Old Outline

See Glossary for terms.

See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2021 Edition for law.

I. Rules of Civil Procedure

• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)
• The U.S. Constitution
• United States Treaties

II. Basic Jurisdictional Concepts

• Jurisdiction is what gives a court the power to act.
• Courts must have subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction.
• If there no jurisdiction, court has no power to act on dispute at hand.

State courts and all sorts of specialty courts can hear federal questions if the plaintiff brings it there and the federal question pertains to the claim. State courts have general jurisdiction.

Federal courts have a more specific analysis. It’s more difficult to bring a claim in federal court.

III. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJx) is the court’s power over a specific dispute, as contrasted to Personal Jurisdiction (PJx) which relates to the court’s power over an individual. SMJx has to do with whether the case can be in state or federal court.

• Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Federal Courts

• (a) A federal court has SMJx if the claim meets at least one of the following requirements:

• (1) Federal Question 28 USC § 1331 ¹
• (i) A claim arising under federal statute, U.S. Constitution, or U.S. treaties.

• (ii) Other exceptions (like if the US is a party, or specialty courts like Bankruptcy)

• (2) Diversity Jurisdiction (DivJx) 28 USC § 1332 ²
• (a) There must be complete diversity of citizenship among all parties
• (i) “Citizenship” is
• (1) for persons, residence
• (2) for corporations, place of primary business OR where it is incorporated
• (ii) “Among all parties”
• (1) No plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant; and

• (2) the amount in Controversy must exceed $75K

• Supplemental Jurisdiction (SuppJx) 28 USC § 1367 ³
• (a) Supplemental jurisdiction is the authority of federal courts to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim even though the court would lack the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the additional claims independently.
• (i) When federal court has jurisdiction over some claims, it can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims if they arise from the same case or controversy
• (1) Same case or controversy is when there is a “common nucleus of operative fact” (in other words, the same transaction or occurrence)

IV. Erie Doctrine

The Erie Doctrine relates to which law is applied by the federal court sitting in Diversity Jurisdiction. The Erie Doctrine allows the federal court to apply its own procedural laws but requires the court to apply state substantive law. ⁴ A federal court cannot apply state procedural laws. The following are some high frequency examples of procedural and substantive laws:

• (i) Procedural laws
• (1) Civil procedure rules

• (2) Burden of proof standards

• (ii) Substantive laws
• (1) Claims based in state law
• (2) Damages
• (3) Statute of frauds
• (4) Choice of law rules (will be triggered in fact pattern; for example, in a contract there could be a clause saying that another state’s law applies. I think.)

• (a) A federal court sitting in DivJx must apply the forum state’s choice of law rules to determine which state’s substantive law applies to the action. (this isn’t Erie specific, Choice of Law doctrine generally dictates HORIZONTAL choice of law - between different states)

• (iii) Statute of limitations (SOL) can be procedural or substantive.
• (1) Where a substantive right is conditioned upon statute of limitations-> substantive
• (2) Where a substantive right is not conditioned upon statute of limitations-> procedural

If statute of limitationsis substantive, Federal Court applies it. If statute of limitationsis procedural, Federal Court will not apply it. Instead, I think the Federal Court will come up with a law.

(d) Once applicable state law is determined, the federal court must apply the law as the forum state court would

• (i) The federal court cannot make its own independent judgment on the construction of the law
• (ii) When no controlling state case law is available to provide federal court with guidance, the federal court must predict how the state’s highest court would rule on the issue (sometimes called the “Erie educated guess” principle)

For more on Erie Doctrine, see “The Dreaded Erie Doctrine” in Notes

V. Personal Jurisdiction

Current rule that matters:

A federal court has personal jurisdiction based on either of two categories: (i) the Traditional Basis of jurisdiction or (ii) Long-Arm Jurisdiction.

• (i) Traditional Basis of Personal Jurisdiction (over defendant)
• (1) Domicile (where defendant resides); or
• (2) Presence in the state when served;⁵ or
• (3) Consent (defendant consents to jurisdiction in a specific forum); or
• (4) Waiver (by not objecting defendant waives right to object).
• (5) Any of these must meet the constitutional requirement of due process.

• (ii) Long-Arm Jurisdiction
• (1) Applies when defendant is not a resident of the forum state; and
• (2) the forum state must have a long-arm statute; and
• (3)[the claim] must meet the constitutional requirement for due process.*

Two Prongs. The constitutional requirement for due process has two prongs. These are (1) minimum contacts and (2) fair play and substantial justice To satisfy the constitutional requirement for due process, both prongs must be satisfied.

• (1) The first prong is minimum contacts (“contacts and relatedness”). Sufficient minimum contacts exist when there is either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction.

• (a) General jurisdiction
• (i) Exists when the defendant’s contacts with the forum state are so substantial and of such a nature that the defendant is essentially at home in the state
• (ii) Claim does not need to relate to or arise from the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.
• (iii) Defendant must be a citizen of the forum state for general jurisdiction to apply.
• (1) If the defendant is a natural person, they must be domiciled in the forum state.

• (2) If the defendant is a corporation, it must be “at home” in the forum state.

• (b) Specific jurisdiction
• (i) Exists when the suit arises out of or relates to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.
• (ii) There must be a connection between the forum state and the underlying controversy.

• Regularly occurring sales of a product in a state does not justify the exercise of jurisdiction over a claim unrelated to those sales.

• (2) The second prong is fair play and substantial justice (“fairness”).
• (a) Even if the minimum contacts test is met, it must be fair and reasonable for the defendant to be sued in the forum state, “so as not to offend notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
• (b) The burden is on the defendant to show that it would be unreasonable to defend themselves in the forum state that it would constitute a violation of Due Process.
• (i) When calculating burden on defendant, a court will consider
• (1) the burden on the defendant of litigating in the forum state; and
• (2) the state’s interest in providing a forum; and
• (3) the plaintiff’s interest in a convenient forum; and
• (4) the interest of the judicial system to efficiently resolve disputes.

VI. Purposeful Availment

A non-resident defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction when its contacts with the forum state

• (a) demonstrate a purposeful availment of the benefits of the forum state; and
• (b) the cause of action is related to those contacts.

Purposeful availment includes any resources that the state has to offer and that the defendant benefited from using. For example, the use of roads, airports, institutions and police power.

The idea is that if you expected the state to support you while you were interacting with it, then it is fair for you to be brought under its jurisdiction.

Brand new SCOTUS rule March 25, 2021

Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court: 8-0 ruling (March 25, 2021)⁵

Personal Jurisdiction Analysis Flow

1. Where was defendant properly served?

• In forum state?
• Traditional test (general jurisdiction applies)(under general jurisdiction, claims do not have to arise from or relate to defendant’s contacts with the forum state; defendant can be sued for essentially anything [i.e. courts have personal jurisdiction over defendant generally])
• Domicile
• Presence
• Waiver

• Consent

• Not served in forum state?
• Is defendant a citizen of forum state?
• No
• Does the state have a long arm statute?
• Yes
• Did defendant have minimum contacts with forum state?
• Even if minimum contacts test was met:
• Was there fair play/substantial justice?
• Discuss factors and come to conclusion about fairness

If both prongs are met, specific jurisdiction (there is specific jurisdiction if the plaintiff’s claims arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contact with the forum state [i.e. courts have personal jurisdiction over defendant in this specific dispute])

Watch out because contacts might be so substantial that the defendant is essentially “at home” in forum state (if at home court has general jurisdiction). “So systematic and continuous that defendant is essentially at home in the forum state”

If the defendant purposefully availed themself of the benefits of the forum state and should have anticipated that personal jurisdiction was foreseeable and/or reasonable, only go to purposeful availment analysis.

VII. Removal

(a) Defendant has a right to remove a case from state to federal court within the forum state where the claim was filed if

• (i) the federal court has (or would have) subject matter jurisdiction over the matter;
• (ii) no defendant is a resident of the forum state; and
• (iii) all defendants agree to removal.⁶

(b) Procedure for removal: Defendant files a Notice of Removal in District Court (See 28 USC § 1446(a)), then serves notice upon all parties and with the state court. Removal is automatic; state court takes no further action.

(c) A plaintiff cannot remove a case to federal court. This right only resides with defendant. But if a defendant removes improperly, the plaintiff can move to have it remanded back to state court where it originated.

Call of the question is often is removal proper or is remand proper? (this is a really common trigger)

Removal analysis is usually triggered when

• (1) The lawsuit was filed in state court where defendant is not a resident of the state; or
• (2) the lawsuit is removed to fed ct and issue is whether plaintiff can remand.

Removal Flow

• (1) Is SMJx proper?
• If yes >
• (2) Is any defendant a resident of forum state?
• If no >
• (3) Do all defendants agree to removal?
• If yes > removal is proper

this might be in final exam

VIII. Venue

Venue analysis has to do with horizontal movement between something (see slide) venue protects … see slide w usc 28 from slides of 7-8-21. See also important personal injury rule in slides from today.

Note: venue is the most consistently tested rule of civil procedure on the bar exam, only after SMJx + PJx

(a) Venue and forum are different in that venue refers to the specific district, whereas forum refers to the entire state. (e.g., New York is forum; SDNY is venue).

(b) Venue is proper in any district where

• (i) any defendant resides, so long as all defendants are residents of the forum state.
• (1) For the purpose of venue, residence is determined as follows:
• (a) For persons, residence is domicile (get language from statute). Domicile is residence and subjective intent to stay permanently.
• (b) For corporations/businesses/organizations, residence is any district where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction
• (ii) or where substantial portion of claim occurred;
• (*) Important sub-rule: For venue analysis on a personal injury case, the venue is proper where injury occurred, not where medical treatment was received;
• (ii)or
• (iii) or where property connected to the action is located
• (iv) If none of the above apply (rare), venue is proper in any judicial district where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction (this is why you always do the PJx analysis first! The PJx analysis often feeds directly into venue analysis).

Transfer of venue

(horizontal movement)

Must do this analysis even if I find venue is proper

If venue is improper, the court must either (1) transfer to the proper venue if the interest of justice so requires, or (2) dismiss.

• (i) Even if venue is proper, the court may use its discretion to transfer venue if (1) the transfer is necessary for the convenience of the parties and the convenience of witnesses; and (2) the interest of justice so requires and (3) the action could have been brought in the receiving court.

• (ii) Forum non conveniens. When the more appropriate forum is not a U.S. District Court (aka forum non conveniens), courts will apply a balancing test between private and public interests.
• (1) Private interests include access to evidence and witnesses, connection of plaintiff’s claim to forum, etc.
• (2) Public interests include good use of court’s finite resources, avoiding multiple sets of laws which may confuse jury, local interest in having a case heard at home, etc.

Courts do not take into consideration which forum has more favorable laws for plaintiff’s claim.

IX. Service of process and notice

(a) Insufficient or defective service of process can result in technical dismissal.

(b) Disambiguation of terms:

• (i) Service simply refers to the delivery of the required documents
• (ii) Process is another name for the summons
• (iii) Notice is what you are trying to accomplish (notify the defendant of action)

(c) Must have Summons and Complaint

• (i) A summons notifies the defendant of required details facilitating their right to be heard. The summons should
• (1) Name the court and the parties
• (2) State the name of plaintiff’s attorney (if there is one)
• (3) State date and time within which defendent must appear and/or defend
• (4) Notify the defendant that failure to appear or answer will result in a default judgment

• (5) For a list of required items, see FRCP 4(a)

• (ii) Complaint is the instrument by which a lawsuit is filed (hint: it’s a copy of the lawsuit)

(d) Service must be made by person at least 18 years old who is not a party to the action.

(e) The method of service must be consistent with the constitutional requirements of due process

• (i) Serving an individual
• (1) To the individual personally
• (2) To someone of suitable age and discretion at individual’s current dwelling

• (3) To an authorized agent

• (ii) Serving a corporation, partnership or association
• (1) In accordance with state law of forum state and state where service occurs
• (2) Delivery to an officer or agent of the corporation
• (a) Officer = person in executive role

• (b) Agent = managing or authorized agent

• (iii) Serving a foreign defendant
• (1) By internationally agreed to means; or

• (2) If an international agreement exists and it satisfies constitutional requirements of due process

• (iv) More rules for how to serve specific types of parties are found in FRCP 4(g)-(j)

The FRCP actually incentivizes parties to accept service and waive their right to object by giving them a longer window to respond.

When analyzing whether the “constitutional requirements of due process” are met service of process hypo, a helpful question to answer is: Was the service of process “reasonably calculated” to notify the defendant of the action and give them an opportunity to object?