Subject Matter Jurx
How do we determine domicile for a corporation? (for extra 50 points, what case gives us this test?)
A corporation's domicile is the state they are incorporated in and their principle place of business (nerve-center). We get this test for domicile from the Hertz v. Friend case.
List three ways of establishing personal jurisdiction.
Five ways to find PJ - (1) General jrx, (2) Specific jrx, (3) Tag jrx, (4) Waiver, (5) Consent
Where is venue proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1)?
A judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located.
What are the three components//required parts of a complaint?
1) A short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction
2) A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and
3) A demand for the relief sought
Rule 8(a)
When can a Defendant remove a case to federal court?
Within 30 days of receiving the complaint (1446(b)(1)) or within 30 days of the case becoming removable (1446(b)(3))
What is the "well-pleaded complaint" rule? (for bonus 50pts, what case does this come from?)
Federal question jurisdiction cannot be acquired over a case unless an issue of federal law appears on the face of a properly pleaded complaint. Louisville & Mashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley.
An Individual is subject to general jurisdiction where they are domiciled (where they physically reside and have intent to remain indefinitely). Corporations, however, are subject to general jurisdiction in their state of incorporation and in the state where their principal place of business is located. To find the principal place of business we apply the nerve center test.
When do we look to subsection (3) of the venue statute to determine appropriate venue?
Subsection (3) is a fallback provision! We only look to this subsection if there is no judicial district in which an action may otherwise be brought in subsections (1) and (2).
A driver rear-ends another car due to faulty brakes, and is sued by the accident victim. The driver decides to join the repair shop where the brakes were worked on under this rule because the driver's liability derives from the repair shop's liability for their faulty repair of the brakes. What rule allows the driver to bring in the repair shop?
Rule 14 - impleader; the driver is saying if he is found guilty, the repair shop should pay the judgement rendered to the driver. Not a shift in culpability, but a shift in responsibility for payment.
What is the tag-along plaintiff rule?
A second plaintiff can use supplemental jurisdiction to join in a diversity case against a single defendant even if the Amt In Controversy is not met as long as there is complete diversity
Chloe, an individual, sues Defendant (a corporation) for wrongful death of her husband. Defendant is incorporated in DE with its principal place of business in PA, and does most of it's business in CA. Although Chloe lived in Philadelphia with her husband before his tragic death while she finished law school, she had intentions to move back to her home in NJ upon graduation in May 2019. Assuming Chloe can allege the amount in controversy in good faith, can this suit be filed in federal court?
Likely yes! Chloe temporarily lived in Philly while she pursued her degree, but always had the intent to return to New Jersey after graduation. Her domicile would likely be New Jersey (since she never had an intent to remain in PA indefinitely) and the corporation is domiciled in DE and PA, so there is complete diversity.
When does a claim arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum state and what case gives us this answer?
Originally, arising out of meant when the claim resulted from D's in-state contacts. However, the Court in Ford expanded this definition to include instances when there is a strong relationship among the D, the forum, and the litigation. (Ford).
How do we determine residence for individuals and corporations under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1)?
Individuals = domicile
Corporations = where they are subject to personal jurisdiction.
Which Rule 12(b) defenses must be first raised in either a motion or in an answer otherwise they are waived? What rule tells us this?
Rule 12(b)(2)-(5) are waived if not raised in either an initial motion on in an answer. (Rule 12(h)).
When must service be made? What must be served?
Service must be maid within 90 days of filing the complaint (Rule 4(m)) and both a summons and a copy of the complaint must be served (Rule 4(c)(1)).
Plaintiff (an LLC) sues Defendant (a corporation) in a civil suit based on a state law claim. Plaintiff has members who are citizens of North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina. Defendant is incorporated in Delaware. While Defendant is a nationwide business, the headquarters is in Raleigh, North Carolina. Assuming Plaintiff can allege the amount in controversy in good faith, can this suit be filed in federal court?
No. Plaintiff has a member with citizenship in North Carolina and Defendant's principal place of business is in North Carolina.
What are the reasonableness factors courts use to determine whether personal jurisdiction is reasonable? Name 3 of the 5. (hint: 1367(c))
1) Burden on the D,
2) P's interest in obtaining a convenient forum,
3) Forum State's interest in adjudicating the dispute,
4) interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies,
5) shared interest of the several states in furthering substantive social policies
Dziezek, who resides in the Southern District of Indiana, sues Torruella and Hopkins. Torruella resides in the Western District of Kentucky. Hopkins resides in the Western District of Tennessee. Dziezek sues them both for damages arising out of a business deal for the financing of a subdivision Dziezek planned to build in the Southern District of Ohio. His claim against Torruella is for fraud, his claim against Hopkins is for fraud and for violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Act. The negotiations between the parites for the financing took place in the Western District of Tennessee. Dziezek claimed that, after the defendants had provided the first installment of financing for the project, and he had commenced construction, they refused to provide subsequent payments to the contractor, who consequently did not complete the project. Venue in Dziezek's action would be proper in:
a. the Western District of Kentucky.
b. the Southern District of Indiana.
c. the Southern District of Ohio.
d. Both a & c.
c. the Southern District of Ohio!
For 1391(b)(1) - no proper venue b/c none of the defendants reside in the same state
For 1391(b)(2) - multiple possible arguments for why "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim took place, or where the property that is the subject of the action is located"
Don't look to 1391(b)(3) b/c there is a proper venue under one of the first two subsections
When can a party amend as of right/as a matter of course (AKA without seeking court approval) and how many times can they do this?
A party can amend one time as of right: a) within 21 days of serving the pleading or b) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. (Rule 15(a)).
A truck driver from State A and a bus driver from State B were involved in a collision in State B that injured the truck driver. The truck driver filed a federal diversity action in State B federal court based on negligence, seeking $100K in damages from the bus driver. What law of negligence should the court apply?
Using the Erie Doctrine, the court should determine which state's negligence law the highest court in State B would apply (look to State B's Choice of Law provision) and apply that law in this action. Remember: after Erie, the Swift case idea of a federal common law is 'debunked.' There is no federal common law for state claims.
Cavers, from Wisconsin, sues Pariah Corporation, an Iowa corporation with its principal place of business in Iowa, for damages for defamation. He sues in federal court, for $100,000 based on diversity jurisdiction. Pariah impleads Donnelly, a former supervisor (from Iowa) for the company who allegedly made the actual statements on which Cavers's claim is based. It seeks indemnification (a state law theory of recovery) from Donnelly, an Iowa citizen, for any damages it is ordered to pay to Cavers. Donnelly moves to dismiss the claim against him for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. How should the court rule?
The court should deny the motion. While the court does not have original jurisdiction over the claim (not a federal question and the parties are not diverse) the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The indemnity claim against Donnelly arises out of the same case or controversy as the anchor claim (same nucleus of operative fact) and this is a claim brought by a defendant (not a plaintiff) so it is not barred under 1367(b). Thus, the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim (but remember to go through the discretionary factors on an essay too)!
Cartwright is a carpenter who lives in Vermont and works out of his home there. In addition to his Vermont customers, he has some customers across the boarder in New York, and some in Massachusetts. Last year, he built a garage for a New York customer and put an addition on another New Yorker's house. This was about 5% of his construction business for the year, which is about the average for his New York business each year.
While driving to a job in Massachusetts, Cartwright has an accident, in Massachusetts, with Morales, from New York. Morales brings suit against Cartwright for his injuries in New York State court. Does this court have personal jurisdiction over Cartwright?
No, Cartwright is not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York, because the claim does not arise out of Cartwright's New York contacts. Cartwright has minimum contacts in New York from his construction business but this accident does not arise out of those contacts.
Connors, a computer programmer living in the Northern District of Texas, did some contract work for Ace Corporation, which is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in the Northern District of Illinois. Ace has an office in the Northern District of Texas, but no other offices in Texas, It has large operations in three other states. Connors negotiated the contract by phone and e-mail from his home, dealing with Ace employees in the Texas office and the Illinois office. He did the programming work, which was to be used for Ace's Texas operation, at his home. Ace Corporation claimed that Connors had only done half the work, and refused to pay. Connors, believing that he had completed all the work called for under the contract, brought a diversity action against Ace for the contract price ($200,000) in federal court in the Northern District of Texas.
How should a judge rule if Ace moves to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois?
The court would have authority under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) to transfer this case to the Northern District of Illinois, but likely would NOT transfer the case. 28 U.S.C. 1404 says courts "may transfer" to another court where it could have originally been brought so it could transfer to Northern District of Illinois. Why wouldn't they? Most of the events giving rise to the claim took place in the Northern District of Texas where Connors did the work, dealt with the Ace employees there, and suffered the damages there. The programming that Connors did was to be used in Ace's Texas office. The defendant, a corporation with a local office, would not be greatly inconvenienced or put to great expense to litigate this case in Texas. Some witnesses and evidence may be in Illinois, but it seems very doubtful that more would be there than in Texas. It seems highly unlikely that the convenience of witnesses and the interests of justice require transfer of this case to Illinois.
Landry Shamet buys a lot and wants to build his dream house on it. He contracts with Allergic to Bricks Home Builders to build his home in exchange for $500,000. Allergic to Bricks contracts with several subcontractors, including Brett's Foundations. After the house is fully constructed, Allergic to Bricks discovers that the foundation laid by Brett's is defective. The defective foundations renders the house uninhabitable, and according to Landry, reduces the value of the home to a mere $100,000 (this valuation is in dispute). Brett's, meanwhile, has gone out of business and is being liquidated. Its residual value is expected to be between $70,000 and $80,000 which would limit the amount in controversy for any claim against it. Allergic to Bricks estimates that the cost of repairing the foundation will be $300,000.
Landry is a citizen of Pennsylvania. Allergic to Bricks is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Brett's Foundation is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. With $50,000 left to pay Allergic to Bricks under the contract, Landry refuses to pay any additional money for the house until Allergic to Bricks repairs the foundation at its own expense. Allergic to Bricks refuses and demands the remaining $50,000. Landry then sues Allergic in federal court under state contract law for specific performance, or in the alternative, for $300,000.
1) Assuming venue is proper and that personal jurisdiction extends to all parties, can Allergic to Bricks sue Landry for breach of contract?
2) Can Allergic to Bricks sue Brett's for indemnification on Landry's claim and for a breach of contract action stemming from an unrelated job?
1) Yes! Allergic to Bricks can counterclaim against Landry under Rule 13. Landry's original claim made them "opposing parties." The claim likely will be a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a). It would likely be compulsory because the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim.
2) Allergic to Bricks can sue Brett's for Indemnification under Rule 14. The court would lack original jurisdiction over such a state law claim between non-diverse parties but the court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim under 1367 because this claim forms part of the same case or controversy under (a) and is not barred under (b) because this is a claim made by a defendant, not a plaintiff.
Allergic to Bricks would not be able to sue Brett's for a breach of contract action stemming from an unrelated job because while Rule 18 would allow Allergic to Bricks to pose such a claim, but it is unrelated to the original claim, but the court would not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim because under 1367(a) this would not form the same case or controversy.
What are the two ways to analyze a stream of commerce problem (the two different tests from the justices in the opinion)? (50pts plus if you cite the case).
Brennan: A D placing a product into the stream of commerce has an awareness//hope that the product (or any final product utilizing the component part) raises a possibility of lawsuit in that forum state. Tied to the 'benefiting from the forum state' idea.
O'Connor: 1) D places product into stream of commerce; 2) has awareness of product in forum market; and 3) has additional conduct indicating intent or purpose to serve the market in that forum state. Awareness alone is toeing the line of 'foreseeability,' the conduct must be purposeful and deliberately aimed at the forum state. Not enough of a relationship is established by 'chain of commerce' connection to forum state.
Asahi v. Superior Court of California