Pennoyerland
What is the Pennoyer rule? What are the advantages?
If it's not there, it's not fair.
Adv:
- Simple to apply and easy to predict
- The rule seems fair since D is there
Shoe test?
The requirements under the Shoe test are that the D have minimum contacts (purposeful availment), notions of fair play and substantial justice prevail, and the cause of action must be related to or arising from the D’s contacts in the forum state
T/F: Service by mail is explicitly permissible
False.
Why? Junk mail issue and if service by mail is constitutional, then service is complete upon mailing regardless of whether they receive it.
T/F: Even if the defendant or plaintiff has moved to another state for the sole purpose of establishing jurisdiction, the court determines “domicile” as of the date the cause of action was filed.
true
T/F: An adverse party may rely on allegations of its own pleading to overcome a summary judgment motion.
False, most pleadings are not sworn on personal knowledge. But, plaintiff can rely on the other side’s answer because it’s an admission
In PennoyerLand, whose rights are being protected?
The defendants!
T/F: Foreseeability is not relevant to jurisdiction
False, it's relevant but limited
A summons MUST include....
The name of the parties
Statement direct to the defendant
The name and address of the plaintiff’s attorney
The time within which the defendant must appear and defend
Notify the defendant of the consequences for failing to appear
The clerk’s signature
The court’s seal
Can a citizen of Mexico sue a citizen of Japan in New York State Court if the New York State court has personal jurisdiction over the citizen of Japan?
yes
T/F: In ruling on a defendant’s motion for summary judgment the court may grant the motion if it finds that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
False: must not may
Does Oregon have PJ, if Plaintiff (P) sues Defendant (D) Neff in Oregon and Neff is served with service of process when he is in California?
Defendant makes a pre-answer 12(b)(6) motion; upon its denial she files an answer containing both a defense on the merits and a 12(b)(2) defense, asserting no personal jurisdiction. The question is whether the defendant has waived her jurisdictional objection.
Defense waived; 12(h)(1)
Patient A domiciled in California files a complaint against Doctor in Oregon for malpractice. The summons and complaint were served at Doctor's office in Oregon to Patient B waiting in the waiting room. The process server is 19 years old. Doctor answered the complaint and asserted the defense of improper service of process. Under FRCP 4, is the court likely to dismiss the action for improper service of process.
Yes, because process can not be delivering to a third party (who is not an officer, manager, or agent) at the defendant’s place of business
A pharmaceutical co., produces a drug called A2. P entered into a K to sell 10,000 of A2 to D, a pharmaceutical distribution co. After K was signed, the fed government banned the production and sale of A2 in US. P does not want to develop the product if there is no real market here. Because D can still sell the drug in other nations, P is worried that D will sue for breach of K if it doesn’t honor the K. P, therefore, brings a declaratory judgment action asking court for declaration that K is void because of illegality. Is there federal question ju?
no
P sues D alleging that D signed a promissory note that D did not pay when due; and P provided sufficient facts in support of the allegations for each element of the claim. (P justified subject matter Jurisdiction and requested damages as required under FRCP 8). P moves for summary judgment based on an affidavit signed by P stating that he watched D sign the note. D tells his lawyer that he did not sign the note and submits an affidavit saying “I did not sign the note.” Will P prevail on his motion for summary judgment?
No, here there is a genuine issue of material fact
P is domiciled in CA; D is domiciled in NY. D owns land in CA. P sues D in CA to determine ownership of land (i.e., in rem case). D is served in NY. P does not attach the land or provide constructive notice in a newspaper. D moves to dismiss for lack of Personal Jurisdiction. In PennoyerLand, does D win or lose?
D likely wins
Peter trips and falls on land owned by Donna in Massachusetts, injuring himself. Donna is a Florida citizen (i.e., domiciled in FL) and has never actually been to Massachusetts. Donna is a businesswoman and purchased the land as part of a commercial development project. Peter sues Donna in Massachusetts state court. Assuming the property is attached before the lawsuit begins, and there is adequate notice under Shoe, there is likely:
Personal jurisdiction, because this case arose out of Donna’s contacts with the land in Massachusetts.
Patrick, 23 years old, is suing David, 21 years old, for damages resulting from a car accident in Florida. Patrick knocks on David’s front door, hands him a summons and complaint, and says: “you have been served!” Is service proper? Why or why not?
No! He's a party in the suit
A plaintiff, a resident of State A, filed a complaint against two defendants in a state court in State B, where a car accident between the parties took place. The claims were based solely on state law. One defendant resides in State B, where the accident occurred, and another resides in State C, a neighboring state. The complaint alleged $100,000 in damages. The defendant who resides in State B was personally served with a complaint and summons while he was walking to work. The defendant who resides in State C was served by a process server in the forum state after attending a business meeting in that state. Shortly thereafter, both defendants filed a motion to remove the case to the federal district court in the district where the case was filed. The federal district court denied the motion. What is the most likely reason that the motion was denied?
One of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the action was filed
A plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court alleging that a cell phone application sold by the defendant infringed upon a patent held by the plaintiff. The complaint was signed by an associate at the large law firm that represented the plaintiff. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the cell phone application at issue did not actually perform as described in the complaint, and thus did not affect the plaintiff's patent. The court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. At the hearing, the defendant presented evidence that the application performed only functions not covered by the plaintiff's patent. The defendant also showed that the plaintiff's attorney had never actually used the application, but had drafted the complaint based solely on his client's description of the application. The court granted the motion to dismiss. The court also issued an order requiring the plaintiff's attorney and his law firm to pay the defendant's attorney's fees, finding that the plaintiff's attorney had not conducted a reasonable inquiry into the factual contentions in the complaint. What's the best argument that the court erred in its order requiring payment of attorney's fees?
A court may not order a party to pay the opposing party's attorney's fees except upon motion
P is domiciled in CA; D is domiciled in NY. P sues D in CA re: land that D owns in CA. It is an “in rem” case. P posts a notice about the suit in a local newspaper in CA & "attaches" D's land in CA before suing (at outset of the case). D defaults (doesn’t show up for court). P obtains judgment against D. P then seeks to sell D’s land to satisfy the judgment. In PennoyerLand, can D successfully argue no PJ?
no, D loses
Jane, fired by GrowCo, moves from Utah, where GrowCo is incorporated and has its only place of business, to CA. In CA she files suit in federal court for employment discrimination. The employment agreement between Jane and GrowCo contains a clause specifying that any suit arising from employment will be filed in federal district court in Utah. Which of the following statements accurately reflect the law? GrowCo would prevail on....
hint: two possible answers
Would prevail on a 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue
Would prevail on a motion under 28 U.S.C. §1406 to have the case moved to Utah
Defendant, located in the United States, receives a complaint together with the copies of the designated forms under Rule 4, requesting waiver of service. The request is dated September 1. If Defendant wishes to waive service, by when must she respond?
October 31, (as long as the 31st is not on a weekend or official holiday)
Patty (Fl) sues David (MA) in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction seeking recovery on a libel claim for $25,000 and an unrelated negligence claim, for $65,000. David joins Mark as a codependent on the negligence claim, seeking his $65,000 in negligence damages from Mark. Assume that there is not a common undivided interest between any parties about any of the claims. Has div. ju. been met?
Patty does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement against Mark but does against David.
P sues D Machine Company after suffering serious injury to her hand using a machine manufactured by D. P’s suit is for negligence by D in the design of the machine (Note: the statute of limitations for strict liability had expired). P’s lawyer sends an interrogatory to D asking whether at the time between the accident and the present, it had added a safety guard to the machine which injured the P (which it had). Under the relevant rules of evidence, such ”subsequent remedial measures” are not admissible to establish negligence. The purpose for this rule is to encourage D’s to eliminate unsafe conditions without fear that such safety measures will be introduced at trial to establish liability later. Is the info sought in the interrogatory within the scope of discovery?
Yes, it’s within scope of discovery under FRCP 26(b)(1)
It's not admissible at trial though