COMPLAINT (A DOCUMENT THAT SETS OUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE

CLAIM) MUST DO TWO THINGS: (1) Invoke, at least by reference, a substantive body of law; AND (2) Sketch a factual scenario that, if shown to be true, falls within that body of law. Rule 8(a): a short and plain statement of the claim showing pleader is entitled to relief FRCP 10(a) - Name of the Court - Title of Action: - File Number: - Name of all the parties: FRCP 10(b) - numbered paragraphs FRCP 10(c) - Exhibits, reference in pleadings FRCP 11-deterance of improper conduct - signing by an attorney, address, phone number, and bar number (stop, think, investigate, and research) PLEADING What is the function of Pleading? Give notice to the other party of what they need to defend, nature of the claim, defense and opportunity to prepare; Narrows issues for trial; Eliminate false or meritless claims; and defenses and cases which suffer from procedural defects; The gateway to discoverydefine scope of discovery; and Create a record for judgment and preclude relitigation of decided claims. Haddle v. Garrison (Do the facts pleaded justify relief under the law? SC say yes) Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (substantive law; What facts of conspiracy do you have to justify relief; Plus Factor; need more facts than just parallel conduct) Stradford v. Zurich (Rule 9(b) requires a party to state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.)

CIVIL PROCEDURE I

Jones v. Block (Burden of Pleading; Whoever has the burden of pleading an element of the claim will also have the burden of producing evidence to demonstrate that allegation) Christian v. Mattel (Rule 11 requires an attny to make a reasonable investigation of facts to support the claim. If he fails, he could be subject to Rule 11 sanctions) Responding to the Complaint: Do nothing (default), Pre-answer motion, Answer -Pre-Answer motion stops the clock (20 days to respond after service unless waived60 days) -only 1 pre-answer motion allowed -Answer Zielinski v. Philly Piers (Rule 8b Admissions and Denials; Answer must specifically identify the allegation in the complaint which it denies; general denial when complaint contains obvious truths are bad) Beeck v. Aquaslide (Rule 15 Amended and Supplemental Pleadings; Absent bad faith, prejudice, and undue delay a court can freely grant leave to amend answer) Moore v. Baker (Rule 15(c) Amend relates back, after SOL; 1st complaint made a very small umbrellainformed consent is narrow issue. Amend sought to add negligence but neg. did not arise out of conduct, transaction, occurance of original complaint) Bonerb v. Caron Foundation (1st complaint of negligenceamend to include counseling malpractice. Malpractice arouse out of same nucleus of operative facts-Amended arose out of conduct, transaction, occurance of original neg. claim) Rule 7: Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions 7(a)Pleadings Complaint Answer Reply Reply to counterclaim Answer to cross-claim Third party complaint NOT a motion! 7(b)Motions (a request to the court for an order), includes: 1. motion itself, or a request for the specific relief sought 2. notice of the motioninforming the opposing party 3. affidavits if any needed 4. memo explaining the grounds for the motionreferences to case facts and supporting authorities 5. proposal orderjudge can sign on the dot if motion granted Rule 8: General Rules of Pleading 8(a)Claims for Relief, must have ALL of the following: 1. short and plain statement of the grounds for jurisdiction 2. short and plain statement of the claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief 2

3. demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seek What is short plain statement? Enough to give D fair notice of what the Ps claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. 8(b)Defenses; Forms of Denial must address each element must admit; deny; or claim party is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment (effect of a denial) Look at Rule 11 8(c)Affirmative Defenses (defendants assertion raising new facts and arguments that, if true, will defeat the plaintiffs or prosecutions claim, even if all allegations in a complaint are true) 8(d)Pleading to be Concise and Direct; Consistency (party may state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency) 8(e)Construing Pleadings Rule 9: Pleading Special Matters 9(b)Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind Circumstances constituting of fraud/mistakestated with specificity/particularity Conditions of mind the mindpled with generality 9(c)Conditions Precedent Rule 11: Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to Court; Sanctions 11(a)Signature (must be signed, and contain address, phone number, and bar admission number) 11(b)Representation to Court (1) Not being presented for improper purpose (harassment, unnecessary delay) (2) Claims, defenses, and other legal arguments are warranted by existing law (NOTE: Sanctions of monetary damages cannot be imposed against a represented party for violation of this subsection) (3) Allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support (4) Denial of factual contentions have evidentiary support 11(c)Sanctions (If after notice and reasonable opportunity to respond, 11(b) has been violated) If court imposes sanctions, then the prevailing party may recover attorneys fees and costs. (Christian v. Mattel, Inc.) Safe Harbor Provision: refers to the time from when the party prevailing on the motion serves the other party; allowing 21 days to either withdraw or appropriately 3

correct the challenged paper before filing with the court. (Walker v. Norwest Corp sanctioned after failing to amend after being notified of sanctions) 11(d)Inapplicability to Discovery (Subdivisions (a)-(c) do not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections) Rule 12: Defenses and ObjectionsWhen and How Presentedby Pleading or Motion Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Answer: s first claim that addresses the merits of the claim Common Law Jurisdictional Challenges Request for bill of Particulars Demurrer (concedes the truth of the opponents factual allegations, but challenges the legal sufficiency) Traverse (concedes the legal sufficiency of the plea, but denies factual allegations) Confession and Avoidance FRCP 12(b) 1-5 12(e) rarely granted, disfavored by courts 12(b)(6) What would you say? Not here, not now What the hell are you saying? Facts are true, but so what?

Denial

Not true

8(c) Affirmative Defenses Counter Claim Cross-Claim

Yes, but? Now that you mention it, I have a gripe of my own If anyone did anything wrong it was

12(a)When Presented 12(b)How Presented (1) Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (2) Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (3) Improper Venue (4) Insufficiency of Process (5) Insufficiency of Service of Process (6) Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted (7) Failure to Join a Party under Rule 19 (preserved) (waivable) (waivable) (waivable) (waivable) (preserved) (preserved)

12(e)Motion for more definite statement (rarely invokedusually 12b6) 12(f)Motion to Strike (acts like 12b6 motion directed at single allegation & forces removal of irrelevant and prejudicial allegations in a pleading)

12(g)Consolidation of Defenses in Motionif a party makes a motion under Rule 12, but omits from it any defense or objection also available to the party at the time which this rule permits to be waived by motion, 12(b)THEN party have waived right to make motion based on the defense or objection it failed to admit; EXCEPT as under (h)(2). 12(h)Waiver or Preservation of Certain Defenses 1. Lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of process ARE WAIVED if: A. omitted from a motion under (g); OR B. if it is neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading or an amendment thereof permitted by Rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course 2. 12(b)(6), 12(b)(7)PRESERVED; may be made in any pleading; motion for judgment on pleading; or a trial on merits 3. SMJ NEVER WAIVED! Rule 15: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings 15(a)Amendments, a party may amend once as a matter of course: 1. Before a responsive pleading is served; or 2. Within 20 days after it is served (if action is one to which no responsive pleading permitted and the action has not been placed on the trial calendar) 3. By leave of court or written consent by adverse party 4. Pleading in response to an amended pleadingmust be within the time remaining for response to original pleading OR within 10 days after service of amended pleading whichever longer! 15(c)Relation Back of Amendmentsif amendment relates back to original complaint, dont need to worry about SOL (1) State law allows relation back; OR (2) So Relatedarise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or event; OR (3) Changes to the party or naming of the party against who a claim is assertedpursuant to Rule 4(m); within a 120 days from filing original complaintIF the party being brought in by amendment: (A) NOTICEReceived such noticeparty will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits; AND (B) AWARENESSKnew or should have known that, but for a mistake (thought it was someone, but not) concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against them. NOTE: Lack of knowledge is not mistaken identity. ______________________________________________________ WHERE CAN A SUIT BE BROUGHT?NEED TO EVALUATE THE FOLLOWING: 1) PJ

2) SMJ 3) Proper Venue 4) Service of Process ______________________________________________________ PERSONAL JURISDICTION Evaluating PJ 1. Statutory authority of the court a. State courtlong arm b. Federal court4(k) 2. Constitutional analysisspecific or general? 3. Contacts a. Purposeful availment ? b. Unilateral activity of ? 4. Reasonableness Factors a. Burden on b. interest in convenient and effective relief (McGee) c. Forum states interest in controversy (Asahi) d. Interstates interest in efficient litigationwitnesses, evidence, etc. e. Shared states interest in furthering fundamental social policies ***When can a state exercise its power over an absent non resident defendantA state court can exercise its power over an absent non resident defendant when the exercise of such power is based on certain minimum contacts that the exercise of such power does not offend our traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. History of PJbrief overview: (1) That any person located within the boundaries of the state can be served with service of process and subjected to personal jurisdiction. (2) Transient Jurisdictionthat presence with the forum state can be transitory in nature (just passing through) to be proper. (3) In Personam Jurisdictionjurisdiction over the person; (4) In Rem Jurisdictionjurisdiction over tangible and intangible property; must be attached prior to filing. (a) True: property is related to the cause of action; must be present at the time of the suit. (b) Quasi: property is unrelated to the cause of action; recovery is limited to upper value of propertys worth. PENNOYER v. NEFF

Established the following: (1) A state has exclusive jurisdiction over people and property within its borders. (2) No state can exercise jurisdiction over people or property in other statesreconcile through due process clause (3) Judgments In Personam without personal service of process shall not be upheld. (4) Judgments In Rem with only constructive notice (publication) may be upheld. (5) The full faith and credit clause of the constitution only applies when the court rendering the judgment had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter. Introduced 3 elements to establish PJ (general juris): (1) PRESENCE (territorial)defendant is physically found to be within the bounds of the territory/state. a. Every state possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory. b. Corporation is present at principal place of business as well as other places of substantial connection. (2) DOMICILEusual place of abode a. Determined by two factors: (1) intent of individual to make a location a permanent home; and (2) facts indicating that the party had physically located there. b. Can only have one at a time. c. To change itmust have intent to change place of habitation and must also have actual change of domicile. (3) ACTUAL CONSENT a. Defendant is given proper service of process; AND b. Defendant appears in court. Collateral Attack: Defendant makes an attack on a previous judgment for lack of jurisdiction. Can only be raised if defendant had either not already raised the attack on jurisdiction, or waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12. Can only attack on jurisdictionnot on the merits. Implied Consent: If defendant appears (and does not file a Special Appearance) and fails to raise a Rule 12(b) defense, then defendant waives right to raise that defense. Special Appearance: allows a defendant to appear to object to jurisdiction, without letting that persons appearance establish presence or consent so as to itself not be the basis for jurisdiction.

Full Faith and Credit (Article 4 of the Constitution): shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other statea court need not enforce a judgment entered without personal jurisdiction. Due Process (14th Amendment): guarantees an individual that his rights can be adjudicated only by a court that has personal jurisdiction over him or hera court cannot enforce a judgment rendered with out personal jurisdiction. NOTE: TRANSIENT JURISDICTION SURVIVES; BEST REMAINING ARGUMENT INVOLVES NOTICE INTERNATIONAL SHOE (Minimum Contacts) [Washington brought suit against Shoe, a DE corporation with main offices in STL, to recover funds it claimed Shoe owed it. Shoe employed 11-13 salesmen who temporarily lived in WA and sold orders of substantial monetary value. Shoe had many regional sales offices. Shoe was served in person with process to one of salesmennotice was mailed to STL, too. Court held that the systematic and continuous activities easily met minimum contacts AND the claim was arising out of those contacts in WA. DEFENDANT MUST HAVE: (1) Certain minimum contacts with the state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend (claim arises out of those contacts) (2) traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice Minimum Contacts Test Nature and Quality of Contacts: (Burger King) Conduct in question arises out of the contact with the forum state Carry on activities in forum state Close sales or perform services Avail themselves to the benefits of the forum state Regularly sell products at wholesale or retail prices Solicit business and advertise NOTE: Contacts must be VOLUNTARY. General Jurisdiction: Courts authority to hear all claims against defendant, at the place of defendants domicile or the place of service, without showing that a connection exists between the claims and the forum state. Contacts were so continuous and systematic that juris may be allowed even if the claim was completely unrelated to those contacts. Specific Jurisdiction: Courts authority stems from the defendant having certain minimum contacts with the forum state so that the court may hear a case whose issues arise from those minimal contacts. The more closely related the contacts and the facts giving rise to the claim, the more likely the court is to uphold the jurisdictioncontroversy must arise out of the contacts with the forum state. Must consider quality and nature of the contacts in forum state: 1. Casual or isolated occurrences are NOT enough 2. A single act can suffice 3. Quantity not determinative 8

Reciprocityhad defendant benefited from the benefits and protections of the laws of the forum state? HANSON v. DENCKLANo Purposeful Availment [Pennsylvania resident bought trust from bank in DE. She moved to FL, and died. Heldno jurisdiction over DE bank in FL courts.] Person of interest moved; NOT corporation. (1) UNILATERAL ACT of trustee moving to FL (sending money to her)DE bank did not purposefully avail itself to FL law thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. (2) To be able to show minimum contacts you must show reciprocity and that by some act the defendant has purposefully and voluntarily availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefit and protections of its law. MCGEE v. INTERNATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. [CA resident bought life insurance from a corporation. Corporation was then bought out by defendant in TX. Defendant sent the resident a reassurance certificate to offer to insure himresident accepted and paid premiums to defendants TX office. Suit brought in CA. Heldjurisdiction in CA.] Corporation moved; NOT person of interest. (1) It is sufficient for purposes of Due Process that the suit was based on a contract which had substantial connection with that state. NOTE: McGee and Hanson go hand-in-handMirror images of one another. SHAFFER v. HEITNER [Shareholder derivative suit brought against director of a corporation as individuals who were absent, non-residents of Delaware. Plaintiff attempted, unsuccessfully to get In Rem jurisdiction by seizing (attaching) the defendants shares of stock, which he claimed to be physically present in Delaware, according to Delaware statute.] (1) ALL assertions of state court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe. Only one standard nowIn Rem and Quasi In Rem are absorbed. (2) In order for a state to exercise jurisdiction over an absent non-resident defendant, contacts are necessary. Those contacts may include the ownership of property, but mere ownership of property does not conclusively establish jurisdiction, as it did under the regime of Pennoyer v. Neff. (3) Looking for proxy of presence (agent, incorporation, domicile, principal place of business) manifestation to obtain jurisdiction over an absent non-resident defendant. WORLDWIDE VOLKSWAGEN [Plaintiff sues NY distributor (distributes to NY, NJ, CN) and a dealer (showroom in NY) in OK for injuries in an OK car accident. The defendants did no

business in OK. Helda consumer's unilateral act of bringing a party's product into the forum state was NOT a sufficient constitutional basis for personal jurisdiction over the party.] (1) Foreseeability alonereferring to the defendants conduct and connection with the forum state being such that he or she should reasonably anticipate being haled into court thereis not a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. (2) Stream of Commercecan be contributing element, but is not itself a basis for jurisdiction. Simply because goods can find their way to forum state DOES not make someone liable for entering it into that stream. Stream of commerce DOES apply when the defendant delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers IN the forum state, not just FROM the forum state. (3) Defendants actions must be purposeful and directed toward the forum state (i.e. business plan, marketing, etc.) Five Factor Test for Fairness substantial justice and fair play 1. Burden on defendant (forum acceptable unless it is so so gravely difficult and inconvenient that a party is unfairly put at a severe disadvantage in comparison to his opponent. BK) 2. Interests of the forum state (McGee: forum had strong interest in 3. Plaintiffs interest in obtaining relief 4. Interstate judicial systems interest in efficiency 5. Shared interest of several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies ASAHI METAL v. SUPERIOR COURT [Person injured on motorcycle in CA, filed product liability action in CA alleging that accident was caused by defective motorcycle tire, tube and sealantnaming Cheng Shin, the Taiwanese manufacturer of the tube, as the defendant. Cheng Shin filed cross-complaint seeking indemnification from Asahi, the manufacturer of the tubes valve assembly. Asahi, a Japanese corporation, had sold substantial quantity of valve stems to Cheng Shinreasonably knew that their stems would go into tires in the forum state. Heldno jurisdiction in CA over Asahi. Mere awareness on the part of a foreign defendant that the components it manufactured, sold, and delivered outside the US would reach the forum state in the stream of commerce DOES NOT constitute as minimum contacts.] (1) Purposeful availment test: The substantial connection, between the defendant and the forum state necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state. The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state. Examples of directedintent or purpose to serve the market in the forum state (designing the product for the market in forum, advertising in forum, establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum, marketing product through distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in forum)

10

-fairness factors appliedfairness irrelevant absent contacts (must establish contact before evaluating fairness) BURGER KING v. RUDZEWICZ [Whether the absent non-resident defendant purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protection of FL's laws by entering into a contract providing that those laws would govern franchise disputes and thus established sufficient fairness in the forum state? Heldjurisdiction over defendant in FL.] (1) Three elements to determine whether defendant purposefully established minimum contacts in a CONTRACT issue: Prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences Along with terms of contracts Parties actual course of dealing (2) Contracting with parties in a forum state for business purposes will pull you into that forums jurisdiction. (reached out and purposefully availed themselves to FLexpect to be haled into court) (3) Defendants purposefully availed themselves to the forum state through reciprocityreached out beyond" MI and negotiated with a FL corporation for the purchase of a long-term franchise and the benefits that would derive from affiliation with a nationwide organization. PAVLOVICH v. SUPERIOR COURT [Whether an absent non-resident's knowledge that his or her tortious conduct in creating a passive website may harm certain industries centered in a state is sufficient alone to establish purposeful availment on such state?] (1) Analyze INTERNET ACTIVITY by Sliding Scale Analysis: [Post-onlyInteractive] Level of activity Level of business exchange Intentionally targeting forum state Level of interactivity and commercial nature Passive Site: jurisdiction rarely exists in the case of a passive site; the main exception is when the site contains material clearly directed at another state (i.e. information that defames a specific person in another state). Active Site: operation of an active site clearly constitutes a contract with the viewers state, at least if the viewer INTERACTS. Therefore, a seller who contracts to sell goods to buyer has established contracts with the buyers state. Calder v Jones Effects Test: Will allow PJ over a party whose conduct was expressly aimed at the forum state, knowing that the harmful effects would be felt primarily there and that the Ds would reasonably anticipate being haled into court. A court may exercise SPECIFIC JURISDICTION over a nonresident defendant only if: 11

(1) "The defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits." (2) "The controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum." (3) "The assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." ***NOW, LOOKING AT GENERAL JURISDICTION*** PERKINS V. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. [P, non-resident of Ohio, sues Philippine Co. in Ohio Court. President of company carried on in Ohio a continuous and systematic activity of the company & there was no alternative forum b/c of war in Philippenesso court said PJ is good] -despite claim not arising from Ds contact with forum state (specific), if you can show D had continuous and systematic activity with the state (general), then a court has PJ HELICOPTEROS V. HALL [company did not have systematic, continuous, or pervasive activity in TX to establish heavy contact for general jurisdiction. CEO only made one trip to TX, D did not request that checks be drawn from TX bank or that there were any negotiations between D with respect to the location or identity fo the bank. We hold that mere purchases even if occurring at regular intervals, are not enough to warrant a States assertion of in personam jurisdiction over a non-resident corporation in a cause of action not related to those purchase transactions.] ***PRESENCE*** BURNAM v. SUPERIOR COURT [Husband and wife separatewife moves to CA with children. Husband domiciled in NJvisits CA for business and to visit with childrenwife served him with divorce papers. Whether the Due Process Clause denies CA courts jurisdiction over a nonresident, who was personally served with process while temporarily in that state, in a suit unrelated to his activities?] Holding: presence plus service within the state establishes PJ Fairness factor is irrelevantif transient/tag jurisdiction then no other questions. It is our first true love! Presencethe most important part of Pennoyer was its rule allowing a state to exercise jurisdiction over anyone who was served while present in the state. In Burnham the court upheld CAs exercise of personam jurisdiction over who was served while present in state. However, court was dividedno majority opinion. o Scalias view: held that the long tradition of exercising jurisdiction over people who were present was enough to show that the practice complied with traditional notions of due process. Therefore, it was unnecessary to apply the minimum contacts test.

12

Intl Shoe confined its minimum contacts requirement to situations in which is not present within the territory of the forum. Minimum contacts is a proxy for presencewhen is physically present there is NO need to establish or weigh the quality and nature of such contacts! o Brennans view: argued that the minimum contacts test applied. However, s voluntary presence, coupled with the service while he was there, gave CA general jurisdiction over . o Stevens view: refused to join either camp; simply indicated the dispute was a very easy case. Defendant cannot be lured into jurisdictionPRESENCE MUST BE VOLUNTARY!! Cant be kidnapped and drug across state lines; Cant be tricked into being present; Cant be legally induced as by a lawsuit (except for nonresident in some cases) or criminal trialwitnesses also present cant be served EXCEPTION: a state has power over anyone who is appearing in a pending action AND may exercise this power when the claim involved may reasonably be determined to be concurrent with that action. **CONSENT** CARNIVAL CRUISE v. SHUTE [Ticket had contract which required all litigation to be brought in FL; passenger slips and fallssues for negligence.] Forum-selection clause: where the parties specify that disputes can be heard only in a particular court. If a party sues elsewhere, the opposing party may move for dismissal. 1) Choice of lawdo not purport where suit shall be brought, but do provide that the substantive law of a particular jurisdiction will govern disputes arising under the contract (Burger King) 2) Consent to jurisdictionthe parties (or one of the parties) consents to a suit in a particular place, thus waiving challenges to personal jurisdiction. 3) Forum selectionlimiting the forum to a single location (Carnival Cruise) 4) Arbitrationtakes dispute out of the legal system altogether and places them in an arbitration procedure. 5) Cognovitrepresents outer limits of the parties ability to contract out of procedural law. Court approaching forum-selection clauses will address two questions: 1) As a matter of contract law, is the clause enforceable? 2) Apart from the law of contract, is there some overriding reason that such clauses should NOT be enforceable? Reasonable forum selection clause will be valid when: o for practical reasons1) companies interest in limiting to the selected forum; 2) dispels confusion as to what forum to use; 3) reduces cost passed down to consumers by limiting location of litigation 13

o for fairness reasons (fundamentally fair at the time the agreement was made; not when the case is filed)1) cannot be in bad faith to prevent suits, 2) must be a reasonable forum, (i.e. their principle place of business), 3) didnt gain s accession to the contract clause by fraud or overreaching. **NOTICE** Rule 4 MULLANE v. CENTRAL HANOVER BANK AND TRUST CO. Due process requires that service of process be, reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action AND afford them an opportunity to present their objections.SERVICE MUST BE REASONABLY CALCULATED TO EFFECTUATE ACTUAL NOTICE!
Notice by Publication CAN BE SUFFICIENT IF whereabouts of are unknown and cannot be ascertained with reasonable effortonly viable option.

Long-Arm Statutes (allows service on out-of-state defendants; statutes authorizing cts to reach
beyond their own borders) 1. Complies with Due Process 2. Is consistent with the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice Gibbons v. Brown [State long-arm statutes may restrict PJ even if the constitution would permit it] -To come within FL juris under the statute, a D must engage in substantial and not isolated activity lawsuit is not enough

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTIONCOURTS POWER TO HEAR PARTICULAR CASE 1331 FEDERAL QUESTIONgrants jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the US Mottley Rulefederal question must be articulated on the face of pleaded complaint; affirmative defenses are NOT relevant in deciding whether the case should be heard in Federal court. No rule barring FEDERAL CLAIMS from being brought in STATE COURT (COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION). Challenging Federal SMJ 1) Dismissal under 12(b)(1)lack of subject matter jurisdiction; NOT barred from bringing suit is state court. 2) Dismissal under 12(b)(6)failure to state a claim; barred from bringing suit is state court (binding on both federal and state courts). 1332 DIVERSITY JURISDICTIONoriginal jurisdiction where: 1) Matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000; AND 2) Diversity of citizenship between parties

14

Diversity is determined when action is commenced subsequent changes in domicile during the actions lifetime do not matter! If action is removed, citizenship is determined at the time of removal for diversity purposes. Diversity of Citizenship exists between (citizenship determined by domicile; not synonymous with resident) Citizens of different states; Citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; Citizens of different states and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; AND A foreign state, as , and citizens of a state or of different states. NOTE: AN ALIEN ADMITTED TO US FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCEDEEMED A CITIZEN OF THE
STATE IN WHICH THE ALIEN IS DOMICILED

Citizenship is determined by domicile A person may have numerous residence, BUT only 1 domicile! To change domicile, you must (1) physically take up residence in a different domicile; (2) with intention to remain there! 1332(a)(1)to be a citizen of a state requires person to be (1) a US citizen AND (2) a domiciliary of the state. 1332(c)corporations are citizens of state where: o Incorporated; AND o Principle place of business Nervelocation of CEOs and other administrators Musclelocation of everyday business activities, manufacturing plants Most courts look at BOTH! Complete Diversity (Strawbridge Rule)no party on one side () may be a citizen of same state as any party on the other side (). Amount in Controversy: In claims for relief other than money, courts will determine amount in controversy by attempting to approximate the monetary value of the relief being sought. AGGREGATION o may aggregate ALL claims he/she has against single to exceed $75,000 markclaims DO NOT have to be related. Multiple Ps cannot aggregate if their claims are regarded as separate and distinct. o 2 or more CANNOT aggregate claims. o may join another who already has a claim against exceeding $75,000 (under supplemental jurisdiction). o may aggregate claims against multiple only if injury exceeds $75,000 AND state law allows all s to be held jointly liable for entire injury. o Some courts allow aggregation of claim by and counterclaim by to exceed $75,000. 15

 1367 SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTIONallows federal courts to take jurisdiction over claims which dont have independent grounds for SMJ in such courts. NOTE: BROADENS FEDERAL JURISDICTION Dependent on THREE variables: 1. The basis of the original jurisdiction over the case; 2. The identity of the party--plaintiff or defendant--seeking to invoke supplemental jurisdiction; AND 3. The rule authorizing the joinder of the party or claim over whom supplemental jurisdiction is sought. 1367(a)covers all cases over which the federal district courts have original jurisdiction under Federal Question ( 1331) Add on state law claim to federal question claim State law claim must arise from the same nucleus of operative facts Supplemental jurisdiction includes claims that involve joinder of additional parties 1367(b)cases over which the federal district courts have original jurisdiction only based on Diversity of Citizenship ( 1332) No jurisdiction over claims by against persons joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 when jurisdiction over such claims would not be proper under 1332 (complete diversity & amount in controversy). DOES COVER claims under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 brought by . 1367 (c)specifies when a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction (courts discretion) 1) claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law; 2) state law claim substantially predominates over federal claim; 3) district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction; 4) other compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction; exceptional circumstances Covers 13(a)compulsory claims 13(g)cross claims Impleader claims under 14(a)by against third party DOES NOT Cover 13(b)permissive counterclaims Claims by against 3rd party under 7th sentence of 14(a)when claim rests on diversity VENUE

16

Dee-K Enterprises v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. 1391(d) [General federal venue statute subjecting alien corporations to suit in any judicial distrct overrides other federal statutes that may contain specific venue provisions] 1391 VENUEWHERE LITIGATION WILL TAKE PLACE 1391(a)jurisdiction SOLELY founded only on DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP (look toward 1332); may bring action in: 1. judicial district where any resides, IF ALL s resides in same state; 2. judicial district in which a substantial part (not where claim arose) of t\1q he events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, OR a substantial part of property that is the subject of that action situation; 3. FALL BACK VENUEjudicial district in which any is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, IF no other district in which the action may be brought otherwise. 1391(b)jurisdiction NOT FOUNDED SOLELY on DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIPFED. QUESTION (look toward 1331); may bring action in: 1. judicial district where any resides, IF ALL s resides in same state; 2. judicial district in which a substantial part (not where claim arose) of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, OR a substantial part of property that is the subject of that action situation; 3. FALL BACK VENUEjudicial district in which any may be found, IF no other district in which the action may be otherwise brought. 1391(c)corporations reside in any judicial district that has personal jurisdiction over it at the time the action is commenced; minimum contacts test applied to district (not the state) 1391(d)alien may be sued in any district (includes an alien corporation) DISMISSAL FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENSA COMMON LAW DOCTRINE NOTE: MUST REFILE! Federal or State courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction IF the court is a seriously inappropriate forum; IF a substantially more appropriate forum is available to , AND IF transfer under statute 1404 and 1406 is not an adequate remedy. Allowed when: alternative forum is available that has jurisdiction chosen forum is inappropriate due to private and public interest factors does not consider whether resulting change in law favors one party Piper Aircraft v. Reynolaw of alternate forum being less favorable to in NOT by itself grounds for denying s motion for forum non conveniens (also, change in law favorable to should not be considered) To determine if current forum is inappropriate must look at (Gilbert Test): PRIVATE INTERESTSinterests in having the litigation in the most convenient location 17

o relative ease of access to proof o availability of forcing attendance of unwilling (compulsory process) o cost of obtaining attendance of willing o possibility of viewing premises o all other practicalities to make the trial of case easier, more expeditious, and inexpensive PUBLIC INTERESTSstate has an interest in not burdening its courts with litigation not connected w/ the state o difficulties flowing from court congestion o the local interest of having local controversies decided at home o interest in having diversity cases in a forum that is at home w/ the laws governing it o avoidance of unnecessary conflict of law problems or problems with the application of foreign law o unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum w/ jury duty

1441-1453 REMOVALSTATE COURT FEDERAL COURT 1441(a)who can remove, and where does it remove to? o ONLY can remove o ALL served s must seek removal together (i.e., if 1 and 2 joined, 1 alone cannot remove) o being counterclaimed CANNOT remove even if s counterclaim had basis for original federal jurisdiction o REMOVESto the district court in which the state court (where the action was originally brought) is located 1441(b)when is action removable? o If a FEDERAL QUESTION ( 1331), always removable without regard to citizenship or residence of parties o If under DIVERSITY JURISDICTION ( 1332), may NOT remove if sued in state of his domicile (citizen of MO who is sued in MO cannot remove) o Certain statutes specify certain actions as removable ( 1442, 1443); whereas, certain statutes specify certain actions as non-removable (FELA cases, workmens comp, etc.) 1441(c)joining non-removable claims with Federal Question claims o an otherwise non-removable separate and independent claim is removable when joined with a Federal Question claim ( 1331); district court may determine case or remand all state law matters 1446procedure for removal o must normally seek removal within 30 days of receipt of complaint o must file notice of removalsubject to Rule 11 AND setting forth the grounds for removal 18

o must give written notice of removal to all adverse parties o If initial pleading is non-removable and amends making it removable has 30 days from that point to seek removal; EXCEPT that a case may NOT be removed more than 1 year after commencement of action IF based on diversity jurisdiction ( 1332) 1447procedure after removal o Motion to remand because removal lacked SMJ may be made any time before final judgment. o Motion to remand based on anything else must be made within 30 days after notice of removal. TRANSFERRELEVANT ONLY IN FEDERAL COURT NOTE: NO NEED TO REFILE! 1404applies when action was proper in the initial forum/venue o a district court may choose to transfer to any other district court where the action might have been brought (must still have PJ, SMJ and Venue) for convenience of parties/witnesses and in the interest of justice o choice of law remains the same after transfersame outcome regardless of venue o may be invoked at partys request or sua sponte (on courts own initiative) o DOES NOT allow for international transfer (forum non conveniens needed for this) 1406applies when action was improper in the first place o Requires the district court to dismiss; OR if in the interest of justice, to transfer to any district in which it could have been brought SERVICE OF PROCESS
**SUMMONS**

RULE 4: Summons (Service of Process) Rule 4(d)allows for waiver of service of process NOTE: BY WAIVING SUMMONS, NOT WAIVING FUTURE OBJECTION TO VENUE OR PJ o has 30 day from when the request is sent to return the waiver (60 days, if outside any judicial district of US) o has 60 days after waiver was sent to file answer (90 days, if outside any judicial district of US)normally Rule 12 requires an answer in 20 days, BUYING TIME! o Failure to waive responsible for costs of service and costs of any motion required to collect costs of service Rule 4(e)Service upon individuals within Judicial District of US

19

o Pursuant to the law for service in the statein which the district court is located OR in which service is effected; OR o by delivering a copy of the summons AND of the complaint to the individual personally (in hand service); OR o by leaving copies at individuals home or usual place of abode with some person residing in the household; must be over 18; AND mentally competent; OR o by delivering papers to an agent appointed by the to receive service of process on his/her behalf. Rule 4(f)Service upon Individuals in Foreign Countries Rule 4(h)Service upon Corporations or Associates Rule 4(k)Territorial limits of Effective Servicespecifies manner in which service of process is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over o 4(k)(1)(a)if state long-arm statute authorizes jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case AND it would be constitutional for the state court to assert jurisdictionfederal court may do so. o 4(k)(1)(b)joined under Rule 14 or Rule 19 AND is served at a place within a judicial district of the US AND not more than 100 miles of the court house o 4(k)(1)(c)subject to federal interpleader jurisdiction ( 1335) o 4(k)(1)(d)service will support jurisdiction if some other federal statute provides that service suffices to support jurisdiction for a particular typed of case o 4(k)(2)in federal question cases, over parties who have sufficient contacts within the US as a whole to constitutionally support jurisdiction, but whose contacts would not suffice to support personal jurisdiction in the courts of any state. Rule 4(m)Time Limit of Service (service of summons MUST be made within 120 days of filing complaint) JOINDERPLEADING; INVOLVES PERMISSION AND POWER Two Part Test: 1) Do the principles of Joinder, governed by FRCP, permit combining these claims?; AND 2) Assuming that joinder IS ALLOWED by FRCP, does the federal court have jurisdiction over the state claim thus joined? Rule 20: Permissive Joinder of Parties (Multiple s and s)MUST SATISFY THREE CRITERIA; MULTIPLE MAY RECOVER RELIEF THAT IS; OR MULTIPLE JOINED IF: 1) Joint, several, or in the alternative; 2) Arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; AND 3) Share a common question of law or fact.

20

Rule 13: Counterclaims and Cross-Claims 13(a)Compulsory Counterclaims Must be joined RELATES to the opposing party's claim and arises out of the same subject matter. Falls within supplemental jurisdiction of the federal courts even if it would be a matter for state court consideration. If a defendant fails to assert a compulsory counterclaim in the original action, that claim may not be brought in a later, separate action (with some exceptions) WAIVED! Any third party involved must have personal jurisdiction. 1) counterclaim must be against an opposing party 2) must arise from same transaction or occurrence as the claim against you 3) must exist at the time the opposing partys pleading is served to you Logical Relation Test (Plant v. Blazer)four tests to determine whether a claim and counterclaim arise from the same transaction: 1) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same? 2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on s claim absent the compulsory claim rule? 3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute s claim as well as s counterclaim? 4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim? (most popular) 13(b)Permissive Counterclaims Must NOT be joinedDOES NOT arise out of the same subject matter as the opposing party's claim or involves third parties over which the court does not have jurisdiction. Must have independent jurisdictional basis (diversity of citizenship; federal question) Permissive counterclaims may be brought in a later, separate action. 13(g)Cross Claims against Co-Party (between parties on the same side of the suit1 v. 2) Party may cross-claim against co-party any claim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence of the original claim. Party may cross-claim against co-party for indemnity for all or part of original claim asserted against the cross-claimant. 13(h)Joinder of additional parties Joining may assert a counterclaim or cross-claim against (according to Rule 20) arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. Rule 18: Joinder of Claims and Remedies NOTE: ONLY APPLIES IF THERE IS NO OTHER RESTRICTIVE RULE GOVERNING SITUATION

21

18(a)Joinder of Claims (a party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has against the opposing party) 18(b)Joinder of Remedies; Fraudulent Conveyances (if one claim is dependent on the outcome of anothercan join two together) Rule 14: Third Party PracticeIMPLEADER; WHEN CAN SOMEONE BE REQUIRED TO SHARE THE PAIN?? IF I AM FOUND LIABLEYOU OWE ME! made party may assert a claim against another party who is or may be liable to the s claim, asserted by has 10 days after serving original answer Rule 19: Required Joinder of Parties (a)threshold Who SHOULD be joined? Are they necessary to the suit? (b)If we cant get absent party what should happen? If they are indespensible, we cant go on. EXAMPLE OF COMPLAINT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JENNIFER ANISTON, Plaintiff v. ANGELINA JOLIE, Defendant; AND BRAD PITT, Defendant. THE PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff, Jennifer Aniston, is a citizen of California. 2. Defendants, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, are citizens of New York. 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1332. Plaintiff is a citizen of California. Defendants are citizens of New York. The amount of controversy exceeds $75,000. 4. Defendants have transacted business in Malibu, California as hereinafter more particularly described, and is therefore subject to personal jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Statutes of California. 5. Venue is proper in proper in the Court pursuant to 28 USC 1391 because of substantial portion of the activities that give rise to this action occurred in California. FACTS COMPLAINT CASE NO.______________

22

6. FIRST CLAIM OF RELIEF BREACH OF CONTRACT 7. SECOND CLAIM OF RELIEF NEGLIGENCE 8. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands 1. A judgment and order of this Court that Defendant DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ________________________ Atty License No. 11111 Leggat, Mauze, and Ottsen 25 Narragansett Dr. St. Louis, MO, 63124

23