpretation of federal law; both to protect it from unsympathetic constructionby state courts and to allow definitive interpretation of federal law.The two most common types of civil cases filed in federal court are cases that arise under federal law andcases between citizens of different states.Arising-under jurisdictionOsborn v. Bank of the United States- Marshalls opinion established a broad federal ingredient test fordetermining whether a case arose under federal law.The phrase arising under is probably satisfied in any case in which a party seeks to rely on or establish aproposition of federal law in order to prove either a claim or a defense in the case.When seeking to file a lawsuit in Federal Govt to questions must be asked:

1. Is this a case which constitutionally may be granted to the federal courts?2. Has congress actually conveyed jurisdiction over this type of case in a federal statute?

28 U.S.C. 1331 authorizes jurisdiction to federal district courts over cases arising under theConstitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 1331 only applies if the plaintiffs claim requires proof of federal law; a much narrower reach than thearising under jurisdiction granted by the Constitution.Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley Arising under distinction btw Art. III and 1331.

1. Mottleys argued congressional statute was prospective and did not apply to them. Secondly, theyargued that if the statute barred their passes, it would be unconstitutional under the FifthAmendment to the U.S. Constitution as they would be deprived of property without due process oflaw.

2. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower federal court had lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.The Court reasoned that because the Mottleys sued for breach of contract, a state law claim, thenthey were not required to prove any proposition of federal law.


5/6

3. Under the Art. III the outcome would probably be different as the federal statute was clearly aningredient of the case.

4. The federal issues pleaded by the Mottleys were deemed unnecessary by the court and that shecould have simply alleged a contract breach, and a demand for specific performance.

5. Mottleys well pleaded complaint rule asks whether the plaintiff would have to raise the federalissue in a complaint which includes the elements she needs to prove to establish her claim and onlythose elements. No anticipation of defenses from the defendant will satisfy the 1331requirements.

Holmes Creation Test a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.At times the court has upheld arising-under jurisdiction even when federal law did not create the right tosue, the condition being that a plaintiff in order to establish her state claim must prove a proposition offederal law.Smith v. Kansas City Title and Trust Company (Exception to the Holmes Creation Test)Smith exception Federal issue imbedded in state law claim. The Supreme Court held that the controversyconcerns the constitutional validity of an act of Congress which is directly drawn in the question. Thedecision depended on the determination of that issue and was thus essential to its resolution.Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson (Distinguishes the Smith exception)Allowing Merrell Dow plaintiffs to turn their negligence claim into one arising under federal law, simply byalleging that the defendant was negligent for failure to provide the warnings required by the statute would flyin the face of Congresss decision not to create a federal right to sue for damages for FDCA violations. Itwould effectively create a federal remedy where Congress has not decided to do so.The Courts decision in Grable & Son put to bed any speculation that they were overruling the Smithexception.Grable & Son Metal Products Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing (Federal issue must besufficiently substantial).The plaintiffs in Grable could only establish its right to reclaim property by proving a proposition of Federallaw. The Court held unequivocally that a federal court ought to be able hear claims recognized under statelaw that nonetheless turn on substantial questions of federal law.The court qualified this decision by making clear the need to resolve a federal question to decide a state lawclaim will not always support arising-under jurisdiction.Gavil Says:


6/6

Civil Procedure Exam Outline

Documents

Transcript of Civil Procedure Exam Outline