Personal jurisdiction

Checklist of bases for jurisdiction over

individuals
1.Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum so that the
forun's exercise of jurisdiction over defendant is reasonable (Intl Shoe)
2. def. property has been seized within the forum and there is an
appropriate relationship between the property and the claim (Pennoyer v. Neff)
In Rem: adjudicating ownership of the property itself, there are no
personal litigants QIR-1: the claims are related to the property, its a
dispute about a property ex, buyer seller in dispute about warranty,
land lord tenant QIR-2: unrelated claims, the substance of the
dispute is unrelated to the property but a litigant grabs and uses it as
a basis for jurisdiction.
you may want to do a QIR action even though there is in personal
jurisd.(theoretically) there may be a lack of a statute that gives
specific jurisd. so you have to use QIR (the statute may not give
specific defs of tort or etc)
3. def.'s contacts with the forum are so substantial that jurisd. on unrelated
claims can be exercised (general jurisd.)
4. def. expressly, impliedly ,or by appearance consented to forum's exercise of
jurisdiction (driving a car in forum state) (Hess v. Pawloski)
5. def. was personally served within the forum.
6. domicile or residence in the forum (Pennoyer v. Neff)
7. conducting business in the forum state (Intl Shoe)
Types of Jurisdiction
in personam jurisdiction (min. contacts required)
in personam jurisdiction permists a court to enter a judgment that is
personally binding on the def. courts in other states must give full faith
and credit to the judgment
in rem jurisdiction
in rem jurisdiction permits a court to adjudicate the rights of all possible
claimants in a specific piece of property
quasi in rem jurisdiction (min. contacts required)
there are two types of quasi in rem jurisdiction. (QIR-1) permits a court to
determine rights of particular parties in property under its control.
(QIR-2) permits a court having jurisd. over def. property, but not over def.
personally, to use the property to satisfy plaintiff's personal claim against
def.
federal court jurisdiction over the parties
statutory authorization for jurisdiction
when analyzing statutes the court must look at these two things below:
1. statutory analysis (if there is a statute, then this is satisfied)
there are long arm statutes, specific act stautes and
constitutional max statutes. they created constitutional max statutes to
comply with the maximum amount of jurisd that the const allows.
specific act statutes lower the cost of the court by limiting trials
under their jurisd. they also put people and corps on notice of what is and
is not protected/limited.

2. constitutional analysis (this is the main crux of the analysis)
substantive due process: the court must have power to act
Procedural due process: adequate notice and opportunity to be
heard
Long Arm Jurisdiction in the Federal Court
1. In General Rule 4(k)(1)(A) provides that in Actions OTHER
THAN Federal questions and interpleader cases, the Federal Ct MAY
assess Jurisdctn over a D ONLY when the forum State would be
empowered to do so.
a. Three Exceptions to this Rule:
i. Service outside Sate (but w/in 100 miles of Ct where Action
commenced) is permitted IF such Service is necessary to Add a 3rd Party
ii. Service on a D is permitted on a D who is subject to Federal
Interpleader Jurisdctn
iii. Other situations where Congress is expressly authorized
nationwide or even worldwide.
in general, federal courts exercise jurisd. no broader than that authorized by
the long arm statute of the state where the court is located
2 part test
1. statutory law giving jurisdiction
2. constitutional analysis must be consitutitonal
a. purposeful availment
purposeful availment/direction
causation
b. reasonableness
(1) the burden on the defendant, (2) the forum states
interests in resolving the dispute, (3) the plaintiffs interest in receiving
convenient and effectual relief, (4) the interstate judicial systems interest in
obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and (5) the shared
interest of the several states [or foreign nations] in furthering fundamental
social policies.
Rule 4 federal jurisdiction
default rule is 4(k)(1)(A)
if the def. can be served in a suit where the Fed court is located, by states
laws, then the Fed court has jurisdiction
the addons to the above rule are:
(C) when authorized by a federal statute.
4k2, if no state can assert jurisd., but there are enough contacts then there
is fed jurisd.
4(k) (1) (B) - 100 mile bulge jurisdiction"- if you can be impleaded or
joined as a necessary party, and you live w/in 100 miles of court you can be
summoned by a Fed court
Notice (if jurisd. applies, must have notice to go on)
constitutional requirements
reasonableness test: In order for D to have received adequate notice, it is
not necessary that he actually have learned of the suit. rather, the
procedures used to alert him must have been reasonably likely to inform
him, even if they failed to do so.
1. serve an individual or a person suitable at home 4E
2. any method state law allows 4E
3. waver of service notice 4D, you send them this and they dont have to
accept it as a service, they can request a more formal way. to get them to
accept you put the cost of service (4d2a), but if you accept you get more time
to answer the complaint (4d3).
3 categories
1. name and address known
newspaper will never work.
2. name known address unknown
is the state required to take reasonable steps to track down person,
before publicizing something in the newspaper? where do you draw the line?
Most courts dont require you to do active searching.
3. name and address unknown
in rem/paternity actions
when driving in another state and you get in accident, the secretary of state is
the agent of all foreign drivers, so notice is implied.
consent
def. may consent to jurisd. in a forum
if the def has consented to jurisd, don't do min contacts analysis
express consent
def. may expressly consent to jurisdiction, either before or after suit is
filed (choice of forum clauses in K) Bremen v. Zapata and Carnival
Cruise
implied consent
by filing suit in a forum, pl consents to jurisd. as to any related
counterclaim by def.
appearance to litigate jurisd.
special appearance can be done to raise only jurisdictional issues (this
does not confer jurisd.)
jurisd. amy be supported by a party's voluntary appearance in court to
contest issues other than jurisd.
if the def. fails to raise personal jurisd. in her initial motion or answer,
that objection is waived.
Minimum Contacts Analysis (applicable to id's
and corp's)
international shoe generated a two-stage approach to jurisd problems,
looking first to whether the def. 1. purposefully availed himself of the
privilege of conducting acitivities in the forum and then at the 2.
reasonableness of permitting jurisdiction.
Presence of corporation
"Presence" in a state is not doubted when the activities of the
corporation are continuous and systematic (perkins)
1. purposeful availament - minimum contacts
purposeful availment inquiry focuses solely on activities of
defendant, looking for some voluntary action by defendant
establishing beneficial relationship with the forum state.
mere foreseeability of contact with the forum is important but
insufficient; def. conduct with respect to the forum sate must be
such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court
there
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.
Rather, 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
unilateral act of pl not enough - bringing a product to the forum is
insufficient to establish a requisite connection (VW and Denckla)
entering into a long term relationship with a forum resident - may
estabilsh min contacts.
seeking to serve in a particular forum may help establish min
contacts
jurisdiction may be obtained over a nonresident def. in a forum if
the def. intended that his actions could have an effect in that forum
(CALDER)
Hanson v. Denckla (contacts needed to be purposeful and
intentional/Involuntary Contacts ) strengthens purposeful
availment prong) opposite of mcgee
there must be some act by which the def. purposfeully avails
itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum
state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (VW didn't
purposfeully avail)
KEY: Foreseeability ALONE has never been a sufficient
benchmark for personal Jurisdiction under the Due Process
ClauseThat is NOT to say that Foreseeability is wholly
irrelevant. But the Foreseeability IS critical to due Process
analysis is NOT the mere likelihood that a product will find its
way into the forum State. Rather it is that the Ds conduct AND
connection with the forum State are such that he should
reasonably anticipate being haled into Ct there.
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (franchise/fair warning)
So long as a commercial actor's efforts are purposefully directed
toward residents of another State (MIAMI), the U.S. Supreme
Court has consistently rejected the notion that an absence of
physical contacts can defeat personal jurisdiction there.
Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal (dad shipped kids to cali.)
(family policy)
rule-The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship
with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of
contact with the forum state. It is essential in each case that there
be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails himself
of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum
Merely causing an effect w/in the forum State w/out
purposeful availment will NOT support Jurisdiction
Calder Test (with actions outside of jurisd. aimed at a forum)
To satisfy this test defendant must have (1) committed an
intentional act, which was (2) expressly aimed at the forum
state, and (3) caused harm, the brunt of which is suffered and
which defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum
state.
stream of commerce- minimum contacts sufficient to sustain
jurisdiction are not satisfied simply by the placement of a product into
the stream of commerce coupled with an awareness that its product
would reach the forum state. (Asahi)
effort to market in forum state
Agents: even if all the business is done by the agent, the corp can still
be sued there, if the agent does a significant amount of business on the
corp's behalf
knowledge of in-state sales usually enough: if D knows that its
products will eventually be sold in the forum state min. contacts usually
est. However, it may be unreasonable
internet sites: passive=no min contacts, active=min contacts
Nature of contact (how substantial?)
Isolated and sporadic
The Single Contact Jurisdictional Rule
McGee (P) v Interntl Life Ins (D)

KEY: Mere fact that D invoiced P (and collected money from) who
lived in Calif sufficient. Alsoit is sufficient for purposes of Due
Process that the suit was based upon a Contract which had
substantial connection w/ California.

KEY: State has a manifest interest in providing effective means of
redress for its residents when their insurers refuse to pay claims.
Even this minimum contact is enough to give State Jurisdiction
Hess v Pawloski
A State statute dictated that any nonresident motorist using the
States highways impliedly appointed the Sec of State as his agent
for Service in any action arising from the motorists use of the
highways.
substantial
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall
When a Ds contact with the a Sate do NOT relate to the
transaction forming the basis of the suit, that Ds contacts with
the forum State MUST BE sufficiently systematic and
Continuous so that bringing the D into that State would NOT
offend Due Process.
2. fair play and substantial justice - reasonableness
in the reasonableness inquiry, consideration of plaintiff's interests
is proper
1. factors
factors considererd when determing the reasonablenss of
jurisd are
1. def. burden in defending the suit in the forum
2. the forum state's interest in adjudication
3. pl. interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
4. the judicial system's interest in resovling the suit
effectively
5. furtherance of fundamental substantive social policies
foreign relations, protection of citizens
presence of property may provide min. contacts
property provides sufficient contact if the claim is related to rights or
duties related to the property
when property is completely unrelated to plaintiff's cause of action, its
presence alone will not support jurisd. (Shaffer v. Heitner)
Jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process
because it is one of the continuing traditions of the U.S that define the due
process standard of traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice. (Burnham v. Superior Ct.)
Venue
still need personal jurisdiction
venue is a statuory limitation on the geographic location of litagtion to
prevent a plaintiff from suing where it would be burdensome for the def. to
appear and defend
venue for unincorporated association and partnerships is proper where they
are doing business.
once venue is changed you still apply substantive law of the district from
whence it came.
1404. Change of venue
(a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice,
a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division
where it might have been brought.
three methods for venue in federal actions
1.venue lies in any district where any defendant resides so long as, if there
is more than one defendant, all the defendants reside in the state
containing that district
2. if a "substantial part of the events...giving rise to the claim occurred,
or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated",
in the district
3. if at least one def. is "reachable" in the district, and no other district
qualified
no venue based on plaintiff's residence
Statute 1391
(a) (diversity cases) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded
only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law,
be brought only in
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside
in the same State,
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of
property that is the subject of the action is situated, or
(3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal
jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in
which the action may otherwise be brought. (#3 in A and B the mean
basically the same thing)
(b) (other stuff like fed questions) A civil action wherein
jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as
otherwise provided by law, be brought only in
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside
in the same State,
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of
property that is the subject of the action is situated, or
(3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no
district in which the action may otherwise be brought. (#3 in a and b the
mean basically the same thing)
(c) (corporation) For purposes of venue under this chapter, a
defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any
judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time
the action is commenced. In a State which has more than one judicial
district and in which a defendant that is a corporation is subject to personal
jurisdiction at the time an action is commenced, such corporation shall be
deemed to reside in any district in that State within which its contacts
would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were
a separate State, and, if there is no such district, the corporation shall be
deemed to reside in the district within which it has the most significant
contacts.
(d) an alien can be sued anywhere
forum non conveniens
even if jurisd. and venue are proper, a court may decline to exercise jurisd.
if the venue selected by the plaintiff is grossly inconvenient
adequate alternative forum available
the court cannot dismiss if there is no adequate alternative forum
available to the pl.
two tiered test
1.an alternative forum available?
an alt. forum is not available simply bc the law in that forum would
prevent the pl. from recovering. availbility means is there a constituted court w
jurisd. over the claims
2. weigh the Gilbert factors (public and private factors)
private- Important considerations are the relative ease of access to
sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of
unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; There
may also be questions as to the enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained.
The court will weigh relative advantages and obstacles to fair trial. But unless
the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum
should rarely be disturbed.
pubic interests admin difficulties, jury duty, etc.


Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Diversity
constitutional authorization (minimal diversity/broad)
article 3, section 2 authorizes diversity of jurisd. to provide a forum for persons
who might be victims of local prejudice. the constituion requires only
minimal diversity (ie that diversity exist between one pl. and one def.)
Sec. 1332 statute authorization (complete diversity/strict)
requirement
1.no party on one side may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the
other side at the time the complaint is filed
exceptions
diversity jurisd. is permissible even in the absence of complete diversity in
1. interpleader actions
how citizenship determined (Mas v. Perry, P was in school in state, not a
domicile)
Residents
(a) taking up primary residence (b) the intention to remain there. until you
establish a new domicile
Corporations
the corp is deemed to be a citizen of both the state where it is inc'd and the
state where it has its principal place of business (but not its HQ)
two tests to determine principal place of business (analyze both)
"nerve center" test = corp. HQ
"muscle" test = place where most plants and assets are located
Pl. can adjust claim to defeat diversity
Amount in Controversy Requirement
more than $75,000 must be in controversy in a diversity case, computed as of
the date of commencement of the suit. (aggregation ok)
per Exxon case, if there is one P who has the 75K, then another P joined by rule
20 does not need to have 75K.
if no P has 75K claim, aggregation between them is not allowed unless they
have the same title or right.
legal certainty test
the amount claimed by pl. is determinative unless def. shows to a legal
certainty the the minimum cannot be met. interest and costs are excluded
in computing the minimum amount. If you find out after that damage was
less, it stays in fed. court. as original plead was in good faith.
in general: 1. a P may combine several claims against a single D to get to 75K;
2. a P may not bring in an additional D against whom all claims total less that
75K; 3. multiple P's can't combine their claims against a single D if no P has a
claim for more then 75K; 4. but if one P does have a claim for more than 75K,
under supplements jurisd other P's whose claims are for less than 75K can join
under rule 20 (Exxon case)
exceptions to diversity jurisd.
courts decline to excerise diversity jurisd. over cases involving domestic
relations, probate actions.
no jurisd. if any party improperly or collusively (by assignment or otherwise)
joined to get jurisd.
Federal Question
Created under Art. 3 of the const ("arising under" broader) statute 1331
(interpreted more narrowly)
Arising Under Test
i. Merrell Dow Pharm (D) v Thompson (P)
Ps sued D in State Ct alleging that their child was borne w/ deformities due to D
drugs that P took while pregnant.

NOTE: Although D moved to Fedl Ct.Sup Ct overruled and moved back to State
Ct. The Mere Presence of a Fedl issue in a State Cause of Action DOES NOT
automatically confer Fedl question Jurisdctn.
no amount in controversy requirement
standards for determining whether fed. question is raised
key ingredient: a fed question may be raised when fed. law has created the
claim sued upon (inclusive of implied claims) or when a right under state law
turns on contruction of fed. law if the fed. law has substantial bearing on the
outcome
if a federal law lakcs a rememdy provided by congress, then there is no fed.
jurisd. for a case whose basis is a state law claim unless there is a very
important federal question. 5-4 ruling in favor of the above rule.
well-pleaded complaint rule
the fed question must appear in the properly pleaded allegations in the
complaint. if fed. law did not create the claim sued upon, this means the fed
issue must be a required element of the state law claim
it is not enough that the pl. alleges some anticipated defense that would create a
fed. question.
Osborn rule (broad rule)
if the federal law is an ingredient in action then there is federal jurisd (if
substantive).
shoshone exception (case can satisfy the Art. 3, but will not meet the statute
requirements)
if the cause of action is a fed cause of action, but the substance under is all state
law, there is not jurisd.

preclusive effects of judgements
issue preclusion (also called collateral estoppel)
a decision regarding an issue of fact may be binding in later litigation between the
same parties, or sometimes against a prior party (but usually not against a prior
nonparty)
claim preclusion (also called res judicata)
a final judgment on a claim or cause of action precludes reassertion of that claim
or cause of action in a subsequent suit. if the judgment was for plaintiff, there is a
merger of the claim in the judgment, if judgment was for defendant, it is a bar
against plaintiff's suing again on the same claim
purposes
the purpose of the res judicata doctrine is to avoid the time and expense of mulitple
litigation on the same matter and it stabilizes the result of adjudication by
preventing inconsistent outcomes
persons precluded by judgments
parties and privies
a party to a judgment is bound by claim preclusion and issue preclusion and
privity is usually bound to the same extent. privity is closely related to the
party in the first litigation. (master/servant, insurer/insured) car wreck cases
with multiple people injured does not preclude the other passengers.
Res judicata (claim preclusion) transaction test- claim preclusion applies to
all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which
the transaction arose.
elements
The three essential elements are (1) an earlier decision on the issue/claim
(common nucleas of operative fact, transaction test), (2) a valid final
judgment on the merits (FRCP rule 41), and (3) the involvement of the same
parties, or parties in privity (The connection or relationship between two
parties, each having a legally recognized interest in the same subject matter
(such as a transaction, proceeding, or piece of property); with the original
parties.
"final"
effect of appeal
whether a judgment on appeal is final for res judicata purposes is
determined by the law of the state in which the judgment was rendered
conflicting judgments
if two judgments conflict, usually the last in time controls
"on the merits"
a judgment is on the merits if the claim has been tried and determined, and,
includes dispositions such as summary judgment, directed verdict, nonsuit,
etc. note that a dismissal that does not relate to the merits (e.g. lack of
jurisdiction, bad pleading) does not bar subsequent action, although
dismissals for misconduct in litigation can have preclusion effect.
"valid"
a judgment is valid unless the court lacked subject matter or territorial
jurisdiction, or notice to def. did not conform to due process
requirements. however, if the question of validity was litigated in the
original action, that determination is usually res judicata.
exceptions to claim preclusion
exceptions to the doctrine are recognized only under extraordinary
circumstances (fraud on the court). there is a very strong policy against re-
litigation. the prior judgment being unfair will not carry the day.
changes of applicable law will not be an exception
all theories for recovery arising out of a single transaction constitute a single
"claim" for preclusion purposes
P can't re-litigate for future worse occurrences based on the injury (eye injury
turns into migraine 5 years from trial)
defenses and counterclaims
effect of compulsory counterclaim rules
a def. must assert any counterclaim she has aginst plaintiff that arises from
the same transaction as plaintiff's claim. if defendant fails to do so, she is
barred from later asserting it, either as a defense or as a basis for relief in an
independant action.
where no compulsory counterclaim rule is involved
in such cases, res judiciata does not prevent a def. from asserting the same
matter first as a defense, and later in a separate suit as a basis for
independant relief against the former pl. (although issue preclusion may
apply)
collatarell estoppel (issue preclusion)
elements
1. same issue (ask whether the issue(s) are separate transactions), 2. same
parties*, 3. issue actually litigated 4. necessarily decided and (5)necessary
to the verdict reached
elements in a sentence - if you have a second litigation with the same
parties and the same issue was raised, AND IF THAT issue was actually
litigated and necessarily decided in a valid final judgment, then there is issue
preclusion.
same issue - the issue must be identical to an issue litigated in the earlier
trial
actually litigated and decided - this means that D in the first trial is not
obligated to raise all of his defenses. D does not forfeit these defenses by
not raising them as he would with compulsory counterclaim.
the party against whom collateral estoppel is sought to be used must
have had a "full and fair oppurtunity" to litigate the claim
necessarily decided element - when two or more issues are definitively
decided against a party and the judgment could fully rest on either theory,
the courts are split
majority view- no collateral estoppel on either issue
minority view - collateral estoppel on both issues
a court's conclusion of law, like a conclusion of fact is generally estopped
settlements and defeault judgments have no preclusive effect.
court my deny to use collateral estoppel if there has been a significant change
in legal principles.
exceptions (analyze in every issue)
issue preclusion might not be applied if any of the following apply: 1. the
initial action was not appealable, 2. the court proceedings were informal or
expedited in the first suit, 3. the stakes are much higher in the second suit, 4.
the issue in the second suit is one of law and is substantially unrelated to the
issue in the first suit, 5. the burden of proof in the second suit is materially
different, or there is a clear need for a new determination on the second suit.
Person who can benefit from estoppel
Mutuality (overruled)
a party not bound by an earlier judgment (because not a party to it) could
not use that judgment to bind his adversary who was a party to the first
action

i. Who can be bound by the judgment?
a. The party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must be in privity
they must have had a full & fair opportunity to litigate the issue R(2
nd
)29.
ii. Who can benefit from the judgment?
a. There is no reason for requiring the party asserting the claim to be in privity.

B. Offensive v. Defensive Mutuality:
1. Defensive Non-Mutual Estoppel: where a party uses estoppel as a shield.
i. Many courts have limited Bernhard to cases of defensive non-mutual
estoppel.
ii. Judicial Economy: If we dont allow defensive non-mutual estoppel, it will
provide an incentive for to litigate her claims piecemeal & take a wait & see
approach.
iii. Fair to : had every incentive to litigate the 1
st
suit fully she already had her
full and fair opportunity to litigate.
iv. HYPO: v. 1, 1 wins. v. 2. 2 can use estoppel on issues from the 1
st

case b/c has already had her day in court.
2. Offensive Non-Mutual Estoppel: where a party uses estoppel as a sword.
i. Anti-Judicial Economy: creates an incentive to wait & see the results of other
cases.
ii. Can be Unfair to :
a. may not have litigated very hard if their 1
st
suit wasnt that important
b. Can provide for inconsistent judgments b/c how do we know the 1
st
suit got it
right?
c. May have new procedural opportunities available in 2
nd
trial
iii. Conditionally allowed the court must exercise its discretion to ensure fairness
to .
iv. General Rule = where could easily have joined in the earlier action or where
the application would be unfair to , court should not allow. Consider:
a. Did adopt a wait & see approach?
b. Are there inconsistent judgments?
c. Are there procedural opportunities available in the 2
nd
suit that were available
in the 1
st
, so that a different result might ensue if the issues are retried?
1. Was the 1
st
suit tried by a court of high quality?
d. Did litigate as vigorously as he would have had he known of potential later
suits?
e. Were subsequent suits foreseeable?
v. HYPO: 1 v. , 2 v. , 3 v. , all s lose. 4 v. , 4 wins. s 5-100 now
want to use the result of the 4
th
case to estop from protesting liability.
factors the court considers whether to allow offensive CE
incentive to litigate fully in first suit, discouraging break away suits (did the
person thing he may be sued again?), multiple plaintiff anomaly (the first
case rules for liability, thus the person will s if CE allowed), procedural
opportunities, govt as party

Supplemental jurisd
The discretionary jurisdiction of a federal court to hear and decide matters that are
related to claims already within the courts original jurisdiction, such as claims that
arise out of the same case or controversy as one already before the court or claims
that add parties to the original parties.
exam tip - federal question at core
exam tip- if the "core" claim in your fact pattern involves a federal question,
state law claims can be added. (only applies when diversity isn't present)
exam tip- SJ lets additional parties be added to the state-law claim. So look
for patterns where P has a fed claim against D1, and related state-law-only
claims against D2; if P is a citizen of the same state as D2, SJ is the way that
the state-law claim against D2 can go forward. (but this works only because the
state-law claim against D2 arises out of the same basic transaction as the
federal-law claim against D1)
exam tip- diversity claim at core
exam tip- these types of situations are covered by SJ: 1. compulsory
counterclaims, 2. joinder of additional parties or compulsory counterclaims, 3.
impleader claims by third party plaintiff against third party def., 4. any claims
by TPP's or TPD's against anyone else
exam tip- these types of situiation are not covered by SJ: 1. claims by P
against a TPD, 2. claims by a P against a person who is to be "joined if
feasible", 3. claims by a P against mulitple D's.
defensive posture: SJ helps only those in a defensive posture. so SJ
applies to additional claims by def. (including TPD's and TPP's), but not to
additional claims asserted by plaintiff's.
SJ never affects the requirements of personal jurisd. so if D does
not have min contacts, the fact that the claim is of a type to which
SJ applies is not enough to allow D to be joined.
ancillary jurisd
a party (usually the def.) could assert a related claim against another def., the
pl., or a 3rd party even though the 2nd claim was not itself within the courts
jurisd.
pendent jurisd.
a pl. with a jurisdictionally sufficient claim (usually a fed. question) could join
a related claim against the same def. even though the second claim was not
itself within the courts jurisd.
Gibbs Test (fed. question)
1. substantial fed. claim
2. common nucleus of operative fact (Finley)
3.one judicial proceeding ( "would ordinarily be expected to try them in one
judicial proceeding)
4. fairness, convenience and efficiency can also influence the judges decision
to apply jurisd.
Statute 1367 (diversity cases)
can't join a pendant party who is statutorily barred. (Aldinger)
in determine whether supplemental jurisd. is proper, the court will ask
whether:
1. the federal claim is sufficiently substantial
2. the fed and nonfed claims arise from a common nucleus of operative
fact
3. the fed and nonfed claims are such that they would ordinarily be tried in
one judicial proceeding.
plaintiff's cant make claims over ________ in diversity actions: when fed
SMJ is founded solely on diversity, there is no supp jurisd. over claims by pl.
against persons made parties under rule 14 (impleader), rule 19(necessary party
joinder), or rule 24(intervention), or over claims by persons proposed to be
joined under rules 19 or 24
aggregation - Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs.
rule - where one plaintiffs claim satisfies the minimum amount in
controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction, and another
plaintiffs related claim does not, 28 USC 1367 allows federal courts to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim that is less than the
required amount.
Section A - Federal Question arising out of same controversy/transaction
if A applies, Skip B and go to C
Section B - Diversity
when fed SMJ is founded solely on diversity, there is no supp jurisd. over
claims by pl. against persons made parties under rule 14 (impleader), rule
19(necessary party joinder), or rule 24(intervention), or over claims by
persons proposed to be joined under rules 19 or 24
Section C - Exceptions
Whole Staute (1367)
section A -see if whether it is the same consitutional case or controversy
related claim, and make sure there is no statute precluding it. if it's not
a case of original jurisd. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c)
or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of
which the district courts have original jurisdiction, 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. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that
involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.
Section B -(based solely on diversity jurisd) you must diagram the case
and look to see where the new party is coming in. if it destroys diversity
then pl. can't sue, but if coming in on pl. side under rule 19 or 24, they
can't sue anyone on the other side that would destroy diversity. Def.
has no bars to joinder. (b) In any civil action of which the district courts
have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title
(diversity provision), the district courts shall not have supplemental
jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons
made parties under Rule 14 (impleader: claims brought in by def.), 19
(cant bring claims against a required party), 20 (permissive parties), or
24 (parties intervening as right) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19
of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such
rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be
inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332. (to get by
this some courts say that when a 3rd party sues the pl. the pl. is no longer a
pl. but a defendant so he can bring claims) translation: broad supp jurisd
unless (1) additional party not diverse or (2) too small of a claim (perhaps
they were going for complete diversity with this subsection) (a 3rd party
def. can sue the Pl. under these rules)
(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, (2) the claim substantially predominates over
the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction
tail wagging the dog, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction(kroeger case), or (4) in exceptional
circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
Remand and Removal
in general, a state court action the pl. could originally have filed in federal court
can be removed there by def.
important rule - the defendant may not remove if he is a citizen of the
state where the action is pending (this is not applicable in federal question
cases) (ex. state trial is in NY, if D is from NY, he can't remove to Fed ct.)
if there are multiple defendants, all of them must sign for removal.
1441. Actions removable generally
(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil
action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States
have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants,
to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing
the place where such action is pending. For purposes of removal under this
chapter, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be
disregarded. (b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original
jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties
or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the
citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be
removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as
defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought. (c)
Whenever a separate and independent claim or cause of action within the
jurisdiction conferred by section 1331 of this title is joined with one or more
otherwise non-removable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be
removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its
discretion, may remand all matters in which State law predominates.