Tutor Handout #7
Civil Procedure I
Professor: William Aceves
E-Mail: wja@cwsl.edu
Office Hours: T 8:30–1:30 & by appt.
Room: 302
Tutor: Samantha Sneen
E-Mail: SYSneen@law.cwsl.edu
Office Hours: M 4–5p.m.
Room: Library 1st Floor Tables
VENUE

Recap from Last Week:
o § 1391(b): Venue in general
o § 1391(c): Residency. Where the defendant 1. resides for purpose of venue:
 After you figure out where a person or corporation resides and is
considered domiciled, go to § 1391(b) and determine where venue would
be proper.
o § 1391(d): Corporations in states with multiple districts
o § 1404: 2.
of Venue
o § 1406: Cure or Waiver of 3.
o § 1631: Transfer to Cure Want of 4.
 MacMunn v. Eli Lilly Co.
o Plaintiffs bring a suit against defendants for negligence, strict liability, breach of
warranty, misrepresentation, and loss of consortium for allegedly exposing
Plaintiff’s mother to DES while pregnant with her, resulting in an array of
medical complications.
o The court 5. grants defendant’s transfer from the District Court for the District of
Columbia to the Massachusetts district court.
 The court highlights two broad considerations in making the decision to
transfer:
 (1) Could the plaintiff originally have brought action in the 6.
propsed transferee state?
o Complete diversity exists;
o All of the events occurred in MA;
o All of the witnesses, including Plaintiff’s mother, were in
MA.
 (2) Private and 7. Individual interest factors in the interest of 8.
justice:
o Private (focus on the 9. individual litigants):
 Plaintiff’s choice of forum;
 Defendant’s choice of forum;
 Whether the event happened elsewhere;
 Accessibility to evidence.
1
o Public (focus more broadly on the 10.
):
 Court’s familiarity with the governing laws;
 Local interest of the court;
 Court congestion.
 FORUM NON CONVENIENS (FNC)
o What is it?
 FNC is a dismissal with the assumption that another 11. Legal system will
hear the case. However, the U.S. court cannot make the foreign country
hear the case—there is no guarantee.
 Filing a FNC motion means you are 12. consenting to jurisdiction in the
forum state but asking the court to dismiss due to 13. inconvinience.
 Ex. Central District of California versus Mexico;
 Ex. California versus Washington.
 Often, courts will impose a 14. conditional dismissal.
 Meaning they will dismiss but only if the plaintiff agrees not to
challenge IPJ in the more appropriate forum, agrees to suspend the
claim’s statute of limitations, or anything else the court determines
is just.
 FNC can be used in 15. federal and state courts.
 State courts:
o FNC are used in state courts when you want to move the
case to a different 16. state.
o You cannot 17. transfer a case to a different state. You can
only transfer courts within the 18. same state.
 Federal Courts:
o FNC is used when you want to move the case to a 19.
Foreign country.
o You can transfer federal cases to 20. different states.
o How to Analyze:
 (1) There must be 21. another forum that can grant the plaintiff 22. relief.
 Does the other forum have functioning courts? Democratic
principles? What if they don’t recognize the same laws we do?
 Is the change in substantive law and remedy to the claim so 23.
inadequate that there might as well be no remedy at all?
 (2) If “yes” to part (1) above, then analyze the 24. public and 25. private
factors to see if the chosen forum is grossly inconvenient.
 BUT FIRST!
o Who is the plaintiff? Are they a U.S. citizen or a foreign
citizen?
 Private Interest Factors:
o Ease of access to 26. evidence;
2

o Ability and cost to compel witnesses to appear;
o Possibility of viewing the site where the event 27.
occurred.
o Any other factor that would make litigation more 28.
conviniant and less expensive.
 Public Interest Factors:
o 29. Jusicial economy: administrative difficulties or courts’
congestion.
o Local interest in having local controversies decided near
home
o Comfort of the law: avoid 30.
of law or the
application of foreign law.
o The 31.
of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum
with jury duty.
If the court finds these factors show it is grossly inconvenient, the court
may 32.
or grant a conditional dismissal.
 Piper v. Reyno
o The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case on the basis of forum non conveniens
for a plane crash which occurred in Scotland.
 (1) The court held that Scotland would be a more 33. appropriate forum
to hear the case.
 (2) First, the real parties in interest were 34. citizens of Scotland seeking
to litigate in the U.S. Here, the court notes that U.S. courts are “less
solicitous when the plaintiff is not an American citizen or resident[.]”
 35. Private interest Factors:
 Connection with Scotland was great.
 The wreckage and witnesses were in Scotland.
 36. Public interest Factors:
 Pennsylvania is unfamiliar with Scottish law.
 Juries would be confused having to apply 2 types of laws.
 PA really had no interest in granting relief to foreign citizens or
regulating foreign conduct.
o What to take away:
 This is a case of 37. strategy.
 The defendants were trying to be in the best position possible before filing
a FNC motion because when you file this motion, you are 38. consenting
that personal jurisdiction, venue, and subject matter jurisdiction are all
proper, just extremely inconvenient.
 If they originally filed for FNC in CA and the court rejected the
motion, they would have been stuck litigating in CA.
 Here is the thought process of Piper:
3





The defendants were from Ohio and Pennsylvania. CA is really far
away, and they would rather litigate closer to home, if they have to
litigate at all.
If they filed the FNC in state court, they risked litigating in CA if it
was denied. So, the goal is to get closer to the east coast.
You 39. cannot transfer from state to state without getting the case
dismissed first. Since a denial would force them to litigate in CA,
they chose to 40. remove the case from state court to federal court
first.
Once in federal court, they filed a motion to 41. transfer venues to
Pennsylvania.
o Remember: You can transfer to other federal courts across
state lines.
o Asking for a transfer 42. Is not to personal jurisdiction,
venue, and subject matter jurisdiction in the forum state but
it is consent to all three in the new transferred state.
Once in Pennsylvania, the defendants were now in a good place
and close to home, so they filed a FNC motion. It was granted.
4
PRACTICE HYPO
In 1997, Pat (a resident of Washington) received a special and rare inscribed cookbook.
This book was incredibly personal to Pat and was one of his most treasured items. However, in
2006, Pat’s cookbook was stolen by an unknown thief.
Dennis, a rare book collector, owns a Utah-based business, DMC, that buys and sells rare
books on a website. Dennis and his company, DMC, purchased the cookbook in 2016 through
their website from someone in Georgia. Dennis then sold it to someone in Washington, again
through the company’s website.
DMC’s website contains advertisements and an inventory of items available for purchase.
These items can be purchased through the website. The majority of DMC’s customers are local
in Utah and all contact information on the website provides local Utah phone numbers. Neither
DMC nor Dennis advertise to other states, though the website is searchable online from any
state.
Pat did not personally own a computer but learned through local gossip that Dennis used
the inscription in the cookbook as an advertisement on DMC’s website for the last three years.
Pat now sues Dennis and DMC for invasion of privacy. Dennis and DMC were properly
served with notice in the state of Utah. Assume that Washington’s long-arm statute broadly
states that all cases may be heard that comport with due process.
Please outline the following issues: (1) Whether a Washington district court (federal court) may
assert in personam jurisdiction over Defendants; (2) which venue(s) might be proper for Pat to
bring this lawsuit; and (3) what personal jurisdiction and/or venue motion(s) are available to
Defendants if Pat were to file suit in Washington district court.
Assume for this hypothetical that the federal Washington district court would have subject matter
jurisdiction over Defendants.
1)
2)
3)
4)
Long arm
Minimum contacts specific jurisdiction
Purposeful availment (zippo sliding scale test) (calder effects test)
Wou;d it be faiar andresonable (5 factor test
5