Personal Jurisdiction Problems
What is the difference between waiver and consent in personal jurisdiction?
A defendant may consent to personal jurisdiction expressly, such as through a forum-selection clause, or impliedly, such as by failing to timely object to personal jurisdiction. If the defendant does not properly raise the personal-jurisdiction objection, the defense is waived.
In a diversity case, what is the one-year limit on removal, and what is the exception?
A diversity case generally cannot be removed more than one year after the action was filed. The exception is if the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal.
What is the difference between permissive joinder of plaintiffs and permissive joinder of claims?
Permissive joinder of plaintiffs requires that the plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and share a common question of law or fact. Joinder of claims is broader: once a party has one properly filed claim against another party, that party may generally join additional claims against that opposing party, as long as the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims.
For claim preclusion, what does “same claim” usually mean?
“Same claim” generally means claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. Claim preclusion bars not only claims actually litigated, but also claims that could have been litigated in the first action.
In a federal diversity case, what is the first Erie question you should ask when state law and federal law appear to conflict?
First ask whether there is a valid federal statute, Federal Rule, or constitutional provision directly on point. If so, the federal rule generally governs so long as it is valid. If not, then apply the Erie analysis for whether the state rule is substantive.
What is the basic rule for a corporation’s general personal jurisdiction?
A corporation is generally subject to general jurisdiction where it is incorporated and where it has its principal place of business.
What must be true for a defendant to remove a state-court case to federal court?
The case must be one that the plaintiff could have originally filed in federal court, usually because there is federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.
What is impleader used for?
Impleader allows a defending party to bring in a third party who may be liable to the defending party for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim, usually for indemnity or contribution.
What are the basic requirements for issue preclusion?
The issue must have been actually litigated, actually decided, essential to the judgment, and asserted against a party who had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.
In a diversity case, which law usually governs procedural issues?
Federal law generally governs procedural issues, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, jury-trial rules, and class-action procedure.
Driver, a citizen of State A, drives into State B for one afternoon and negligently hits Pedestrian. Pedestrian sues Driver in State B. Driver has no other contacts with State B. Is there personal jurisdiction?
Yes. This is specific personal jurisdiction because the lawsuit arises directly out of Driver’s contact with State B—the accident in State B. Driver purposefully entered the forum, and the claim arises from that forum contact.
Plaintiff sues Defendant in state court for negligence. Defendant files a federal-law counterclaim. Defendant then removes based on the federal counterclaim. Is removal proper?
No. Federal-question jurisdiction must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. A federal counterclaim does not create federal-question jurisdiction for removal.
Plaintiff sues Driver and Truck Owner for a crash. Driver believes Truck Owner must indemnify him if Driver is found liable. Can Driver assert a crossclaim against Truck Owner?
Yes, if Truck Owner is already a coparty defendant. The indemnity claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence—the crash—so it is a proper crossclaim.
In Case 1, Pedestrian sues Driver for negligence after a crash. The jury finds Driver was not negligent and judgment is entered. Pedestrian later sues Driver again for the same crash, this time alleging a different negligence theory. Barred?
Yes. Claim preclusion bars claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence that were or could have been litigated in the first case. Pedestrian cannot relitigate the same crash under a new theory.
Plaintiff sues in federal court based on diversity. State law gives plaintiffs 3 years to sue; federal law would give 4 years. Which limitations period applies?
The state statute of limitations applies because statutes of limitations are treated as substantive for Erie purposes.
Company sells products nationwide through a website. A customer in State X buys the product, is injured in State X, and sues Company in State X. Company argues it has no office or employees in State X. Is specific jurisdiction still possible?
Yes, possibly. The court should analyze whether Company purposefully availed itself of State X by targeting or serving the State X market and whether the claim arises out of those contacts. Lack of an office is not dispositive.
Plaintiff sues Driver and Car Company in state court after a car accident. Plaintiff and Driver are from State A. Car Company is from State B. Car Company wants to remove based on diversity. Can it?
No. Complete diversity is lacking because Plaintiff and Driver are both from State A. The presence of one diverse defendant is not enough.
Plaintiff sues Contractor for injuries caused by falling scaffolding. Contractor wants to add Subcontractor, claiming Subcontractor agreed to indemnify Contractor for any scaffolding-related liability. What procedural device should Contractor use?
Contractor should use impleader because Contractor is saying Subcontractor may be liable to Contractor for all or part of Plaintiff’s recovery.
In Case 1, Passenger sues Driver. The jury finds Driver was speeding, but Passenger loses because Passenger failed to prove causation. In Case 2, Passenger sues Driver again and wants to use issue preclusion on speeding. Can Passenger do that?
Likely no. The speeding finding was actually decided, but it was not essential to the judgment if Passenger lost for lack of causation. Issue preclusion requires the issue to be essential to the judgment.
A federal court sitting in diversity must decide whether to apply State A or State B law. The federal court is located in State A. Which choice-of-law rules apply?
State A’s choice-of-law rules apply. Under Klaxon, a federal court sitting in diversity applies the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it sits.
Manufacturer in State A sells machines only to Distributor in State B. Distributor independently resells one machine to Buyer in State C, where the machine injures Buyer. Manufacturer did not advertise in State C, ship to State C, or know Distributor would sell there. Buyer sues Manufacturer in State C. What is the personal jurisdiction issue, and likely result?
The issue is whether Manufacturer has minimum contacts with State C through purposeful availment. Likely no specific jurisdiction because the injury occurred in State C, but Manufacturer did not purposefully target State C. Mere foreseeability that a product may end up in the forum is usually not enough without purposeful conduct directed at the forum.
Ann sues Bill and GlassCo in state court after a crash involving Bill’s truck and GlassCo’s allegedly defective windshield. Ann and Bill are citizens of State A. GlassCo is a citizen of State B. GlassCo removes to federal court and argues Ann fraudulently joined Bill only to defeat diversity. What should the court analyze?
The court should analyze removal separately from joinder. First, removal based on diversity requires complete diversity unless Bill was fraudulently joined. Second, fraudulent joinder requires showing there is no reasonable basis for a claim against Bill. If Ann has a plausible negligence claim against Bill, joinder is not fraudulent, complete diversity is lacking, and the case should be remanded.
Plaintiff sues Defendant in federal court for a car accident. Defendant impleads Mechanic, claiming Mechanic’s bad brake repair caused the accident and Mechanic must indemnify Defendant. Plaintiff then asserts a direct negligence claim against Mechanic. Plaintiff and Mechanic are from the same state, and the only basis for federal jurisdiction is diversity. Is Plaintiff’s direct claim allowed?
No. Defendant’s impleader claim may be allowed through supplemental jurisdiction because it is derivative of Plaintiff’s claim. But Plaintiff cannot use supplemental jurisdiction in a diversity-only case to assert a direct claim against a nondiverse third-party defendant. That is the supplemental-jurisdiction clawback.
In Case 1, Son sues Driver for injuries from a crash and loses after the jury finds Driver was not negligent. In Case 2, Mother sues Driver for her own injuries from the same crash and wants to relitigate Driver’s negligence. Driver argues Mother is precluded because Son already lost. Is Mother barred?
Not automatically. Claim preclusion does not apply because Mother was not a party to Case 1 and is asserting her own claim. Issue preclusion generally cannot be asserted against Mother unless she was a party or in privity with a party and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate. A family relationship alone is usually not enough to establish privity.
Plaintiff sues in federal court under diversity. A state rule says expert affidavits must be attached to medical malpractice complaints. The Federal Rules do not require the affidavit. Defendant moves to dismiss for failure to attach the affidavit. What should you discuss?
Discuss Erie/Hanna. First, ask whether a valid Federal Rule directly conflicts with the state rule. If a Federal Rule validly governs the issue, the Federal Rule controls. If there is no direct conflict, ask whether ignoring the state rule would be outcome determinative, encourage forum shopping, or create inequitable administration of the laws. The conclusion depends on whether the affidavit requirement is characterized as substantive claim-screening or merely procedural pleading.