Notice and Service of Process
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.
A plaintiff filed a lawsuit against three nonresident defendants. The plaintiff's complaint alleged that the court had personal jurisdiction over all three nonresident defendants.
The first defendant filed an answer to the complaint that admitted all jurisdictional allegations but denied allegations pertaining to the merits of the plaintiff's claims.
The second defendant served interrogatories on the plaintiff but did not answer the complaint.
The third defendant traveled to the forum state to consult with a local attorney but has taken no other action in the case.
Which of the three defendants have consented to the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction by waiving any right to object?
Only the first and second defendants.
Both the first and second defendants have taken part in the proceedings in the forum state, thereby consenting (by waiver) to the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction.
Ella, a resident of Georgia, was driving her car through Tennessee on a road trip when she accidentally collided with another vehicle, driven by Alex, a resident of Alabama. The accident occurred on the border of two federal districts: District A, with its courthouse in Nashville, and District B, with its courthouse in Memphis.
Alex, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in the accident, files a personal injury lawsuit against Ella in District A. Ella, unhappy with the choice of venue, moves to transfer the case to District B, arguing that it would be more convenient for both parties and that key witnesses are located there.
Should the court grant Ella motion for transfer of venue?
Yes.
Discretionary Transfer - 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a):
when current venue is proper, court may transfer to another proper venue that is more convenient, based on location of witnesses, evidence, etc.
A counter claim is ______ if it does not arise out of STOO.
PERMISSIVE
P sues D (an auto manufacturer) in state court for negligence arising from a car accident. The alleged negligence is negligent manufacture of a component of P’s car, which P believes was the proximate cause of P’s injury. At trial, the jury finds for D and the court enters judgment against P. Believing her lawyer did a poor job in the trial, P files a second suit against D for the same injury, again alleging negligence, this time using a better lawyer.
Can D object on the basis of claim preclusion?
Yes. Claim preclusion (also known as res judicata) prevents relitigation of claims. Here, there was a final judgment on the merits between the same parties (or their privies) for the same claims.
A company filed a complaint in federal court, alleging a breach of contract, against a defendant who was a former employee. The company sent an intern's adult acquaintance to serve the complaint and summons on the defendant at the defendant’s home. The process server left the papers with a cleaning lady who was the only person at the home, and who had control of the premises for two hours while she cleaned the house. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action for insufficiency of service of process. The applicable state rules regarding service of the summons and complaint are the same as the federal rules.
Is the court likely to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss?
Yes, because the individual served did not reside at the defendant’s home.
Katie, citizen of Georgia sought $150,000 in damages in a defamation suit against an international journalist, a citizen of Germany, who resided there. After the lawsuit was filed, however, the international businessperson became a lawful permanent resident and moved to Georgia.
Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over this law suit?
Yes.
The claim falls under Diversity jurisdiction.
- P is a citizen of Georgia; Journalist was a citizen of Germany at the time the suit was filed; the amount in controversy exceeds $75k.
Sophia, a resident of Texas, entered into a contract with Ryan, a resident of California, for the sale of rare collectible items. The contract specified that any disputes arising from the agreement would be resolved in the federal district court where the seller (Ryan) resides.
Later, a disagreement arises, and Sophia initiates a breach of contract lawsuit against Ryan in the federal district court of Texas. Ryan argues that the venue is improper, citing the contractual provision specifying the venue in California.
The motion regarding venue should be:
Denied, as the contract specifically designates California as the venue for disputes.
This is an example of consent between parties to subject to a specific jurisdiction based on a contractual agreement.
P, a citizen of Florida, sues D1, a citizen of Texas, and D2, a citizen of Texas, in federal court under § 1332 for breach of contract. Damages claimed are $200,000. Can D1 file a counterclaim arising from the same contract against D2 for $100,000?
No. A counterclaim is asserted against an opposing party. Fed. R .Civ. P. 13(a), (b). D1 and D2 are not opposing parties as they are both on the same side of the “v.”
George, a resident of Las Vegas, is a golf instructor at Desert Holes, a private golf club and hotel. On July 9, 2003, George was giving a lesson to Sophia, a resident of Butte, Montana, who was on a two-week vacation and staying at Desert Holes. George was attempting to show Sophia what a proper swing looked like when he suddenly struck her in the nose and mouth with his 9-iron. Sophia suffered a broken nose that required rhinoplasty and extensive dental work, costing her $90,000. Sophia (who never looked quite the same again) sued George and Desert Holes in negligence and battery in federal court in Montana on September 15, 2003. Federal law requires that an answer to any claims for negligence and battery be filed within 30 days of the date of injury, while Montana state law requires that answers be filed within 90 days of the date of injury.
Which law should the court apply?
Federal Law.
Under the Erie Doctrine, federal court must apply federal law when the legal issue is based on procedural law.
An investor from State A filed an action against his State B stockbroker in federal court in State A. The summons and complaint were served at the stockbroker's office in State B, where the process server handed the documents to the stockbroker's administrative assistant. The stockbroker has answered the complaint, asserting the defense of improper service of process. Assume that both states' requirements for service of process are identical to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Is the court likely to dismiss the action for improper service of process?
Yes, because an individual defendant may not be served by delivering process to a third party found at the defendant's place of employment.
For the purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, which of the following parties is domiciled in New York?
A. Sally's stays with her Aunt in Manhattan for five months while considering whether to rent a townhouse there.
B. Corbin is a doctor in Brooklyn, and often stays with his girlfriend Monica temporarily when he performs surgery there, but he lives in Newark.
C. Harold rents and lives in a contemporary new apartment in Queens, but travels to Newark everyday for work.
D. Maxine turns eighteen and begins working in New York City and stays with her BFF Marley temporarily, while living in Philadelphia.
C. Harold rents and lives in a contemporary new apartment in Queens, but travels to Newark everyday for work.
Danny resides in Miami (So. FL) and Debbie resides in Tallahassee (No. FL). They decide to travel north to Toronto for spring break, driving in separate cars. On the way, they take a drive in Pittsburgh (W. PA), going down Murray Avenue in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood of Pittsburgh. Still in separate cars, they are temporarily distracted by the wonderful smells coming from Mineo’s Pizza Parlor on Murray Avenue. They both run into Paul, who was trying to pull out of a parking spot in front of Mineo’s. If Paul sues Danny and Debbie for negligence, what venue or venues are appropriate?
A. Southern District of Florida.
B. Northern District of Florida.
C. Western District of Pennsylvania.
D. All of the above.
D. All of the above.
The correct answer is D. All of the Ds live in the same state, so venue is ok in any district where one of them resides. (1391(b)(1)). Plus, the car wreck was in Pittsburgh, the place where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. (1391(b)(2)).
Sarah files a lawsuit against XYZ Corporation for breach of contract. During the litigation, John, who is not a party to the lawsuit, claims that he has a substantial interest in the subject matter of the case and seeks to intervene as a defendant. John asserts that the outcome of the lawsuit could directly affect his rights under a separate contract he has with XYZ Corporation. What is the most appropriate action for the court to take regarding John's request to intervene?
A) Deny John's request to intervene since he is not a named party in the original lawsuit.
B) Grant John's request to intervene as a plaintiff since he asserts an interest in the subject matter of the case.
C) Grant John's request to intervene as a defendant if he can show that his rights may be impaired if he is not allowed to intervene.
C) Grant John's request to intervene as a defendant if he can show that his rights may be impaired if he is not allowed to intervene.
Tommy sues Ghost in state court for breach of a contract to sell an electric guitar. At the time, Tommy decides not to sue Ghost for negligence for an unrelated car accident. Tommy wins at trial and judgment is entered on her behalf. Emboldened by her victory, Tommy files a second suit against Ghost for negligence arising from the car accident. Ghost asserts claim preclusion as a defense, arguing that Tommy could have joined her negligence claim in the same suit. Will Tommy win?
No.
Tommy did get a final judgment on the merits. It’s the same parties. BUT it’s not the same claim: the negligence claim arising from the car accident is unrelated to the contract for the guitar. Claim preclusion therefore does not bar the second suit.
A woman from State A was in a car accident with a business owner from State B. The woman sued the business owner for negligence in federal court. 45 days after filing the complaint, the woman personally served the business owner with a copy of the summons and complaint in his office.
Was the business owner properly served?
No, because the woman is a party to the lawsuit.
One party cannot personally serve another party.
When can a plaintiff(s) aggregate their claims? When can they not?
Single plaintiff can aggregate claims against single defendant, even if unrelated.
Single plaintiff cannot aggregate claims against multiple defendants.
Typically, multiple plaintiffs cannot aggregate claims against the same defendant or multiple defendants.
P (citizen of California) plans to sue D Phord Motor Co. (incorporated in Delaware with principal place of business in Michigan) for injuries suffered in an auto accident. P believes that problems with the Phord vehicle caused the accident. If P sues Phord in California state court seeking $100K damages, can D remove? (Hint: see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b).)
A. No, because the well-pleaded complaint rule indicates that a plaintiff is the master of his complaint.
B. Yes, because defendants can always remove from state court to federal court.
C. No, because no federal question is involved.
D. Yes, because the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over P’s claim had P filed there originally.
Correct answer: D
1441(a) permits removal of a civil action brought in a state court of which the district courts of the U.S. have original jurisdiction.
Fill in the blank:
Under Rule __ , a defendant may ______ a third party who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.
14; Impleader
Ryan, a resident of Connecticut, was moving into his new apartment in New Haven, Connecticut. Ryan, a struggling concert pianist, enlisted the help of his brothers, Craig and Greg (also from Connecticut) who together were attempting to move his piano up three flights of stairs. Suddenly Greg lost his footing and the piano came hurtling down the stairs, crushing Mary, a resident of Rhode Island who was there visiting her cousin. Mary died and her family sues Ryan, Craig and Greg in federal court in Connecticut for negligence and civil claims relating to Mary’s wrongful death totaling $200,000. The Connecticut state law dictates that there is a $500,000 limit to recovery for wrongful death claims, however it requires that all parties be “joined” at least 15 days before the trial. Federal law provides no recovery for wrongful death but provides for negligence claims up to $100,000. It also requires that all parties be joined at least 45 days before trial.
With reference to the negligence and wrongful death claims, which law should be applied?
A. Connecticut state law should be applied.
B. Federal law should be applied.
C. Neither federal nor state law should be applied.
D. None of the above.
A. Connecticut state law should be applied.
The Erie Doctrine requires that state laws be applied to substantive law claims.
Bob, a lawyer, and his firm were being sued in federal court for legal malpractice by several of his clients, including Susan. Susan hired a process server to deliver the summons and complaint to Bob. When the process server arrived at Bob's home, he discovered that it was unoccupied. The process server then proceeded to the law firm office. The process server discovered that Bob was out of the office with another client, but served the summons and complaint on Carl, Bob's partner in the law firm.
Was service of process properly executed?
Yes.
Since the law firm is named as a party to the lawsuit, Carl is permitted to receive the summons and the complaint. Carl is a partner in the firm, and therefore is considered of the same managerial authority as an officer, managing or general agent under Rule 4. Therefore it was proper for Carl to accept the summons and complaint.
What is the Exxon Exception?
When the vehicle claim is a diversity claim Supplemental claims by other plaintiffs are allowed if:
Recite the step-by-step analysis for determining proper venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).
First: RESIDE If all defendants reside in the same state, a judicial district where any defendant resides; AND
Do all Ds reside in the same state?
- If yes, any district in that state where any D resides is proper venue. Now proceed to see if Arise yields additional proper venues.
- If no, proceed to ARISE.
Second: ARISE A judicial district where a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the cause of action occurred”, OR
- Are there districts where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the cause of action occurred”?
- If yes, all such districts are proper venues.
- If no, did RESIDE produce any proper venues?
- If yes, the RESIDE venues are the only proper venues.
- If no, proceed to FALLBACK.
Third: FALLBACK If (1) & (2) don’t yield any proper venues, venue’s proper in any judicial district where at least one defendant is “subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.”
An insurance company, incorporated and with principal place of business in Ohio, issues a policy of life insurance with the face value of $50,000. The insured dies. The daughter of the insured, a citizen of California, sues in state court to recover the proceeds. The widow of the insured, a citizen of California, informs the insurance company she also intends to claim the proceeds. Will the insurance company be able to interplead the daughter and widow in federal court?
No. Neither type of interpleader–statutory or under the rule–is available on these facts. Statutory interpleader requires minimal diversity of claimants [see 28 U.S.C. § 1335]; both claimants are from California. The citizenship of the insurance company is irrelevant since it is not claiming the stake. Interpleader under the rule [Fed. R. Civ. P. 22] is subject to standard jurisdiction requirements. Diversity is satisfied since the insurance company is a citizen of Ohio and both claimants are citizens of California, but the jurisdictional amount is insufficient. The insurance company will have to interplead the claimants in state court.
Josephine, a resident of Ohio, was visiting her sister in Cleveland, Ohio. On February 2, 2003, she decided to stop in a local coffee shop called Starbrew. Paul, the owner of Starbrew, was operating the espresso machine that afternoon when Josephine ordered a double half-caffeinated latte from him. He brewed the coffee to her specifications, but failed to secure the lid of the steaming drink. When he handed it to her, the lid slipped off and the scalding liquid poured out all over her hand. Josephine suffered a 3rd degree burn on her hand, which required plastic surgery. Josephine sued Paul and Starbrew in federal court in Ohio for $100,000 in damages for her injuries and filed her claim on April 3, 2003. Paul’s attorney insisted that there was no merit to Josephine’s claim (Paul swore that he fastened the lid securely on the cup) and filed a motion for summary judgment (to essentially dismiss the claim). Paul’s attorney filed the motion on July 10, 2003. Ohio state law allows for the recovery of damages for negligence and personal injury up to $100,000. Ohio procedural law also requires that motions for summary judgment be filed within 30 days of the filing of the claim. Federal law allows for the recovery of damages for negligence and personal injury up to $80,000. The federal rules of procedure require that the motion be filed within 60 days of the filing of the claim.
Which laws should the federal court apply in Josephine’s lawsuit?
(Two Part Answer)
The court should apply Ohio negligence and personal injury laws and federal procedural law for filing the motion for summary judgment in Josephine's lawsuit.