SMJ (Constitution.

Art 3 §2) Pennoyer—“Prescence theory”PJ over D In Rem—court case is about property itself
Diversity §1332 (a)—between present in the state. → state can adjudicate title and interests to
citizens of different states and exceeds Hess—“consent” allowed exercise of PJ any property within its boundaries
75k (good faith). where there was a nonresident motorist Quasi in rem—PJ over person by attaching
(c)(1) corporations is citizen in statute that assigned an agent to receive property and treating it as the person;
incorporation and PPoB. service. judgment can only be for property Shaffer-
Strawbridge—complete diversity. International Shoe—due process req. - all assertions of state-court jd must be
Gordon v. Steele—citizenship is “minimum contacts such that they donot evaluated based on Shoe and its progeny
determined by domicile (reside w/ offend traditional notions of fair play and Service of Process (Mullane)—Notice
intent to remain indefinitely). substantial justice.” must be reasonably calculated under all the
Mas v. Perry—domicile is state of Specific jurisdiction circumstances to apprise interested parties
permanent home w/ intent to return Denkla—minimum contact requires that of the pendency of action and afford
when absent. the D purposefully availed himself of the opportunity to defend themselves.(good
Hertz—held PPoB is determined by protection and benefits of the forum. faith effort)
nerve center test. WWV-- It is not enough that it is Personal service by mail is good
Partnerships are treated as collection foreseeable that the product may enter the If address is known, public notice is not
of individuals . forum, the foreseeability that is important sufficient.
P may aggregate claims against one D is that the D’s conduct and connection with If address is not known, public notice is
to meet money requirement. Not add the forum state are such that he should sufficient.
up between parties. reasonably anticipate being hauled into Venue § 1391(b): (1) a judicial district in
Fed. Q §1331-grants jurisdiction over court there. which any defendant resides, if all
all cases “arising under the McGee (reasonable factors)—(1)Burden defendants are residents of the state in
constitution, laws, and treaties of the on D, (2)Interest of the forum state,(3)P which the district is located; (2) a judicial
U.S.” interest in litigating in the forum state,(4) district in which a substantial part of the
Osborne—broadly interpreted Efficiency of resolution,(5)shared events or omissions giving rise to the claim
Constitution to mean non-frivilous substantive social policy. occurred, or a substantial part of property
issues of federal law (original Burger King—activities of D directed that is the subject of the action is situated;
complaint or answer). toward forum. Contract alone may not be or (3)Any district where the D is subject to
Mottley—look at P’s complaint to see enough. Did harm arise out of the contact? the PJ of the district(if it were a state).
if claim “arises under” federal law. Stream of commerce arg: Pure—placing §1406 – applies when the transferor is an
(well-pleaded complaint). product into the stream of commerce is improper venue. Judge can transfer or
Holmes Creation test—a suit arises enough. Plus—placing product into stream dismiss
under the law that creates the cause of of commerce plus act directed toward §1404 – applies when the transferor is a
action. forum is enough. proper venue transfer based on
Gunn v. Min. (Smith exc. To “Arises Zippo test—(1)highly interactive website convenience for parties and witnesses and
under”)—FQ exists on state law claim create specific jurisdiction, (2) websites the interest of justice (looking for the
if a federal issue: (1) necessarily raise; with limited information exchange require center of gravity based on public and
(2) actually disputed; (3) substantial, close scrutiny to determine whether private factors
and (4) capable of resolution in fed. jurisdiction exists, (3) passive websites MacMunn— Thus, the defendant must
Court w/o disrupting the fed.-state with little or no interactivity generally do satisfy a two-part test: (1) the case could
balance approved by congress. not confer jurisdiction. have originally been filed in the proposed
Removal §1441 allows D to remove a Calder—Conduct aimed at the state, even district, and (2) the interests of
case to Fed court where P could have if D has not been in the state is enough to convenience and justice require transfer.
filed the suit originally in Fed. Court. establish that purposeful availment and Private-interest factors the court may
§1441(b)(2) (forum defendant)—bars minimal contact. properly consider include: (1) giving effect
removal of a div. case if any D resides Specific jurisdiction is appropriate if the D to the plaintiff’s choice of venue, (2) the
in the state in which the suit is has contacts with the forum and the claim defendant’s preferred venue, (3) where the
brought. arises out of those contacts, and exercise of cause of action arose, (4) which forum
30 days from initial filing or amended PJ would be fair and reasonable. would be most convenient to the parties,
complaint to remove a removable General Jurisdiction is appropriate where (5) which forum would be most convenient
case. D has continuous and systematic contacts to witnesses, and (6) the availability of
PJ (due process 5th & 14th Amend.) with the forum state. (Daimler) evidence.
Bensusan—State Ct. must be Goodyear Dunlop Tires—Person(domicile) Public-interest factors the court must
authorized by Legislature (Long arm) & corp. (incorporation/ PPoB) weigh include: (1) the proposed district’s
to exercise PJ. Burnham— Even when the out-of-state  familiarity with the controlling law, (2) the
4(k)(1)(A)—Fed court authorize to only comes into the state for a specific relative crowding of both courts’ dockets,
exercise PJ where individual is is purpose, as long as he is served within the and (3) the local interest in deciding the …
subject to general jurisdiction of state state even if he leaves the state and has no Piper Aircraft—plaintiff can’t defeat a
court in which the federal courts sits. other contacts with it. Must also motion to dismiss merely by showing that
Exercise of PJ must not offend the voluntarily travel to the forum state. the substantive law of the alternative forum
requirements of due process. is less favorable to him than that of the
current forum (forum non conveniens)
Erie Doctrine Crossclaims Rule 18--Joinder of Claims
Swift v. Tyson (1842) held that federal Rule 13(g) refers to claims between Rule 19--required joinder of Parties
trial courts exercising diversity co-parties, i.e. those on the same side Rule 20--permissive Joinder of Parties
jurisdiction were free to disregard of the “v”. Crossclaims needs to arise Rule 21--Misjoinder and Nonjoinder
state law and exercise independent out of the same transaction or of Parties
judgment on matters of general occurrence as the original claim. Once Rule 22--Interpleader
jurisprudence a crossclaim is made, the opposing Rule 23--Class Action
For example, corporate parties could party must assert compulsory claims it Rule 82--Jurisdiction and Venue
has against that party and may assert Unaffected
avoid applying state common law in a
any permissive claims. Note that Supplemental Jurisdiction §1367
suit by reincorporating under the laws
crossclaims do not have to be asserted Rule 82: "these rules of civil
of a new state in order to establish and are NOT barred by res judicata! procedure do not confer subject matter
diversity, e.g., Black & White Taxicab Rule 13(h) allows a defending party jurisdiction to hear a claim. Thus,
v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab, 276 U.S. to bring a stranger into the lawsuit- there is an inherent tension between
518 (1928). someone who the plaintiff did not rule makers' preference for joinder of
Thus, to avoid injustice and further choose to sue. However, the party all related claims in a single action and
discrimination, the law of the state asserting the claim must first have a the need for subject matter jurisdiction
should be applied in diversity of crossclaim or counterclaim against an over each claim in that action."
citizenship cases on general matters, existing party. Gibbs—It authorizes the court to hear
regardless of whether it is made by its Third Party Claims all others claims in the action that
courts or its legislature. A federal trial Rule 14 allows a defendant to bring a arise out of the same nucleus of
court exercising diversity jurisdiction stranger to the lawsuit into it if he operative facts as the original claim
must respect and enforce state law. were part of the same transaction or that confers original jurisdiction on the
occurrence and is or may be liable to federal court.
Refusing to use state law in general
the defendant for all or part of the Gibbs mirrors §1367 (a) and §1367(b)
matters represents an
claim against the original plaintiff and mirros Kroger by restricting part (a) in
unconstitutional invasion of state defendant. It embodies the idea of cases founded on diversity.
autonomy and a denial of its reimbursement. §1367(c) allows judge discretion in
independence. Once a oarty has been impleaded exercising supplemental jurisdiction.
Guaranty Trust Co. York-- The under Rule 14(a), the Rule allows (1) the claim raises a novel or complex
outcome determinate test--to ensure other related claims to be asserted. issue of State law,
that the outcome of the fed. Ct. The third-Party defendant may assert (2) the claim substantially
application of the law would not differ any claims she has against the P predominates over the claim or claims
if the case was tried in a state court. arising from the transaction or over which the district court has
Joinder of Multiple Claims occurrence that gave rise to the main original jurisdiction,
Rule 18(a) allows a P to assert any claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(2)(D). (3) the district court has dismissed all
claims she has against a D, whether The plaintiff may assert claims against claims over which it has original
related or not. the third-party defendant that meet the jurisdiction, or
Judge still has discretion to sever the transaction-or-occurrence test. Fed. R. (4) in exceptional circumstances, there
claims or order separate trials for Civ. P. 14(a)(3). If either of these are other compelling reasons for
unrelated claims.(Rule 42(b)) parties assert a claim against the other, declining jurisdiction
Permissive Joinder of Parties they become "opposing parties", Claim Preclusion
Rule 20(a)(1) allows Ps to sue triggering the counterclaim provisions 1. The claim must be the same as one
together if they assert claims that of Rule 13(a) and (b) as well. The that was litigated in a previous case.
"arise out of the same transaction, third-party defendant must assert 2. The Previously litigated claim must
occurrence, or series of transactions or counterclaims it has against the third- have resulted in a valid,
occurrences; and if their claims party plaintiff (Rule 13(a)(1)) and may 3. Final judgment on the merits
involve any question of law or fact assert other counterclaims under Rule 4. The parties who litigated the
common to all Ps . . . ." Under Rule 13(b). If several third-party Ds are previous claim must typically be the
20(a)(2) defendants may be sued brought in, they become "coparties" same parties who are litigating the
together if the same two criteria are who may assert crossclaims against current claim
met. each other. Determining same claim:
Counterclaims (FRCP Rule 13) Fed. R. Civ. P. "same evidence" test--if the evidence
13(a) compulsory counterclaims— Rule 13(a)(b)--counterclaim types needed to sustain the second suit
arises from the same transaction or Rule 14--Impleader would have sustained the first , or if
occurrence as the opposing party’s Rule 15--Amended and Supplemental the same facts were essential to the
claim. A party MUST assert it or they Pleadings maintain both actions.
lose it through waiver. [Supplemental Rule 16--Pretrial Conference; "transactional" test--the assertion of
jurisdiction is automatic!] Scheduling; Management(Status different kinds of theories of relief still
13(b) permissive counterclaims— Conference) constitutes a single cause of action if a
arises from independent and unrelated Rule 17.--Plaintiff and Defendant; single group of operative facts give
claim and MAY be asserted. Capacity; Public Officers rise to the assertion of relief.
Issue Preclusion
(1) “The issue to be precluded is
identical to the issue decided in the
prior proceeding”
(2)“The issue was actually litigated in
the prior proceeding”
(3)“The court in the prior proceeding
issued a final judgement on the
merits”
(4)“The determination of the issue was
essential to the prior judgement; and”
(5)“The party against whom the
doctrine is asserted was a party to or
in privity with a party to the earlier
proceeding “
Exceptions:
1. The party against whom preclusion
is sought could not, as a matter of law,
have obtained review of the judgement
in the initial action;
2. The issue is one of law and (a) the
two actions involve claims that are
substantially in related, or (b) a new
determination is warranted in order to
take account of an intervening change
in the applicable legal context or
otherwise to avoid inequitable
administration of the laws;
3. A new determination of the issue is
warranted by differences in the quality
or extensiveness of the procedures
followed in the two courts or by
factors relating to the allocation of
jurisdiction between them;
3. The party against whom preclusion
is sought had a significantly heavier
burden of persuasion with respect to
the issue in the initial action than in
the subsequent action; the burden has
shifted to his adversary; or the
adversary has a significantly heavier
burden than he had in the first action;
or
4. There is a clear and convincing
need for a new determination of the
issue (a) because of the potential
adverse impact of the determination
on the public interest or the interests
of persons not themselves parties in
the initial action, (b) because it was
not sufficiently foreseeable at the time
of the initial action that the issue
would arise in the context of a
subsequent action, or (c) because the
party sought to be precluded, as a
result of the conduct of his adversary
or other special circumstances did not
have an adequate opportunity or
incentive to obtain a full and fair
adjudication in the initial action.