Grace PPB NY, Inc. CT
Beatrice PPB IL, Inc. DE
Intro
I. SETTING
A. Jurisdiction over Parties
(the court’s right to adjudicate the rights & resp. of the parties)
1. Personal Jurisd.
Civ P. PJ & SMJ Prefab Answer Template plus Venue/FNC outline – Vaughn, Fall 2008
1
Personal Jurisdiction Prefab
To bring a case before a given court, that court must have PJ over all defendants. A fed dist court
usually has PJ whenever a state court would. R 4k1a. PJ is derived from the DP clause of the
14th amendment.
- Because <Co Def>’s corp’s domicile is its place of incorporation, <forum state>, it is subject to
general PJ (ie over any claim) on the basis of that domicile.
- As a year-round resident, <individ Def>’s domicile presumably is <forum state>, which makes
him/her subject to general PJ (ie over any claim) on the basis of that domicile.
- <Def> is subject to general PJ (ie over any claim) bcs s/he was present and served in <forum
state> when _____.
- <Def> is subject to general PJ (ie over any claim) bcs s/he consented to jurisdiction under/by
___ (explain how that is fulfilled)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The DP clause sets the furthest boundary for jurisdiction over nonresidents but the state must
seize the power through a long arm stat (LAS). There are two types of LASs: DP, as in Calif., or
enumerated, as in Mass. The LAS must permit exercising PJ, and exercising PJ must satisfy the
DP clause.
For EACH unique Def (each nonresident co. or person BUT can lump US nonresidents together)
FIRST LAS 3(a-f) does/does not permit jurisdiction over <Def> bcs
a* initiated & arises from transaction or biz relnshp
b*
supply in & arises from
c
tort in state & arises from
d * arises from tort in state from act outside IF rev/persist course/regularly does/solicits biz
e
arises from real prop’y
f
arises from insurance
(for remaining Defs, only applicable ones)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------THEN
For each Def where the LAS allows PJ, the court may only exercise PJ if DP allows it.
DP would allow/prevent PJ over <Def>.
a) min contacts: direct sale/purchase, relationship, stream, isolated, passive internet, relevance
of contacts Shoe
b) reasonable:
Unlike Asahi, a Canadian company is not as far away as Japan and would be familiar both
with English and a similar legal system.
Civ P. PJ & SMJ Prefab Answer Template plus Venue/FNC outline – Vaughn, Fall 2008
2
a. long arm stat for foreign corp?
b. is exercising PJ OK under due process clause?
 Int’l Shoe: Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
 Factors: protect its citizens, convenient for Pl., []
 Burger King (Brennan’s revenge) makes relative wt. min contacts & reasonableness (for DP) more
equal
Etc.
(i) minimum contacts?
 continuum: general jurisd. = more (amount) contacts || specific jurisd. = more substantial
(quality) contacts
 No specific jurisdiction means unlikely general jurisdiction bcs general rqrs more extensive
contacts
 more contacts -> event less crucial
 sell directly v. attenuated (indirect) contacts
 a single K with the state suffices for [gen/specific] McGee
 Not enough for product to end up in state WWV; must be bcs knowl. or intent
 Purposeful availment or purposeful [] of forum state’s laws and protections
 Deliberate v. random fortuitous
 Even though divided, all agree stream plus knowing or intending suffices for PJ?
 Discuss both Asahi tests: Brennan & O’Connor
 Asahi – Brennan (lower bar): put into stream of commerce knowing it would reach forum state;
benefits -> obligations
 Asahi – O’Connor (higher bar): put into stream of commerce intending it to reach forum state
 Possible weak counterarg: taking from stream differs from putting into stream
 Burger King – quality of contacts
 Calder test - effects in state
(ii) reasonable?
 Foreseeable to defend in forum state?
 Int’l def. who sells OR buys from US shd foresee litig. here
 How portable is defense? (size of party, distance, transportation)
 When int’l def. (Mexico v. Japan), how well countries know each other’s laws; language
difference; distance?

presence & service in state (fleeting is OK – Cal. divorce)

domicile

consent

DUE PROCESS
Civ P. PJ & SMJ Prefab Answer Template plus Venue/FNC outline – Vaughn, Fall 2008
3
Pls – no PJ problems because bringing suit is consent to jurisdiction
___________
___________
____________
____________
Defs. INC = PJ domicile
___________
____________
____________
US citizen domiciled abroad
SMJ: Destroys diversity bcs
1367a does not mention
(no US state domicile,
not a foreign citizen)
foreign citizen
if perm resid,
citizen of domicile state
(SMJ consequences)
____________
____________
Grace PPB NY
Beatrice PPB IL
____________
Inc. CT
Inc. DE
____________
____________
foreign citizen
iff perm resid,
citizen of domicile
(SMJ consequences)
___________
____________
____________
____________
US citizen living abroad
SMJ: Destroys diversity bcs
1367a does not mention (see note, Pls)
Mexico/Canada
-- PJ -- State interest (safety yes,
indemnification no)
- near border (distance)
- more foreseeable
- more familiar w our legal
system (Mex – civil law but
Canada common law)
- language diff/not
Civ P. PJ & SMJ Prefab Answer Template plus Venue/FNC outline – Vaughn, Fall 2008
4
SMJ – cannot waive
Because the Pls’ claims concern a tort/contract issue rather than a federal measure or the
constitution, they have no § 1331 fed Q orig SMJ. Orig SMJ must rest on § 1332’s diversity of
citizenship (c’ship), which means that no Pl may be a citizen of the same state as any Def,
Strawbridge, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75K. § 1332a.
As a natural person, <Def>’s state c’ship is his domicile, which may differ from his
residence. Mas. The domicile inquiry includes where he attends school, is registered to vote,
has a bank account, files tax returns, and keeps his possessions. Corio. Unclear domicile? A
foreign citizen domiciled abroad may not sue another alien in a US fed ct because §1332a omits
this possibility. A US citizen domiciled abroad has no state citizenship and therefore destroys
diversity because §1332a omits this possibility. A foreign citizen with permanent US residency is
a citizen of his domiciliary state. §1332a. Citizens of different foreign countries with no state
citizenship on opposing sides in the case may create a problem for Strawbridge’s complete
diversity if the court regards the c’ship of all foreigners as the same for diversity purposes.
<Corp Def> is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and the state of its PPB. §
1332c1. Under Halsted Indus.’s <nerve/brain, muscle, or hybrid> test, <Def>’s PPB is <state>
because ____. The c’ship of an unincorporated ass’n such as a partnership, labor union, or
charity is all states where its members are citizens. Carden. (Can destroy SMJ)
An indivisible harm >$75K satisfies the min amt in controversy even if there are multiple
Pls, Defs, or both. One Pl may aggregate claims against one Def regardless of whether the
claims are related. Everett. However, multiple Pls cannot aggregate separate claims unless
they share a common interest such that if one Pl failed to collect, the others would collect more.
Troy Bank; Durant. To dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction, the Defs would need to show
with legal certainty that Pls cannot recover more than $75K.
Once a ct has orig SMJ over one claim, under § 1367a it may exercise suppl. SMJ over
add’l logically related claims between parties to the case if the claim is part of the same case or
controversy, subject to the prohibition of § 1367b and the court’s discretion under §1367c. In a
diversity case, this includes add’l Pls whose claims do not meet the min amt in controversy.
Exxon. The plain language of § 1367b bars claims by Pls against persons made parties under
certain rules, but the context of the claims might affect the meaning of the prohibition and allow
claims from a Pl in a defensive position. The drafters intended § 1367b to reflect Owen
Equip.’s protection of complete diversity by banning Pls from doing indirectly what they could
not do directly. Owen also emphasized that a Pl who chose the forum could not complain about
limits on its ability to assert all claims there. (The Owen Pls originally brought suit in fed ct.) A Pl
cannot join a party over which the ct has no independent basis for SMJ even if that claim arises
from a common nucleus of operative facts. Aldinger.
Civ P. PJ & SMJ Prefab Answer Template plus Venue/FNC outline – Vaughn, Fall 2008
5
Grace PPB NY, Inc. CT
Beatrice PPB IL, Inc. DE
2. Suppl. Jurisd. 28 USC § 1367
*a. same case/controversy (stat’y grant of Const. pwr)
 Gibbs test – can join claim when common nucleus of operative facts / same transaction or
occurrence (as fed Q claim)
 Aldinger p. 305 also limits Gibbs:
- can’t join a party based on a state claim even if same T/O (fed ct = limited jurisd.)
- can’t join a party when prohibited by (either fed or state?) statute
(cited by Cheeseman in opposing joining Chas. Anderson)
*b. No suppl. jurisd. if
(stat prohibits exer. pwr; supposed to incorp. Owen Equip. test)
 Owen Equip. limits Gibbs: in diversity-only cases, Pl. cannot do indirectly what cd not do directly
(suing same-state Def. impleaded by orig. Def) (cited by Cheeseman in opposing joining Chas.
Anderson)
final clause
(i)
only diversity
(ii)
over Plaintiff’s claims against
(iii)
3d party Def (R 14), joined party (R 19/20), intervenor (R 24)
*c. discretion to decline suppl. jurisd. under certain circumstances (shd ct exer pwr?)
3. Removal 28 USC § 1441 enables Def to take to fed ct
a. fm state ct. to fed ct. if original SMJ
b. if fed Q, always can remove
c. if diversity, can remove only if no Def is citizen of forum state
d. if fed Q joined with other non-removable claims, can remove all, but ct has discretion whether to try or
remand state claims
B. Venue (waivable) & Forum Non Conveniens
w/in a jurisd’l sys, in which district can bring action?
stat’y, not const’l
if exclude problematic Def(s), cd bring suit. Easier than SMJ
1. Venue: may be >1 proper venue, except for removal
local action rule: if damage to land, must bring there
a. General stat = § 1391
(i) § 1391(a) when solely diversity, 3 approaches – analyze all
(1) If all Defs same state, any Dist where all reside (thereby PJ for all)
(2) subst’l pt events/prop’y
(3) if no other dist, any dist Def PJ at time commenced
(ii) § 1391(b) if fed Q (combo OK) – same but minor wording discrep. in pt. 3)
(iii)§ 1391(c) corp. resid = pers. jurisd. dist(s)
(iv) § 1391(d) alien: any dist
Civ P. PJ & SMJ Prefab Answer Template plus Venue/FNC outline – Vaughn, Fall 2008
6
b. Specific stats: removal = § 1441; transfer = §§ 1404 (proper), 1406 (improper)
Ct. decides even if parties waive objs. Hoffman 357
(i) Transfer §§ 1404 (proper), 1406 (improper)
Pl/Def can xfer (if state but Def removed, Pl may want to xfer)
Goldlawr 363 n.6
(1) convenient and
(2) Just
(ii) Removal = § 1441
only one proper venue
2. Forum Non Conveniens
 Common law doctrine; trial ct’s discretion
 Balancing test: pub & pvt interests
 Strong deference to Pl’s choice of forum – rarely disturbed
a. Remedy = dismissal -> Pls must re-file
b. Ct. can dismiss w conditions (waive SOL/objs, subm to pers jurisd)
c. If alt forum is another Dist Ct, can xfer instead of dismissing
Piper: flexible doctrine; giving disproportionate wt to one factor destroys flexibility
if US resident Pl’s choice, assume convenient, but don’t want to make US too desirable
can consider that switch to less favorable law, but not determinative; only when alt forum = no
remedy at all
Civ P. PJ & SMJ Prefab Answer Template plus Venue/FNC outline – Vaughn, Fall 2008
7