PJ
What is Personal Jurisdiction?
Whether the court has power over the defendant.
What is Subject Matter Jurisdiction?
Whether the court has power over the case.
What is the Erie Doctrine?
Whether the federal court should apply federal or state law to this case.
True or False?
A party may depose only other members of the party and the deposition must be made orally.
False. Depositions can be taken orally or written from parties and nonparties (including corporations). You may wish to subpoena nonparties.
Judgment or Judgement?
Judgment!
Mike Wheeler, a defendant in Utah, receives a summons and a complaint issued by a federal district court. With the summons and complaint is a request for waiver of service of process.
If he signs the waiver, how long will he have to answer the complaint?
If Mike Wheeler signs the waiver, he will have 60 days to answer the complaint.
Rule 4(d)(3).
What are the three ways
1. Federal Question
2. Diversity Jurisdiction
3. Supplemental Jurisdiction
In a Federal Court, should the court apply federal or state law when the legal question is based on a procedural issue?
The court should apply federal law.
In a lawssuit brought in federal district court a complaint and an answer have been filed. If the case follows a typicaly pattern, which discovery event would precede the others?
1. Exchanging of expert's reports
2. Planning Conference
3. Depostions
4. Interrogatories
5. Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures
Planning Conference!
Rule 26(d)(1)
Exchanging of expert's reports is typically late in the process; Depositions and Interrogaotries cannot come before the Parties' Planning Conference, and initial disclosures usually come 14 days after the Planning Conference.
What is Venue?
Where within a court system should trial take place?
Ron Swanson, fired by Pawnee, Inc., moves from Indiana, (where Pawnee, Inc. is incorporated and has its only place of business), to Florida. In Florida, he files suit in federal court for employment discrimination.
Can Pawnee, Inc. challenge PJ?
Yes
Pawnee, Inc. can challenge PJ and on these facts, will probably prevail.
Rule 12(b) authorizes such a challenge and in the absence of any contacts with Florida, jurisdiction would not lie against an out-of state defendant.
Tiana Rogers sued Dr. Facillier for breach of contract in federal court, seeking $100,000 in damages. Tiana and Dr. Facillier are citizens of the same state, Louisiana. Tiana, a bicycle manufacturer, alleged that the Dr. Facillier, who was a famous cyclist, had failed to participate in a number of promotional events for Tiana's bicycles, as required under the parties’ endorsement contract. Dr. Facillier filed an answer that asserted a number of defenses, including an affirmative defense asserting the defendant’s free-speech rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Does the court have federal-question jurisdiction over the case?
No, because Tiana's claim does not present or necessarily involve an issue of federal law.
For federal-question jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint must provide allegations that indicate that a question of federal law is presented in the case. A federal question raised in a defense is insufficient to confer federal-question jurisdiction over the case.
True or false!
A federal court faced with a question about the interpretation of a state statue should try to predict how the state's courts would answer the question.
True. The rold of a federal court applying state law is to predict how the state's courts would interpret that law.
Dory filed a diversity action in federal court, seeking to recover for injuries the she sustained in a car accident with Nemo. During the discovery period, Dory's attorney requested that Nemo obtain and produce the video recording of an aquarium's security camera. The camera was likely to have recorded the accident.
How should Nemo's attorney respond?
Refuse the request and advise Nemo's attorney to subpoena the bank if he wants that evidence.
The recording described in this scenario is in the possession of someone who is not a party to the lawsuit. Compelling discovery from nonparties often works differently than compelling discovery from parties; most often, requests from nonparties are made through subpoenas issued and served under Rule 45, rather than through discovery requests.
Lilo sues David on an unpaid promissory note. David answers the complaint, denying breach, and also has two allegations labelled "Affirmative Defenses": that the 1 year statute of limitations has run; and that he filed to repay the debt because he needed the funds to pay for medical care for a sick child. Lilo's lawyer determines that neither affirmative defense is valid: The statute of limitiations on a promissory note in writing is 4 years and the law of contract does not recognize the second defense.
What should Lilo's Lawyer do?
File a Rule 12(f) motion to strike the two affirmative defenses.
John Smith filed a breach of contract action in state court in Virginia. The defendant, John Ratcliffe was a resident of Delaware and was served in his home state with the complaint. Mr. Ratcliffe filed his answer denying every allegation made by Mr. Smith. Mr. Ratcliffe had no contact with the forum state other than the contract with Mr. Smith.
Does the court have personal jurisdiction over Mr. Ratcliffe?
Yes, because Mr. Ratcliffe consented to the court's jurisdiction by answering the complaint.
Mulan filed a complaint in state court alleging three state-law claims and seeking $50,000 in damages. Mulan was diverse from the defendant, Mushu. In his answer to the complaint, Mushu asserted a defense based on a federal statute.
Can the defendant remove the case to federal court?
No, because there is no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court.
There is no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court on these facts. Diversity jurisdiction is a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction where the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Although the parties are diverse, the plaintiff’s complaint does not meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. The plaintiff did not present a claim arising under federal law, and federal law only became inserted into the case when the defendant raised a federal defense to the plaintiff’s claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the assertion of a defense raising an issue of federal law is not sufficient to create federal-question jurisdiction. Therefore, a federal court will not have federal-question jurisdiction over the case. Additionally, remember that a plaintiff cannot remove a case to federal court (only a defendant can do so).
An out-of-state citizen sued a police department in a federal diversity case, alleging negligent retention of an officer who had used excessive force against him. Even though discovery established this claim with undisputed evidence, the department refused to settle. Ultimately, the court granted the citizen summary judgment, reasoning he had established all elements of his claim as a matter of law. The court then awarded the citizen attorneys' fees on the ground that the department had defended the claim in bad faith. Under a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision, federal courts have inherent equitable power to award attorneys' fees for "bad faith" litigation conduct even if no fee-shifting statute applies. The rationale is that the policies supporting the American rule, where each party pays its own attorneys' fees, don't apply to parties acting in bad faith, who need to be deterred and punished for such conduct. By contrast, courts in the state where the federal court sits never award attorneys' fees without a fee-shifting statute.
If the attorneys' fees award is challenged on appeal, how should the appellate court rule?
The appellate court should uphold the award, because the federal rule authorizing attorney's fees for bad faith litigation conduct is procedural in nature.
Under the Erie doctrine, when state and federal law conflict in a diversity case and there is no Federal Rule of Civil Procedure on point, the court must analyze whether the state practice is substantive (bound up with state-created rights and obligations) or procedural (a matter of forum and mode). If it is substantive, the state practice must prevail. If it is procedural, the analysis of which practice, federal or state, must be observed turns on the degree of outcome determination if both practices were to remain in place. Here, the issue of attorneys fees is not substantive. It's not appended to any cause of action or other state-created right or obligation. As a matter of form and mode, it's unlikely that maintaining the federal approach alongside the state's conflicting practice would be outcome determinative in the Erie "twin aims" sense. Few would choose a forum based on anticipating their own or their opponents' bad faith conduct. Even if this would result in some degree of litigant inequality, where out-of-state litigants would be able to recover fees where in-state litigants would not, it is not of the extreme kind.
What are the Mandatory Initial Disclosures?
1. Identity and contact info for those likely to have supporting infortmation
2. Copies of documents, electronically stored data, and tangible evidence
3. Damages computations
4. Copies of Insurance Documents
A plaintiff’s attorney filed a diversity action in federal court. The attorney had failed to sign the complaint and had instead ordered her paralegal to sign it. The attorney reasoned that the paralegal should sign the complaint, since the paralegal had drafted it. The court noticed that the complaint was signed by a paralegal and in the paralegal's name.
What would be appropriate for the court to take immediately upon discovering this error under Rule 11?
The court may issue an order to show cause why Rule 11 sanctions should not be imposed, and provide the attorney with notice and an opportunity to respond or otherwise correct her error.
Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requires that every paper filed in a federal civil case be signed either: (1) by an attorney of record, in the attorney's name; or (2) by the party for whom the paper is submitted, if not represented by an attorney. If a paper is not signed, the court must strike it on its own initiative unless the error is corrected promptly after being called to the party's attention. Id. Generally, when the court acts on its own initiative, it must do so through a show-cause order, whereby a party is provided with notice and an opportunity to respond and/or remedy its error. See FRCP 11(a), advisory committee’s notes. Here, the plaintiff's attorney violated Rule 11(a) by ordering her paralegal to sign the complaint. Even if a complaint or paper is drafted by a paralegal, the ultimate responsibility of reviewing and filing the paper with the court lies with either the pro se litigant or the represented party's attorney. Id. Although Rule 11(a) permits the court to strike an unsigned or improperly signed pleading or document, due process still requires that the court provide notice and a chance for the party to explain, defend, or amend its mistake
Remy filed a products liability lawsuit in his home state of New Mexico against RatMobile, an automobile manufacturer. RatMobile filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In its motion, RatMobile asserted that it was not incorporated in the forum state, did not have its principal place of business in the forum state, and owned no property in the forum state.
Are the defendant’s factual assertions, if true, sufficient to dispose of the question of personal jurisdiction in the defendant’s favor?
No, because the assertions do not dispose of the possibility that the court could properly exercise specific in personam jurisdiction.
A nonresident corporate defendant is subject to a court’s specific in personam jurisdiction when the defendant has purposeful and intentional minimum contacts with the forum state that are related to the plaintiff’s claim, and the exercise of jurisdiction will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. That standard may be met regardless of the defendant’s place of incorporation, principal place of business, and lack of property within the forum state.
Peter, a citizen of Illinois, sues Smee, a citizen of Wisconsin, alleging a breach of an employment contract and damages of $100,000. Peter wants to add Tink, a citizen of Illinois, to his suit as a second defendant, under Rule 20, on the ground that Tink, allegedly urged Smee to breach his contract with Peter and come to work for her instead.
Will the court have supplemental jurisdiction?
No, Although the claim against Tink involves the same Constitutional case or controversy, 28 U.S.C. §1367(b) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction to extend to claims by plaintiffs against non diverse parties joined under Rule 20 when the only basis for jurisdiction is diversity.
A resident of Colorado sued a resident of Alabama in federal district court in Alabama for breach of contract. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. The plaintiff alleged that the contract was entered into in Nevada and was to be performed in Georgia. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant failed to perform.
While hearing this case, what substantive law should the federal district court apply?
The law that the Alabama state court would apply
The court should apply the law that the Alabama state court would apply. In a diversity case, the federal court applies the law that would be applied by the courts of the state in which the federal court is located. This includes the state's choice of law rules. In the instant case, the federal court sitting in Alabama may well, as an end result, apply the law of Georgia or Nevada, but if it does so, it will be because Alabama's choice of law rules require such a result.
After being injured when their shuttle bus crashed, several plaintiffs sued the shuttle bus company in federal district court. Another passenger had met with a lawyer and an accident-reconstruction specialist but had decided not to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff. The accident-reconstruction specialist had prepared a report for the passenger and her lawyer to aid them in deciding whether to sue. During discovery in the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the shuttle bus company requested that the passenger produce any documents containing information relating to the passenger’s decision not to sue the shuttle bus company.
Does the work-product doctrine in Rule 26 protect the accident-reconstruction specialist’s report from discovery in the lawsuit?
No, because the passenger for whom the report was prepared is not a party.
In general, Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure protects tangible work product from discovery. Tangible work product includes documents and things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, by or for a party or its representative, including the party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A). In general, the tangible work product must have been prepared by or for a party to the lawsuit, or by or for the party’s representative. Rule 26’s protections do not extend to tangible items prepared by or for nonparties to the lawsuit.
Here, the passenger for whom the accident-reconstruction specialist prepared the report is not a party to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. For this reason, Rule 26’s work-product protections do not shield the report from discovery by the shuttle bus company.
Mufasa and Rafiki were friends attending their high school reunion. Mufasa is a resident of California; Rafiki is a resident of Maine. At the end of the evening, they got into a heated argument and Rafiki punched Mufasa in the face. The next day, Mufasa sued Rafiki in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, alleging assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress and seeking $1 million in damages. Simultaneous with the filing of the complaint, Mufasa moved ex parte to attach Rafiki's three-bedroom house. Rafiki later moved to vacate the attachment as a violation of his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
How is the court likely to rule on Rafiki's motion?
The court will likely grant the motion absent a showing by Mufasa of exigent circumstances.
Although provisional remedies such as attachment are not per se unconstitutional, their use is constrained by the Due Process Clause and must be justified. The Supreme Court ha held that in assessing the constitutionality of provisional remedies, consideration ought to be given to the balanc of three factors: (1) "the private interest that will be affected"; (2) "the risk of erroneous deprivation" of property presented by the attachment, as well as "the probable value of additional or alternative safeguards"; and (3) the
"interest of the party seeking" the attachment of property as well as "any ancillary interest the government may have.? Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 11 (1991) (adapting the test set out in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1974 to apply to suits between private parties). in determining the interest of the party seeking the attachment, the court will consider whether the party had a preexisting interest in the property attached, or whether there were exigent circumstances that necessitate attachment of the property before a hearing, In this case, as in Doehr, the court will likely find that Plaintiff's interests in favor of the attachment are too weak to outweigh Defendant's interests against attachment and the risk of erroneous deprivation. Plaintiff did not show that he had a preexistir interest in the three-bedroom house; the house is unrelated to the tort action before the court; and there was no showing of exigent circumstances (such as Defendant's flight from the jurisdiction or immediate danger to the community). "Absent such allegations, the plaintiff's interest in attaching the property does not justify the burdening of [the defendant's] ownership rights without a (preattachment hearing]. Doehr, 501 U.S. at 16.