Civil Procedure Tests Chart Area/Rule/Statute Minimum Contacts for Personal Jurisdiction Reasonableness PJ General Jurisdiction PJ Transient Presence PJ Rule 4(k)(2) Federal Long-Arm Statute PJ § 1331 Federal Question Subject Matter Jurisdiction § 1332 Diversity of Citizenship + Amount in Controversy SMJ Diversity of Citizenship SMJ Amount in Controversy SMJ Aggregation/Non-Aggregation SMJ Federal Question SMJ “Arises Under” SMJ Pendant and Ancillary Claims SMJ § 1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction Test Shoe Test: 1) facts crucial; 2) based on the actions of the NRD Hanson Test: NRD 1) purposely avails himself of the privileges and 2) purposely injects himself into a forum Brennan Test: stream of commerce; regular and anticipated flow of products; D knew or should have known product would reach market state + reasonableness O’Connor Test: knowledge + targeting; intent/purpose to serve the forum market Burger King Test (contractual relationship): 1) Prior negotiations; 2) Terms of Contract; 3) Course of Dealings; and 4) Future Consequences (length of agreement) Factor Test: 1) burden placed on D; 2) forum state’s interest; 3) P’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief; 4) interstate judicial system’s interest in most efficient place; and 5) state interest in promoting social policy D 1) carries on “continuous and systematic activity” in the forum; 2) those activities make it fair and reasonable to assert jurisdiction, as the D is essentially at home19 Scalia Test: physical presence in the forum + service of process Brennan: minimum contacts + reasonableness 1) covers gap when the Federal Statute has no long-arm AND there is no state long-arm that will reach; 2) must meet due process; and 3) D must not be subject to any state’s jurisdiction; page 197 of book DC shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the US. (a) DC shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy EXCEEDS $75,000, and is between: (1) citizens of different states (complete diversity); (2) citizens of a state and citizens of a foreign state (alienage); (3) citizens of different states and citizens of foreign states are additional parties; and (4) foreign state is plaintiff and citizens of state or diff. states 1) diversity is judged when the case is filed; 2) P bears the burden of proof and pleading; 3) citizen: (a) citizen of the US AND (b) domiciliary of a state (permanent home AND intent to return) Individuals have only 1 domicile; established at the time suit is filed Corporations have 2 – state of incorporation and location of headquarters Unincorporated associations (MLB, NFL) – citizens of every state in which they have members 1) sum may not include interest and fees; 2) may include damages, punitive damages, and injunctions (convert to monetary figure) 1) 1 P, 1 D = all claims may be aggregated 2) 1 P, M D = ONLY if Ds are subject to “joint and several liability” 3) M P, 1 D = NO if there are separate and distinct claims; (Sunkist may allow joining of parent/child) 4) M P, 1 D = YES, ONLY IF there is a “common, undivided interest;” e.g., partnership, community property, etc. Well-Pleaded Complaint – the FQ must come through the P directly Federal Question; page 313 Tests: 1) Statute (a) creates the cause of action; OR (b) cause of action can be inferred from the statute 2) Action asserts a claim requiring the construing of a Federal Statute 3) Gunn: (a) disputed and substantial Federal issue (b) consistent with jurisdiction of the federal court; substantial is examined from the view of the SYSTEM Pendant: “hang from” another claim: counterclaims and cross claims Ancillary: in addition to main claim (3rd party, impleader) “common nucleus of operative fact” – do the claims tell the same story? Do they rely on the same key elements/events? Gibbs Test: 1) Power– whether the federal court has the power under Art. III, Sec. 2: When there is a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws and treaties” and the relationship between that claim and the state claim(s) made in the complaint “permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional ‘case’.” 2) Discretion– whether the court in its discretion believes that the pendent claim should be allowed: There must be a substantial federal question claim and the federal and the appended state claim(s) must derive from a “common nucleus of operative fact.” (a) Except as provided in (b) and (c) or as provided by Federal Statute, in any civil action in SMJ § 1367 (b) limitation Applies to P. Limited because they started things. If they need an additional claim or party at the start, then they could have added them at time of filing. § 1441 Removal SMJ § 1391 Venue Venue § 1404 Change of Venue Venue Forum Non Conviens Venue Eerie Doctrine Eerie § 1652. State laws as rules of decision § 2072 Rules Enabling Act Eerie Byrd Test Substantive Eerie Hanna Test Procedural Eerie Joinder of Claims and Parties Joinder Arising out of the Same which district court has original jurisdiction, court shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action (b) if original jurisdiction founded solely on 1332 (diversity), district court shall NOT have supp. juris. over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 or by parties seeking to intervene as plaintiffs when exercising supp. juris. would be inconsistent with § 1332. (c) court may decline to exercise supp. juris. over a claim 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 court has original juris.; (3) court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction; OR (4) in exceptional circumstances there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction (d) SoL for claim dismissed voluntarily or under (a) is tolled for 30 days after dismissal (a) any civil action brought in a State court of which the district court of US has original jurisdiction may be removed by the defendant or defendants to the district court of the US for the district and division where such action is pending. 1) ONLY if there is diversity and amount in controversy or a federal question; 2) only ORIGINAL defendants; 3) all defendants must agree to removal; 4) P facing a counterclaim is NOT considered a D; 5) goes to the closest Federal Courthouse (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, (1) shall govern for all civil actions brought in district courts; (2) shall be determined without regard whether action is local or transitory in nature (b) civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any D resides if all Ds reside in the State where district located; (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 the property is located; (c) RESIDENCY for venue purposes: (1) a natural person shall be deemed to reside where domiciled; (2) entity with capacity to sue or be sued shall be deemed to reside, if a D anywhere court has PJ, and if P only in the judicial district in which it maintains its principal place of business (3) a NRD may be sued in any judicial district (d) Corporate residency in state with multiple districts; corporation deemed to reside in district where it meets minimum contacts OR district within which it has the most significant contacts (1) for the convenience of parties and witnesses, (2) in the interest of justice, a district court (3) may transfer any civil action to any other district or division (4) where it might have been brought or (5) where all parties have consented. Deference is given to P; higher to US P Gilbert Factors: Fact intensive; balances US v. foreign interest Private Interest – 1) access to proof; 2) access to witnesses; 3) access to premises; 4) enforcement; and 5) joinder of all parties possible Public Interest – 1) administrative difficulties; 2) jury duty; 3) local interest and 4) choice of law On Federal Questions, Federal Law applies. On state issues, state law applies (diversity and amt. in controversy). Federal courts are to apply the written (statutes) and unwritten (stare decicis) laws of the states when deciding a state issue. 10th Amendment issue: “powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (A) Substantive: 1) affecting the outcome and 2) establishing the rights; (B) Procedural: means and methods of enforcing the law Purposes: 1) Discourage forum shopping; 2) Avoid inequitable administration of the law The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply. (a) SCOTUS shall have power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure (b) such rules shall not abridge (shorten), enlarge (broaden), or modify (change) any substantive right. Pure Eerie Byrd Test: 1) Is the rule/statute bound up with state-created rights and obligations? If yes, state law applies, if no 2) Does this rule change the outcome? If yes, state law applies; and 3) Is there a countervailing federal interest? If yes, federal law applies. Countervailing interest must be Constitutional. Rule Enabling Act Hanna Test: 1) Does a federal rule/statute control? 2) Has the rule violated § 2072; 3) Does it violate the Constitution? Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Lowest “life form.” Governs the types of parties and claims that may be added to a suit; some are permissive, others mandatory. Must defer to SMJ (statutes) and PJ (Constitution). Does the claim arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or Transaction, Occurrence, or Series of Transactions or Occurrences Joinder Rule 18 Joinder of Claims Joinder Rule 13 CC Joinder Tests for Compulsory v. Permissive (Joinder) Gibbs Test Joinder Rule 13 XC Joinder Rule 20 Permissive Joinder of Parties Joinder Arising out of the Same Transaction, Occurrence, or Series of Transactions or Occurrences Joinder Rule 14 Impleader/3D Party Joinder Supp. Juris.? Satisfies ancillary § 1367(a) applies § 1367(b) limitation applies to P occurrences? Is there a “unity of time and place”? Two prong test: Prong 1: Transactional: Are D’s acts or omissions pertaining to P’s claims logically related? Is there but-for causation or a “domino” effect? Prong 2: Question of law or fact common to all Ps; analysis of the facts to reveal a common question of law or an operative nucleus of fact. (a) A party asserting a claim, counterclaim (CC), crossclaim (XC), or third-party claim (3D) may join, as independent or alternative claims, as may claims as it has against an opposing party. (b) A party may join two claims even though one of them is contingent on the disposition of the other; but the court may grant relief only in accordance with the parties’ relative substantive rights. P may state a claim for money and a claim to set aside a conveyance that is fraudulent as to that P, without first obtaining a judgement for the money. (a) Compulsory CC: (1) Pleading must state as a CC any claim that the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim: (A) arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim; and (B) does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. (2) Pleader need not state the claim if (A) when the action was commenced, the claim was the subject of another pending action; or (B) the opposing party sued on its claim by attachment or other process that did not establish PJ over the pleader on that claim, and the pleader does not assert any CC under this rule. (b) Permissive CC: any pleading may state as a CC against an opposing party any claim that is not compulsory. 1) Are the issues of facts and law raised by the claim and CC largely the same? 2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on D’s claim absent the compulsory CC rule? 3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute P’s claim as well as D’s CC? 4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the CC? 1) Power– whether the federal court has the power under Art. III, Sec. 2: When there is a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws and treaties” and the relationship between that claim and the state claim(s) made in the complaint “permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional ‘case’.” 2) Discretion– whether the court in its discretion believes that the pendent claim should be allowed: There must be a substantial federal question claim and the federal and the appended state claim(s) must derive from a “common nucleus of operative fact.” (g) XC against a Co-party. A pleading may state as a XC any claim by one party against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a CC, or if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. The XC may include a claim that the co-party is or may be liable to the CCant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action. (a) Persons Who May Join or Be Joined. (1) Plaintiffs may join in one action if: (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative, with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; AND (B) any question of law or fact common to all Ps will arise in the action. (2) Defendants may be joined in one action as Ds if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transition or occurrences; AND (B) any question of law or fact common to all Ds will arise in the action. Does the claim arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences? Is there a “unity of time and place” Two prong test: Prong 1: Transactional: Are D’s acts or omissions pertaining to P’s claims logically related? Is there but-for causation or a “domino” effect? Prong 2: Question of law or fact common to all Ps; analysis of the facts to reveal a common question of law or an operative nucleus of fact. D facing a claim OR P facing a counterclaim/3D claim may: (a) Bring a claim against a non-party who is or may be liable for all or part of the claim. Test: (1) non-party; must not be in the original complaint. (2) who is or may be liable; fact sensitive, based on relationship between person bringing them in and 3D party; (3) for all or part; contribution or indemnity. Contribution – 3D owes part (A) Does the 3D party complaint arise from the same aggregate core of facts which is determinative of the claim? (B) Does the 3D party complaint foster an obviously unmeritorious claim? (C) Does 3D party complaint unduly prejudice the 3D party OR unduly delay proceedings? Indemnity – 3D responsible for ALL: (A) Contract: does the K contain an indemnification clause? Yes? Proper. (B) CL Blamelessness: Was D at fault/did D violate a duty to P? Yes? Go to Rule 22 and § 1335 Interpleader Joinder Rule 56 Summary Judgement Summary Judgement Rule 56 Principal Issues SJ SJ Tests Celotex Anderson Matsushita Rule 11 Signing and Sanctions Signature Rule 11 Sanctions Contribution. Rule 22: stakeholder P is diverse with the claimants, and the amount in controversy is > $75,000 (1) By P – persons with claims that may expose P stakeholder to double or multiple liability may be joined as Ds and required to interplead. Joinder is proper even though: (a) the claims lack a common origin or are adverse and independent; (b) P stakeholder denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants. (2) By D – a D exposed to similar liability may seek interpleader through a XC or CC § 1335: if one claimant is diverse from others + amount in controversy is ≥ $500 (a) DC shall have original juris. Of any civil action filed by a person having in his possession money or property of the value of $500 or more if: (1) two or more adverse claimants of diverse citizenship are claiming such money or property; AND (2) P has deposited such money and property under the obligation of the court. (b) action may be entertained although the titles or claims of the complicating claimants do not have a common origin § 2361 provides long-arm to offer nationwide service; does not reach people outside the US (a) a party may move for SJ, identifying each claim or defense – or the part of each – on which SJ is sought. The court shall grant it if the movant shows 1) there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and 2) the movant is entitled to judgement as a matter of law. (b) Time to File: may file at any time until 30 days after the close of discovery. (c) Procedures: (1) Supporting Factual Positions: party asserting a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must: (A) cite to particular parts of materials in the record; or (B) show that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence. (2) Objection that a Fact not Supported: a party may object that the material cited cannot be presented in an admissible form. (3) Court need only consider cited material, but may consider other material in the record. (d) When Facts are Unavailable to the Nonmovant: if nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order. (e) Failing to Properly Support or Address a Fact: if a party fails to properly support an assertion or fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion, the court may: (1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact; (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; (3) grant SJ if the motion and supporting materials show that the movant is entitled to it; or (4) issue any other appropriate order. (h) Judgement Independent of the Motion. After giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, a court may: (1) grant SJ for a nonmovant; (2) grant the motion on grounds not raised by a party; or (3) consider SJ on its own after identifying for the parties that may not be genuinely in dispute. 1. Whether a factual dispute exists. (proved by direct evidence) 2. Whether the dispute is material to the outcome of the case. (must be decided to resolve the substantive claim or defense) 3. Whether the dispute is genuine. (could a reasonable jury reach a different conclusion) SJ is all about the BURDENS of proof and production. Celotex: (A) If MOVANT bears the burden of proof on the issue at trial, it must produce credible evidence that would entitle it to a directed verdict; i.e., it must prove its case. (B) If NONMOVANT bears the burden of proof at trial, the movant can: (1) submit affirmative evidence to negate an essential element of the P’s claim; OR (2) demonstrate that the nonmovant’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmovant’s claim (find the gap by affirmatively showing absence of evidence in record). Anderson: When reviewing SJ, a court MUST view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden. If burden is “preponderance of evidence,” “clear and convincing,” or “beyond a reasonable doubt,” then that is the standard the court must apply. Matsushita: deals with inferences. There must be a choice between inferences. Movant must show that THEIR inference is the only reasonable one for SJ to be appropriate. (a) Signature. All paperwork must be signed by attorney or by party personally. (b) Representation to Court: certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose; (2) the claims, etc. are warranted by existing law; (3) factual contentions have evidentiary support or are likely to have support; (4) denials of factual contentions are warranted or are reasonably based on belief or a lack of evidence. (c) Sanctions. (1) In General: court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. A law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee. (2) Motions for Sanctions. Must be made separately from any other motion and must describe specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). (3) Court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct described in the order does not violate 11(b). (4) Nature of Sanction. Must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by other similarly situated. (5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. Court must not impose a monetary sanction: (A) against a represented party for violating 11(b). (B) on its own unless it issues the show-cause order under 11(c)(3). (6) Requirements. Court must describe sanctioned conduct and explain the basis of the sanction. (d) Does not apply to discovery or rules 26 through 37.