Personal Jurisdiction
A custodial worker at a large sports arena in State A found an abandoned autographed jersey in the stands after a game. The worker returned the jersey to the arena’s lost-and-found department. After no one had claimed the jersey for a year, the arena initiated a court action in State A to determine ownership of the jersey. What type of personal jurisdiction does a court in State A have to adjudicate ownership of the jersey?
A plaintiff sued a corporation in federal court for personal injuries he received in an auto collision with a truck driven by one of the defendant's delivery drivers. The plaintiff went to the corporation’s headquarters and personally served the defendant by handing the summons and complaint to the president of the corporation the day before he retired. In the excitement of his retirement, the president neglected to deliver the papers to anyone else at the corporation. A default was entered against the defendant. Other than service upon the president, the defendant never received notice of the pending lawsuit prior to the entry of default. The defendant thereafter appeared and moved to quash service of process. Will the court grant the motion?
Yes, because the plaintiff himself served the summons and complaint.
A plaintiff filed a complaint against a defendant in federal district court, alleging state-law claims of negligence and loss of consortium and seeking $50,000 in total damages. The plaintiff is a citizen of Georgia, and the defendant is a citizen of Alabama. Both of the claims share a common set of facts, although the facts supporting each claim are not identical. Does the federal district court have supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims?
No, because there is no independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction over any claim in the case.
A plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court alleging a state-law claim of conversion. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of the same state. The defendant filed a counterclaim, alleging a claim of trademark infringement, which is based on federal law. Without the consent of the defendant, the plaintiff removed the case to federal court. Was removal proper?
No, because a case may only be removed to federal court by the original defendant(s).
What is the difference between "horizontal" and "vertical" choice of law?
(1) "horizontal" choice of law involves choice between states in determining which law to apply among themselves
(2) "vertical" choice of law involves a choice between federal and state law
A plaintiff, a resident of State A, sued an individual defendant in federal district court in State A for breach of a sales contract. The defendant resided on the other side of the country, in State B. The defendant had never visited State A and had instead communicated with the plaintiff by phone and email. An agent for the plaintiff served the defendant with the complaint in a restaurant in State A. The defendant was in the restaurant for lunch during a layover in State A while traveling to a family reunion in State C. The defendant was booked on the next flight out of State A, which was scheduled to departed from State A the next day. When he was served, the defendant had been discussing the plaintiff’s case on his cell phone with his lawyer. Does a court in State A have a basis for exercising in personam jurisdiction over the defendant?
Yes, because the defendant was present in State A when he was served with the complaint. (Transient Jurisdiction)
A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal district court. The plaintiff’s lawyer sent the defendant a package containing, among other items, the complaint and a request that the defendant agree to waive service. Both the plaintiff and the defendant were located in the United States. If the defendant agrees to waive service, how long will the defendant have to respond to the plaintiff’s complaint?
60 days from the date that the plaintiff requested the defendant to waive service.
Two plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal district court against a single defendant, alleging state-law claims of breach of contract. There is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. The first plaintiff sued the defendant for $200,000. The second plaintiff sued the defendant for $20,000. Both plaintiffs’ claims arose out of the same operative set of facts. Does the court have subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims?
The court has diversity jurisdiction over the first plaintiff’s claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the second plaintiff’s claim.
A plaintiff sued a newspaper for defamation in state court in State A. The complaint sought $250,000 in damages. The plaintiff was a citizen of State A. The newspaper was incorporated in State B, but its principal place of business was located in State A. Twenty-one days after being served with the complaint, the newspaper filed an answer that denied all of the plaintiff’s allegations and asserted a defense under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Five days later, the newspaper filed a notice of removal. Is the lawsuit removable to federal district court?
No, because the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Erie Doctrine requires the application of what kind of state laws?
The Erie doctrine is understood to require only the application of state substantive law.
A plaintiff sued four defendants in a State A court. The lawsuit asserted claims for personal injuries arising out of a multi-car accident that occurred in State B. Defendant 1 was a State B resident who had never been to State A and owned no property in State A. Defendant 2 was a State B resident who owned a vacation home in State A. Defendant 3 was a State A resident who had never been to State B except on the day of the accident. Over which defendant is State A LEAST likely to have personal jurisdiction?
Defendant 1
A plaintiff filed an action in federal court against an individual out-of-state defendant. The summons and complaint were served at the defendant's workplace in his home state, where the process server handed the documents to the defendant's boss, who was the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the company. Was service of process effectively made on the defendant according to the federal rules?
No, because an individual defendant may not be served process by delivering the summons and complaint to a third party at the defendant's workplace. (Must be the home of defendant)
A cab driver was involved in a car accident that was caused by a bus driver’s negligence and the failure of the cab driver’s brakes. The cab driver, a citizen of State A, sued both the bus driver, a citizen of State B, and the manufacturer of the brake system. The manufacturer was incorporated in State B and its principal place of business was located in State C. The cab driver sought $25,000 in damages from the bus driver and another $55,000 in damages from the brake manufacturer. Does a federal district court have diversity jurisdiction over the cab driver’s claims against the bus driver and the brake manufacturer?
No, because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. (Generally a single plaintiff may not aggregate claims against multiple defendants to meet DJ requirement.)
A plaintiff sued a newspaper for defamation in state court in State A. The complaint sought $250,000 in damages. The plaintiff was a citizen of State A. The newspaper was incorporated in State B, but its principal place of business was located in State A. Twenty-one days after being served with the complaint, the newspaper filed an answer that denied all of the plaintiff’s allegations and asserted a defense under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Five days later, the newspaper filed a notice of removal. Is the lawsuit removable to federal district court?
No, because the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
What are the twin aims of the Erie doctrine?
(1) to discourage forum shopping
(2) to avoid inequitable administration of law
Sophie, a resident of New York, purchases a custom surfboard online from WaveRider Co., a small business incorporated and headquartered in Hawaii. WaveRider has no offices, employees, or property outside Hawaii. It does not advertise nationally, but it maintains a basic website that allows online purchases. Sophie uses the surfboard in New York, where it breaks on her first outing, causing her serious injuries. She sues WaveRider in federal court in New York, asserting products liability. Is personal jurisdiction over WaveRider proper?
WaveRider did not target NY specifically; its website was passive. There was no purposeful availment of NY business beyond accepting Sophie's order. Forcing a small Hawaii company to defending in NY would be burdensome, especially given the lack of deliberate NY contacts. (TNFPSJ).
On April 2, a plaintiff filed a patent infringement action in federal court against defendant, a foreign licensee of the patent. On April 15, the plaintiff sent a package to the defendant’s residence in France. The package contained an informal notice of the lawsuit, a copy of the complaint, and a request for the defendant to waive service. The defendant agreed to waive service of process and so notified the plaintiff on April 25. How long does the defendant have to respond to the complaint?
90 days from the date that the plaintiff sent the waiver request.
When can claims be aggregated to meet the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction?
A single plaintiff can aggregate all claims against a single defendant, even if claims are unrelated
A man was injured in a fire on a cruise ship off the coast of New Zealand. When he returned to his home in the United States, he wanted to sue the cruise ship company and the ship captain in federal court. The ship company was incorporated and had its primary place of business in the District of South Carolina. The captain resided in the Middle District of Georgia, although he did all of his sailing out of the District of South Carolina. The man resided in the Northern District of Florida. Assume both the ship company and the captain were subject to personal jurisdiction in their home states for any of their actions at sea. Where is venue proper for the man’s suit?
In the District of South Carolina and the Middle District of Georgia, because the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in those states.
Lynn is a citizen of Arizona and Sarah is a citizen of Nevada. The two women were involved in an automobile accident in Nevada while Lynn was traveling to Las Vegas. Sarah has brought suit against Lynn in United States District Court for the District of Arizona for injuries sustained in the accident. Sarah's friend Scott, who lives in Arizona, served Lynn in accordance with FRCP 4(c)(1). Lynn alleges that service is improper because there is an Arizona statute that requires a summons be accompanied by a request for insurance when the suit is made in regards to an automobile accident. In this situation, was service proper?
Yes, because the case is brought in federal court and the situation is covered by one of the Federal Rules. The Erie rule has never been invoked to void a Federal Rule and replace it with an inconsistent state rule.
A nonresident defendant in a personal injury lawsuit filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In his motion, the defendant argued that defending the lawsuit in the forum state would pose a financial hardship for him. Does the court have authority to consider the financial toll on the defendant when deciding whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is constitutional?
Yes, because the Supreme Court has included consideration of the burden on the defendant in the final step of the constitutional analysis. (TNFPSJ)
A journalist contracted with a news agency to draft news articles, for which the journalist would be paid per article published. Six months into the contract, the journalist believed that the agency was wrongfully publishing the journalist's draft articles and crediting another writer as the author, depriving the journalist of the fees due to her under the contract. The journalist filed a breach of contract suit against the agency in federal court. Although the journalist's attorney had the agency's postal mailing address, the attorney chose to serve the summons and complaint on the agency by email. The email address the attorney used was the one that the agency had supplied to the journalist for all business correspondence. The attorney’s method of service (email) and choice of email recipient were both proper under the applicable state rules. Did the attorney's email constitute valid service of process?
Yes, because the federal rules allow a plaintiff to follow state rules of service of process regardless of whether the plaintiff’s claims are based on state law. (FRCP 4(e)(1) and (2))
On November 1, a plaintiff sued a defendant in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction, alleging a claim of negligence based on an incident that occurred several months earlier, on August 1 of the same year. On December 1 of the same year, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the parties were not diverse. Which date(s) must the court consider when determining the citizenship of the parties?
A plaintiff sued a defendant for employment discrimination, asserting claims under federal and state law. The defendant was properly served with the complaint and was discussing the possibility of removing the case to federal district court. When must the defendant file a notice of removal?
Within 30 days of being served with the complaint.
Paula, a citizen of California, sues Delta Corp., a Delaware corporation, in federal court in California on a products liability claim. California has a statute requiring that, in any personal injury action, a defendant who does not make a settlement offer before trial must pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees if the plaintiff prevails. The statute is designed to encourage settlements and compensate plaintiffs. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, contain Rule 54(d), which provides that prevailing parties may recover certain “costs,” but not attorney’s fees, unless a statute expressly provides otherwise. Paula wins at trial and asks the federal court to award her attorney’s fees under the California statute. Delta argues that Rule 54(d) governs, and that federal courts do not award attorney’s fees absent an applicable federal statute. The issue is whether the federal court must apply the California statute or the Federal Rule. Which rule should the court apply and why?
The Federal Rule applies. The validity of a Federal Rule is not dependent on whether its effect frustrates state substantive law or a state procedural law enacted for substantive purposes. (Shady Grove).