CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE

OVERVIEW
A.PERSONALJURISDICTION
Personaljurisdictionreferstotheabilityofacourttoexercisepoweroveraparticulardefendantor
itemofproperty.Itmaybecategorizedasinpersonam,inrem,orquasiinrem.Theprimary
limitationsonacourtspowertoexercisepersonaljurisdictionarefoundintheUnitedStates
Constitutionandstatestatutes.
B.SUBJECTMATTERJURISDICTION
ThesubjectmatterjurisdictionofthefederalcourtsislimitedtothatauthorizedbytheConstitution
asimplementedbyfederalstatuteanddecisionallaw.Ingeneral,itmaybecategorizedasfollows:
1.DiversityofCitizenshipJurisdiction
Diversityofcitizenshipjurisdictionunder28U.S.C.section1332isgroundedhistoricallyinthe
desiretoprotectoutofstatepartiesfromlocalprejudice.Itsmainrequirementisthattherebe
completediversitybetweenopposingparties.Eachplaintiffmustbeofdiversecitizenshipfrom
eachdefendant.Also,theamountincontroversymustexceed$75,000.
2.FederalQuestionJurisdiction
Federalquestionjurisdictionundersection1331presentsfewerspecificdifficulties.The
principalprobleminthisareaistodeterminewhenanactionarisesunderfederallaw.A
secondaryproblemistoknowwhattypesofactionsarewithintheexclusivejurisdictionofthe
federalcourtsunderotherspecificstatutes.
3.RemovalJurisdiction
Removaljurisdictionallowsdefendantstoremoveanactionbroughtinastatecourttoafederal
courtifthefederalcourtwouldhavehadoriginaljurisdictionovertheaction.
4.SupplementalJurisdiction
1

Thedoctrineofsupplementaljurisdictioniscodifiedundersection1367andincludes,undera
singlename,theconceptsofancillaryandpendentjurisdiction.Inanyform,supplemental
jurisdictionallowsafederalcourttoentertaincertainclaimsoverwhichitwouldhaveno
independentbasisofsubjectmatterjurisdiction,i.e.,claimsthatdonotsatisfydiversityorfederal
questionjurisdictionrequirements.Itisimportanttonotethatsupplementaljurisdictionoperates
onlyafteraclaimhasinvokedfederalsubjectmatterjurisdiction,afterthecaseisproperlyin
federalcourt.Supplementaljurisdictionoperatestobringadditionalclaimsintothatcasethat
arisefromthesametransactionoroccurrenceastheoriginalclaim,butitcannotbeusedtoget
thecaseintofederalcourtinthefirstinstance.

C.VENUE
Venueisthedesignationofthepropergeographicdistrictinwhichtobringanaction.Venuewill
dependonwherethecauseofactionaroseandonthenatureoftheparties(i.e.,whethercorporateor
natural
I.PERSONALJURISDICTIONCHAPTERTWO
A.OVERVIEW
Therearetwobranchesofjurisdiction:subjectmatterjurisdictionandpersonaljurisdiction.Subject
matterjurisdictioninvolvesthecourtspoweroveraparticulartypeofcase.Personal
jurisdictioninvolvestheabilityofacourthavingsubjectmatterjurisdictiontoexercisepowerover
aparticulardefendantoritemofproperty.Thissectiondiscussespersonaljurisdiction.
1.LimitationsonPersonalJurisdiction
Limitationsonacourtspersonaljurisdictionarisefromtwosources:statestatutesandthe
UnitedStatesConstitution.Anexerciseofpersonaljurisdictionmustnotexceedthelimitations
ofeithersource.
a.StatutoryLimitations
Stateshavethepowertodecideoverwhomtheircourtsmayexercisejurisdiction.Therefore,
thefirstplacetolooktodeterminewhetherthecourthasproperlyexercisedpersonal
2

jurisdictionisstatelaw.Ifnostatestatutegrantsthecourtthepoweroverthepartiesbefore
thecourt,thenthecourtlackspersonaljurisdiction.Ontheotherhand,anexerciseof
jurisdictionwillnotbepropermerelybecauseitcomportswithastatestatute;itmustalsobe
withinthelimitationssetbytheConstitution(below).
b.ConstitutionalLimitations
TheDueProcessClauseoftheConstitutionplacestworestrictionsontheexerciseof
personaljurisdiction.First,thedefendantmusthavesuchcontactswiththeforumstatethat
theexerciseofjurisdictionwouldbefairandreasonable.Second,thedefendantmustbe
givenappropriatenoticeoftheactionandanopportunitytobeheard.Notethatthese
requirementsaretheouterlimitstowhichastatemayreachinexercisingjurisdictionovera
person.Astatestatutecannotexceedtheseconstitutionalboundaries,butisnotrequiredto
exercisethefulllimitofconstitutionalpower.Thus,inevaluatingjurisdictionoveraperson,
bothconstitutionalandstatutorylimitationsmustbeconsidered.
c.PersonalJurisdictioninFederalCourts
Themainjurisdictionalprobleminstatecourtsariseswhenthedefendantoverwhompower
issoughtlivesinanotherstate.Sincethefederalbordersencompassallstates,onemight
expectthatfederalcourtswouldencounterproblemsofpersonaljurisdictiononlywhenthe
defendantswereforeignnationals.However,Rule4oftheFederalRulesprovidesthat,
absentsomespecialfederalprovision,eachfederalcourtmustanalyzepersonal
jurisdictionasifitwereacourtofthestateinwhichitislocated.Thus,innearlyeverycase,
theassessmentofwhetherthecourthaspersonaljurisdictionoverthedefendantwillbe
exactlythesameinfederalcourtasitisinstatecourt.
2.ThreeTypesofPersonalJurisdiction

a.InPersonamJurisdiction
Inpersonamjurisdictionexistswhentheforumhaspoweroverthepersonofaparticular
defendant.(Jurisdictionoveraplaintiffisgenerallynotanissuebecausetheplaintiffaccedes
tothecourtsjurisdictionbybringingsuitinthatcourt.)Inthesecases,thecourtmayrender
amoneyjudgmentagainstthedefendantormayorderthedefendanttoperformactsor
3

refrainfromacting.Suchajudgmentcreatesapersonalobligationonthedefendantandis
entitledtofullfaithandcreditinallotherstates;i.e.,ifadefendantisorderedtopayasumof
moneytoaplaintiff,theplaintiffmayenforcethejudgmentagainstthedefendantsproperty
inanyotherstatewherethatpropertyislocated.
b.InRemJurisdiction
Inremjurisdictionexistswhenthecourthaspowertoadjudicatetherightsofallpersonsin
theworldwithrespecttoaparticularitemofproperty.Thisjurisdictionislimitedto
situationswherethepropertyislocatedwithinthephysicalbordersofthestateandwhereit
isnecessaryforthestatetobeabletobindallpersonsregardingthepropertysownership
anduse.Thisoccurswithrespecttoactionsforcondemnation(eminentdomaincases),
forfeitureofpropertytothestate(e.g.,whenthepropertyisusedfortheunlawful
transportationofnarcotics),andsettlementofdecedentsestates.
c.QuasiInRemJurisdiction
Onetypeofquasiinremjurisdictionexistswhenthecourthaspowertodeterminewhether
particularindividualsownspecificpropertywithinthecourtscontrol.Unlikeinrem
jurisdiction,however,itdoesnotpermitthecourttodeterminetherightsofallpersonsinthe
worldwithrespecttotheproperty.Asecondtypeofquasiinremjurisdictionpermitsthe
courttoadjudicatedisputesotherthanownershipbasedonthepresenceofthedefendants
propertyintheforum(seeE.2.a.2),infra,regardingapplicableconstitutionallimitations).
1)DefendantIsNotBoundPersonally
Thebasisofacourtspowertoexercisequasiinremjurisdictionisthepropertywithin
thestate.(SeeE.,infra.)Thejudgmentdoesnotbindthedefendantpersonallyandcannot
beenforcedagainstanyotherpropertybelongingtothedefendant.
B.STATUTORYLIMITATIONSONINPERSONAMJURISDICTION
Eachstateisfreetoprescribeitsownstatutorybasesforpersonaljurisdiction.Ofcourse,the
exerciseofjurisdictioninagivencasemustalsosatisfytheconstitutionalrequirements.
(SeeC.,infra.)Moststateshavestatutesgrantingtheircourtsinpersonamjurisdictioninthe
followingfoursituations:

(i)Wherethedefendantispresentintheforumstateandispersonallyservedwithprocess;
(ii)Wherethedefendantisdomiciledintheforumstate;
(iii)Wherethedefendantconsentstojurisdiction;and
(iv)Wherethedefendanthascommittedactsbringinghimwithintheforumstateslongarmstatutes.
Eachofthesebasesofinpersonamjurisdictionwillbediscussedindetailbelow.
1.PhysicalPresenceatTimeofPersonalService
Moststatesgranttheircourtsinpersonamjurisdictionoveranydefendantwhocanbeserved
withprocesswithinthebordersofthestate,nomatterhowlonghewaspresent(i.e.,evenif
merelypassingthrough).TheSupremeCourthasupheldthistypeofjurisdiction,allowinga
transientdefendanttobeservedwithprocessforacauseofactionunrelatedtohisbriefpresence
inthestate.[Burnhamv.SuperiorCourt,495U.S.604(1990)]

2.StateLawExceptionstoTraditionalRule
Eventhoughjurisdictionthroughpresenceatthetimeofservicehasbeenupheldunderthe
Constitution,statestatutesandcourtdecisionshavelimitedthepoweroftheircourtsincertain
situations.
a.ServicebyFraudorForceInvalid
Ifaplaintiffbringsadefendantintoastatebyfraudorforcetoserveprocess,mostcourts
willfindtheserviceinvalid.[See,e.g.,Copasv.AngloAmericanProvisionCo.,73Mich.
541(1889)]
b.ImmunityofPartiesandWitnesses
Moststateslikewisegrantimmunityfrompersonaljurisdictiontononresidentswhoare
presentinthestatesolelytotakepartinajudicialproceeding,orwhoarepassingthroughthe
stateontheirwaytoajudicialproceedingelsewhere.

3.Domicile
Moststatesgranttheircourtsinpersonamjurisdictionoverpersonswhoaredomiciliariesofthe
state,evenwhenthedefendantisnotphysicallywithinthestatewhenservedwithprocess.
a.Defined
Domicilereferstotheplacewhereapersonmaintainsherpermanenthome.Ifapersonhas
legalcapacity,herdomicileistheplaceshehaschosenthroughpresence(evenfora
moment),coupledwiththeintentiontomakethatplaceherhome.Ifapersonlackscapacity,
domicileisdeterminedbylaw(e.g.,infantisdomiciliaryofcustodialparentshomestate).
b.Citizenship
AUnitedStatescitizen,eventhoughdomiciledabroad,issubjecttopersonaljurisdictionin
theUnitedStates.Thescopeofthisbasisforjurisdictionisunclear,becausestateshave
neverattemptedtoenactlawsorrulesenablingtheircourtstoobtainjurisdictionsolelyon
thebasisofcitizenship.However,thepoweroffederalcourtstosubpoenaaUnitedStates
citizendomiciledabroadtoreturntotheUnitedStatestogivetestimonyhasbeenupheldby
theSupremeCourt.
4.Consent
Virtuallyeverystateprovidesforinpersonamjurisdictionthroughthedefendantsconsent.Such
consentmaybeexpressorimpliedorthroughthemakingofageneralappearance.
a.ExpressConsent
Apartysexpressconsenttothejurisdictionoflocalcourts,whethergivenbeforeoraftersuit
iscommenced,servesasasufficientbasisforinpersonamjurisdiction.
1)ByContract
Apersoncan,bycontract,giveadvanceconsenttojurisdictionintheeventasuitis
broughtagainsthim.
2)ByAppointmentofAgenttoAcceptServiceofProcess

Apersoncan,bycontract,appointanagentinaparticularstatetoreceiveserviceinthat
stateinanactionagainsthim.Thetermsofthecontractdeterminetheextentofthe
agentspowerand,thus,thescopeofthejurisdictionconferred.
a)AppointmentRequiredbyState
Whenthestateheavilyregulatesatypeofbusiness(e.g.,saleofsecurities)toprotect
itscitizens,itcanrequireanonresidentengagedinthatbusinesstoappointanagent
forserviceofprocessinthestate.Note:Thestatecannotrequireeverynonresident
businesspersontoappointsuchanagent,becausethestatelackspowertoexclude
individualsfromthestate.However,astatecanrequirenonresidentcorporationsto
makesuchanappointmentbeforedoingbusinessinthestate.
b.ImpliedConsent
Whenthestatehassubstantialreasontoregulatetheinstateactivityofanonresidentofthe
state,itmayprovidethatbyengaginginsuchactivity,thenonresidenttherebyappointsa
designatedstateofficialashisagentforserviceofprocess.Thus,forexample,theSupreme
Courthasupheldstatutesthatusesuchimpliedconsenttosubjectanonresidentmotoristto
jurisdictioninanystateinwhichhehasanaccident.[Hessv.Pawloski,274U.S.352(1927)]
c.VoluntaryAppearance
Adefendantmayconsenttojurisdictionbyavoluntaryappearance,i.e.,bycontestingthe
casewithoutchallengingpersonaljurisdiction.Generally,anysortofappearanceprovidesa
sufficientbasisforjurisdiction,butmanystatesallowspecialappearancesthroughwhich
adefendantcanobjecttothecourtsexerciseofjurisdiction.Thedefendantusuallymust
makethisspecialappearancebystatinggroundsforhisobjectiontojurisdictioninhis
initialpleadingtothecourt;otherwise,thedefendantwillbedeemedtohaveconsentedto
jurisdiction.
5.LongArmStatutes
Moststatesalsogranttheircourtsinpersonamjurisdictionovernonresidentswhoperformor
causetobeperformedcertainactswithinthestate.Inpersonamjurisdictionisgrantedregardless
ofwhetherthedefendantisservedwithinoroutsidetheforum,butislimitedtocausesofaction
arisingfromtheactsperformedwithinthestate.
7

a.UnlimitedLongArmStatutes
Afewstates,suchasCalifornia,havelongarmstatutesthatgivetheircourtspoweroverany
personorpropertyoverwhichthestatecanconstitutionallyexercisejurisdiction.
(SeeC.,infra.)Theseareknownasunlimitedlongarmstatutes.
b.Limited(orSpecific)LongArmStatutes
Moststates,however,havelongarmstatutesthatspecifyindetailthesituationsinwhich
theircourtscanexercisejurisdiction.
1)LimitationsinTortCases
Somestatutespermitjurisdictionwhenatortoccurswithinthestate,whileothers
requireatortiousact.Thelatterlanguagehascausedproblemswhereanoutofstate
manufacturerputshisproductsintothestreamofcommerceknowingthatsomeitems
willendupintheforumstate.Whenthegravamenofthecomplaintisnegligent
manufacture,somecourtshavereadtortiousactnarrowlyandconfinedjurisdictionto
theplaceofmanufacture;othershavereadittomeantheplacethetortoccurred,
interpretingthattobetheplaceofinjury.

2)LimitationsinContractCases
Manystatutespermitjurisdictionifthecauseofactionarisesoutofthetransactionof
businessinthestate.Somestatesrequirethedefendantorhisagenttohavebeen
physicallypresentinthestateatthetimethetransactiontookplace,butothershavetaken
abroaderviewe.g.,NewYorkhasupheldjurisdictionoveraCaliforniaresidentwho
madetelephonebidsfromCaliforniaonpaintingsbeingsoldinNewYork.
3)LimitationsinPropertyActions
Manystatestatutespermitjurisdictionoveranonresidentdefendantwhenthecauseof
actionarisesfromownershipofpropertywithinthestateasinthecaseofatortaction
basedonnegligentmaintenanceofrealtyoracontractactionregardingthesaleofthe
property.Somestatutesincludechattels,whileothersareconfinedtorealty.
8

4)LimitationsinMaritalDissolutionCases
Allstatesprovidethatwhenamarriedcouplelastlivedtogetherinthestateandone
spousethenabandonstheother,theremainingspousemayobtainpersonaljurisdiction
overtheabsentspousefordivorceorlegalseparationproceedings.Statesvaryon
whethertheplaintiffspousemustbelivinginthestateatthetimeofabandonment(or
othercausefordissolution)orwhetherjurisdictionmaybeacquiredwheneverthe
plaintiffhasacquireddomicileinthestate.
C.CONSTITUTIONALLIMITATIONSONINPERSONAMJURISDICTION
Onceitisdeterminedthatastatehasastatutethatallowsthecourttoexerciseinpersonam
jurisdictionoverthepartiesbeforeit,theconstitutionalityoftheexercisemustnextbedetermined.
Asnotedabove,therearetwocomponentsoftheconstitutionalaspect:contactswiththeforumand
notice.
1.SufficientContactswiththeForum:ContactandFairness

a.TraditionalRule:PhysicalPower
Traditionally,jurisdictionoveraperson(orres)wasaconsequenceofthestatesphysical
powertocarryoutitsjudgment;i.e.,itwasbasedonthepowertoarrestthepersontoforce
compliancewithajudgment.Accordingly,theSupremeCourtupheldexercisesof
jurisdictionwheneverthedefendantwasservedwithprocesswithintheforumstate.
[SeePennoyerv.Neff,95U.S.714(1878)]TheCourtlaterexpandedthestatesphysical
powertoextendnotonlytothosedefendantswhowereservedwithinthestate,butalsoto
thosedefendantswhoconsentedtothestatespowerorwhoweredomiciledinthestate,
regardlessofwheretheywereserved.
b.ModernDueProcessStandard:ContactandFairness
Theconceptofpowerbywhichastatecouldenforceitsjudgmentswasgreatlyexpandedby
theSupremeCourtinInternationalShoeCo.v.Washington,326U.S.310(1945).Nolonger
waspowercontrolledsolelybywhetheroneofthetraditionalbasesofpresence,residence,or
consentwaspresent.Instead,thefocusbecamewhethersufficientminimumcontactsexist
9

betweenthedefendantandtheforumsothatmaintenanceofthesuitagainstthedefendant
doesnotoffendtraditionalnotionsoffairplayandsubstantialjustice.TheSupremeCourt
haslistedaseriesoffactorsbywhichtoassesstheconstitutionalityofpersonaljurisdiction.
Ingeneral,thefactorsfallundertwoheadings:contactandfairness.
1)Contact
InternationalShoerequiresthatthedefendanthavesuchminimumcontactswiththe
forumthattheexerciseofjurisdictionwouldbefairandreasonable.Inconsidering
whethertherearesuchcontacts,acourtwilllooktotwofactors:purposefulavailment
andforeseeability.
a)PurposefulAvailment
Defendantscontactwiththeforummustresultfromherpurposefulavailmentwith
thatforum.Thecontactscannotbeaccidental.Defendantmustreachouttotheforum
insomeway,suchastomakemoneythereortousetheroadsthere.Thecourtmust
findthatthroughthesecontactsthedefendantpurposefullyavailedherselfofthe
privilegeofconductingactivitieswithintheforumstate,thusinvokingthebenefits
andprotectionsofitslaws.[Hansonv.Denckla,357U.S.235(1958)]
Examples:1)Defendants,Michiganresidents,enteredintoafranchisecontractwitha
Floridacorporation.Theagreementrequired,amongotherthings,thatfees
besenttothefranchisorshomeofficeinFlorida,andprovidedthat
Floridalawwouldgovernanydispute.TheCourtheldthatthedefendants
couldbesuedinFlorida;theircontactwithFloridaresultedfromtheir
purposefulavailmentofthatstate.[BurgerKingv.Rudzewicz,471U.S.
462(1985)]
2)DefendantmanufactureswidgetsinAlabamaandmarketsthemto
customersinMississippi.Plaintiff,aresidentofMississippi,purchasesa
widgetfromDefendant.
DefendantacceptstheorderandshipsthewidgettoPlaintiffin
Mississippi.IfthewidgetexplodesandinjuresPlaintiff,shecanprobably
sueDefendantinMississippi.Defendantpurposefullyavaileditselfofthe
marketinMississippi.[SeeInternationalShoeCo.v.Washington,supra]
10

Compare:1)Father,inNewYork,agreedtogiveupcustodyofDaughtertoMother
inCalifornia.MothersuedFatherinCaliforniaforadditionalsupport.
FathersonlycontactwithCaliforniawaslettingDaughtergothere.The
CourtheldthatCaliforniacouldnotobtaininpersonamjurisdictionover
Fatherbecause,inactingintheinterestoffamilyharmony,Fathercould
notbesaidtohavepurposefullyavailedhimselfofthebenefitsand
protectionsofCalifornialaws.[Kulkov.SuperiorCourt,436U.S.84
(1978)]
2)Defendant,aNewYorkcardealer,wassuedinOklahomabasedonan
injurythatPlaintiffreceivedfromanaccidentinOklahoma.Theonly
basisforjurisdictionoverDefendantwasthesaleoftheallegedly
defectivecarinNewYorkbyDefendant,whoknewnomorethanthatany
vehiclesoldmightbedrivenelsewhere.TheCourtfoundthattherewasno
purposefulavailmentoftheprivilegesorprotectionsofOklahoma.
[WorldWideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson,444U.S.286(1980)]

(1)StreamofCommerceCases
Thereisgreatdifficultyinassessingpurposefulavailmentinstreamof
commercecases.StreamofcommercecasestypicallyarisewhenDefendant
manufacturesitsproductinStateA(orevenCountryA)andsellsthemtoa
secondpartyinStateB,therebyplacingtheproductinthestreamofcommerce.
Theproducteventuallywindsupinanotherstate(StateC)andcausesaninjury
therein.ThequestioniswhetherDefendantpurposefullyavaileditselfofStateC.
TheSupremeCourthasaddressedsuchascenariotwice,butithasfailedtoreach
aconsensusbothtimes.[AsahiMetalIndustryCo.v.SuperiorCourt,480U.S.
102(1987);J.McIntyreMachinery,Ltd.v.Nicastro,131S.Ct.2780(2011)]For
barexampurposes,theimportantpointstorememberare:
(i)Merelyplacinganiteminthestreamofcommerce,byitself,isnota
sufficientbasisforpersonaljurisdiction.

11

(ii)Itisunresolvedwhether(probablyunlikelythat)placinganiteminthestream
ofcommercewiththeknowledgeorhopethatitwillwindupinaparticular
statewouldbeasufficientbasisforpersonaljurisdiction.Ifyouencounter
suchaquestionontheexam,youshouldscourthequestionforfactsshowing
anintentionaltargeting(purposefulavailment)oftheforum.(See(iii),
below.)Ifthereisnotargeting,youshoulddiscusstheconnectionsthe
defendanthaswiththeforum,andfairnesstothedefendant,whilementioning
thestatesinterestinprovidingaforumforitscitizensandnotingthat
thequestionhasnotbeendefinitivelyresolved.Yourconclusionwillbeless
importantthanthediscussion.
(iii)Placinganiteminthestreamofcommerce,coupledwithsomeotheract
thatshowstheintenttoserveaparticularstate(e.g.,modifyingitsproductto
complywithstatelaw,maintainingasalesofficewithinthestate,etc.)isa
sufficientbasisforpersonaljurisdiction.
(2)InternetCases
TheSupremeCourthasnotsetoutaspecifictestorstandardforassessing
purposefulavailmentbasedonthedefendantsInternetactivity.Manycourtswill
lookatthedegreeofInternetactivitytodeterminewhetherthedefendantis
subjecttopersonaljurisdiction;e.g.,doesdefendanthaveapassivewebsitethat
onlyallowspeopletoviewcontent,anactivewebsitethatallowspeopletoorder
anddownloadproducts,orsomethinginbetween?Themaintenanceofawebsite
foronlyinformationalpurposes,withoutmoreactivityintheforum,isprobably
insufficienttoexercisejurisdictionoverthedefendantforallcausesofaction(i.e.,
generaljurisdiction),butitprobablyissufficientforaclaimarisingfromthe
maintenanceofthewebsiteitselfandbroughtunderthestateslongarmstatute
(thusinvokingspecificjurisdiction)ifthedefendantisspecificallytargeting
readersintheforum.Ontheotherhand,maintenanceofanactivewebsitealoneis
probablysufficientevenforanexerciseofgeneraljurisdiction(i.e.,aclaim
unrelatedtothewebsiteactivities)ifthedefendantisconductingsignificant
businessinthejurisdiction.Fordefendantswithwebsitesinbetweenthetwo
extremes(e.g.,adefendantwithawebsitethatallowstheusertosubmitand
requestinformationandplaceordersbutdoesnothavedownloads)courtswill
closelyscrutinizethelevelofbusinessactivitytodetermineifthedefendant
12

shouldbedeemedpresentintheforumforallcausesofaction.Aswithpassive
sites,specificjurisdictionhingesonwhetherthedefendantwaspurposefully
directinghisactivitiestotheforum.[See,e.g.,Snowneyv.Harrahs
Entertainment,Inc.,35Cal.4th1054(2006)Nevadahotelsubjecttopersonal
jurisdictioninCaliforniawhenitspecificallytargetedCaliforniaconsumersby
providingrateinformationtoandacceptingreservationsonitswebsite,bytouting
itsproximitytoCalifornia,andbyprovidingdrivingdirectionsfromCalifornia]
b)Foreseeability
Inadditiontopurposefulavailment,thecontactrequirementofInternational
Shoerequiresthatitbeforeseeablethatthedefendantsactivitiesmakeheramenable
tosuitintheforum.Thedefendantmustknoworreasonablyanticipatethather
activitiesintheforumrenderitforeseeablethatshemaybehaledintocourtthere.
Example:Anationalmagazineisprobablysubjecttoinpersonamjurisdictionfor
libelcasesineverystateinwhichthemagazineismarketed.Itspublishers
mayreasonablyanticipatecausinginjuryineverystateinwhichthe
magazineissold,andthusshouldreasonablyanticipatebeinghaledinto
courtineachstate.[Keetonv.HustlerMagazine,465U.S.770(1984);
Calderv.Jones,465U.S.783(1984)]
2)RelatednessofClaimtoContact
Oneimportantfactoriswhethertheclaimassertedagainstthedefendantarisesinsome
wayfromthedefendantscontactswiththeforum.Ifitdoes,thecourtismorelikelyto
findthatjurisdictionisfairandreasonable.Thisassessmentrequiresthecourtto
determinethenatureandqualityofthedefendantscontactswiththestate.Some
authoritiesconsiderthisfactortobepartofthecontactassessment;othersconsiderit,
aswedohere,tobepartoftherelatednessassessment.Theimportantpointisthatyou
addresstheissueinyouranswer,whetherunderthecontact,relatedness,orfairnessprong
oftheanalysis.
a)ClaimArisingfromActivityintheState(SpecificJurisdiction)
Ifthedefendantsinstateactivityislessthansystematicorcontinuous(e.g.,isolated
acts),inpersonamjurisdictionoverthedefendantwillbeproperonlyforcausesof
13

actionarisingfromthatinstateactivity;i.e.,thecourtwillhavespecific
jurisdiction.
b)EssentiallyAtHomeintheState(GeneralJurisdiction)
Generaljurisdictioninpersonamjurisdictionforanycauseofactionagainstthe
defendant,whetherthecauseofactionarosefromtheinstateactivityorfromactivity
outsidethestaterequiresthatadefendantengageinsystematicandcontinuous
activitysuchthatthedefendantbeessentiallyathomeintheforum.TheSupreme
Courthasindicatedthatexamplesofessentiallyathomeincludethedomicileofa
personandthestatesofincorporationandprincipalplaceofbusinessofacorporation.
[GoodyearDunlopTiresOperations,S.A.v.Brown,131S.Ct.2846(2011)]Also,it
isclearthatgeneraljurisdictioncannotbebasedonpurchasesorsales,so
somephysicalpresenceappearsnecessary.Inthepast,lowercourtshaveheldthata
companysuchasFordMotororWalMart,whichhasretailoperationsandaphysical
presenceineverystate,mightbesubjecttogeneraljurisdictionineverystate.
Whetherthisisstillthecaseundertheessentiallyathomelanguageisunclear,
althoughanumberofcommentatorssuggestthattherewouldbenogeneral
jurisdictioninsuchcases.
Examples:1)Dueprocessrequirementsforpersonaljurisdictionwerenotsatisfiedin
TexasinawrongfuldeathcaseagainstaColombiancorporationwhose
contactswiththeforumstateconsistedofonlyonetriptoTexasbythe
corporationschiefexecutiveofficertonegotiateacontract,acceptanceof
checksdrawnonaTexasbank,andpurchasesofhelicoptersand
equipmentfromaTexasmanufacturerandrelatedhelicoptertrainingtrips.
TheclaimswerenotrelatedtothedefendantsactivitiesinTexas,making
specificjurisdictioninappropriate,anddefendantscontactswithTexas
werenotsocontinuousandsystematicastojustifygeneraljurisdiction.
[HelicopterosNacionalesdeColombiav.Hall,466U.S.408(1984)]
2)Thedefendant,asubsidiaryofGoodyear,regularlyhaditstiressoldin
NorthCarolinabyothers,butsuchsaleswereasmallfractionofitstotal
sales,andthesubsidiarywasnotinvolvedinthesalesprocess.TheCourt
concludedthatmerepurchasesofthedefendantsproductsintheforum
cannotconstitutecontinuousandsystematiccontactforgeneral
14

jurisdiction.[GoodyearDunlopTiresOperations,S.A.v.Brown,131S.
Ct.2846(2011)]
Note:Rememberthatthediscussionhereisaboutgeneraljurisdiction,notspecific
jurisdiction.Itisfarmorelikelythatyouwillencounteraquestionontheexam
callingforananswercenteringprimarilyonspecific(longarm)jurisdiction.Ifa
plaintiffisinjuredinStateAbyadefendant,hemaystillsueinStateAregardlessof
whetherthedefendantisessentiallyathomeinStateA,becausetherewillvery
likelybespecific(longarm)jurisdiction.Shouldyouneedtodiscussgeneral
jurisdiction,makesuretousetheessentiallyathomephrase,notetheexamplesthe
SupremeCourtgave,discussthefactsofthedefendantsactivitiesintheforum,and
concludethatitisunsettledwhethertheconceptofdoingbusinesssufficesfor
generaljurisdiction.
3)Fairness
Inadditiontothedefendantshavingrelevantcontactswiththeforum,International
Shoerequiresthattheexerciseofjurisdictionnotoffendtraditionalnotionsoffairplay
andsubstantialjustice.TheCourthaslistedseveralfactorsrelevanttoassessingwhether
jurisdictionwouldbefair.Itispossiblethatanespeciallystrongshowingoffairness
mightmakeupforalesseramountofcontact(althoughminimumcontactsarealways
required).
a)Convenience
Adefendantwilloftencomplainthattheforumisinconvenient.TheSupremeCourt
hasemphasized,however,thattheConstitutiondoesnotrequirethattheforumbethe
bestofseveralalternatives.Theforumisconstitutionallyacceptableunlessitisso
gravelydifficultandinconvenientthatapartyisunfairlyputataseveredisadvantage
incomparisontohisopponent.[BurgerKingv.Rudzewicz,supra]Thisisavery
difficultstandardtomeet,andthedefendantusuallywillnotbeabletomeetitsimply
byshowingthattheplaintiffhassuperioreconomicresources.
b)ForumStatesInterest
Theforummayhavealegitimateinterestinprovidingredressforitsresidents.

15

Examples:1)Decedent,aCaliforniaresident,purchasedalifeinsurancepolicyby
mailfromaTexascompany.Decedentregularlymailedhispremiums
fromCaliforniatotheTexascompany,whichhadnoothercontactswith
California.Inasuitbroughtbythebeneficiaryofthelifeinsurancepolicy,
theSupremeCourtheldthatCaliforniahadpersonaljurisdictionoverthe
Texascompany.Amongotherthings,theCourtnotedthatCaliforniahada
stronginterestinprotectingitscitizensfromallegedmisfeasanceby
insurancecompanies.[McGeev.InternationalInsuranceCo.,355U.S.
220(1957)]
2)Asahi,aJapanesemanufactureroftirevalves,shippedvalvestoa
Taiwanesemanufacturerofmotorcycletiretubes.Thevalveswere
incorporatedintotiresandsoldinCalifornia,wherearesidentwasinjured
byadefectivetire.TheTaiwanesemanufacturerwassuedinaCalifornia
court,whereitsoughttoimpleadAsahi.Themaincasewassettled,
leavingonlytheindemnityclaimbythetiremanufactureragainstAsahi
pending.Held:EventhoughAsahiplacedthedefectivegoodsinthe
streamofcommerceknowingthatsomewouldbeusedinCalifornia,
exerciseofjurisdictionbytheCaliforniacourtwouldbeunreasonable
consideringthesevereburdensofAsahiindefendinginaforeignlegal
system,theslightinterestoftheTaiwanesemanufacturerandCaliforniain
theexerciseofjurisdiction,andtheinternationalinterestinnotsubjecting
analiencorporationtoUnitedStatesjurisdiction.[AsahiMetalIndustry
Co.v.SuperiorCourt,supra]
c)OtherFactors
TheSupremeCourthaslistedotherfactorsrelevanttotheassessmentofwhetherthe
exerciseofjurisdictionwouldbefairandreasonable,buthasnotdiscussedthese
factorsindetail:(i)theplaintiffsinterestinobtainingconvenientandeffectiverelief,
(ii)theinterstatejudicialsystemsinterestinobtainingthemostefficientresolutionof
controversies,and(iii)thesharedinterestofthestatesinfurtheringfundamental
substantivesocialpolicies.
2.Notice

16

Inadditiontotherequirementthatthedefendanthavesuchminimumcontactswiththeforumto
rendertheexerciseofjurisdictiontherefairandreasonable,dueprocessalsorequiresthat
areasonablemethodbeusedtonotifythedefendantofapendinglawsuitsothatshemayhave
anopportunitytoappearandbeheard.Dueprocessrequiresthatnoticebereasonably
calculated,underallthecircumstances,toappriseinterestedpartiesofthependencyoftheaction
andaffordthemanopportunitytopresenttheirobjections.[Dusenberyv.UnitedStates,534
U.S.161(2002)quotingMullanev.CentralHanoverBank&TrustCo.,339U.S.306(1950)]
a.TraditionalMethodsofPersonalServiceSatisfyDueProcessNoticeRequirements
Anyofthetraditionalmethodsofpersonalservicesatisfydueprocessnoticerequirements.
Theseincludepersonaldeliverytothedefendant;leavingpaperswitharesponsiblepersonat
thedefendantsresidenceorplaceofbusiness;deliverytoanagentappointedtoaccept
service;ordeliverybyregisteredmail,returnreceiptrequested.(SeeVII.B.,infra,for
discussionofmethodsofserviceofprocess.)
b.RequirementthatAgentNotifyDefendant
Ifanagentisappointedbycontract,inacasewheretheplaintiffchosetheagentforhisown
benefit,ortheagentisappointedbyoperationoflaw(asunderanonresidentmotorvehicle
statute),thefailureoftheagenttonotifythedefendantwillprohibitjurisdictionsincethe
defendantwillinfactbedeprivedofanopportunitytobeheard.(Thisisnottruewhenthe
defendantvoluntarilyselectshisownagent,sinceanyfailureoftheagentcanandwillbe
attributedtotheprincipal.)
c.RequirementsforCasesInvolvingMultiplePartiesorUnknownParties
InMullanev.CentralHanoverBank&TrustCo.,supra,anactionwasbroughtagainsta
numberoftrustbeneficiariesscatteredthroughouttheworld.TheSupremeCourtheldthat
theConstitutiondidnotrequirepersonalserviceoneachbeneficiarysincethecostwould
havebeenprohibitive.However,everybeneficiaryhadtobenotifiedbythebestpractical
meansavailable.Thus,thosewhoseaddresseswereknownorcouldreasonablybe
ascertainedhadtobenotifiedbyordinarymail,whilethosewhosenamesoraddresseswere
unknowncouldbenotifiedbypublication.Suchmethodsofnoticearevalidonlyifall
defendantshavesubstantiallyidenticalinterests.
d.KnowledgethatNoticebyMailWasNotReceived
17

AlthoughMullanev.CentralHanoverBank&TrustCo.,supra,doesnotrequireactual
notice,ifapartyknowsthatthenoticebymailwasnotreceived,hemaynotproceedinthe
faceofsuchknowledgeifpracticablealternativestoapprisethedefendantoftheactionexist.
Example:InJonesv.Flowers,547U.S.220(2006),thestatesentacertifiedlettertoa
homeownertoinformhimthathewasdelinquentontaxesandthatfailuretopay
wouldmakehispropertysubjecttopublicsale.Bystatute,thetaxpayerwas
requiredtokeephisaddressupdated.Theletterwasreturnedunclaimed,after
whichthestatetooknofurthersteps(suchasusingfirstclassmailorposting
noticeontheproperty)tonotifythetaxpayer.TheCourtheldthattakingno
furtherstepstoprovidenoticewiththeknowledgethatnoticehadnotbeen
receivedviolateddueprocess.
D.INREMJURISDICTION
AsstatedinI.A.2.b.,supra,inremactionsadjudicaterightsofallpersonswithrespecttoproperty
locatedinthestate.Aninremjudgmentdoesnotbindthepartiespersonally,butisbindingastothe
dispositionofthepropertyinthestate.

1.StatutoryLimitations
Moststateshavestatutesprovidingforinremjurisdictioninactionsforcondemnation,title
registration,confiscationofproperty(suchasvehiclesusedtotransportnarcotics),forfeitureofa
vessel,distributionoftheassetsofanestate,andagrantofdivorcewhenonlythecomplaining
spouseispresentandsubjecttopersonaljurisdiction.Inthelastcase,thepropertyisthe
maritalstatusofthecomplainant.
2.ConstitutionalLimitations

a.Nexus

18

Ininremactionsthebasisofjurisdictionisthepresenceofthepropertyinthestate.Thestate
hasagreatinterestinadjudicatingtherightsofalltheworldregardingthisproperty.
Therefore,thepresenceofthepropertyinthestateisconstitutionallysufficientforthe
exerciseofjurisdictionovertheproperty.
1)NoJurisdictionIfPropertyNotLocatedinState
Acourthasnoinrempoweroverpropertyoutsidethestate;e.g.,insettlingadecedents
estate,thecourthasnoinrempoweroverpropertyinotherjurisdictions.
2)NoJurisdictionIfPropertyBroughtinbyFraudorForce
Theexerciseofinrempowerisprohibitedwhenthepropertyisbroughtintothestateby
fraudorforce.
b.Notice
Theearlyviewheldthatattachmentofproperty,whensupplementedbypublicationofnotice
inalocalnewspaperorbypostingofnoticeontheproperty,wouldgiveallinterested
personssufficientnoticeoftheaction.However,suchproceduresarenolongeradequate,and
therequirementsofMullanev.CentralHanoverBank&TrustCo.,supra,applytoinrem
actions.Thus,personswhoseinterestsareaffectedandwhoseaddressesareknownmustat
leastbenotifiedbyordinarymail.[Walkerv.CityofHutchinson,352U.S.112(1956)]
E.QUASIINREMJURISDICTION
Quasiinremjurisdictionpermitsacourtwithoutinpersonamjurisdictiontodeterminecertain
disputesbetweenaplaintiffanddefendantregardingpropertywhenthepropertyislocatedinthe
forumstate.(SeeI.A.2.c.,supra.)
1.StatutoryLimitations
Moststatesprovidefortwotypesofquasiinremjurisdiction.Thefirsttype(typeI)involves
disputesbetweenpartiesovertheirrightsinpropertywithinthestate.Thesecondtype(typeII)
involvesdisputesunrelatedtotheinstatepropertyandhasbeenseverelylimitedbytheSupreme
Court.Inquasiinremcases,theplaintiffisunabletoobtainpersonaljurisdictionoverthe
defendant,butthedefendanthaspropertyinthestatethattheplaintiffattaches.Thecourtthen
19

adjudicatesthedisputebetweenthepartiesonthebasisofitspowerovertheproperty.Sincethe
courtssolebasisofjurisdictionistheproperty,anyjudgmentagainstthedefendantcanbe
satisfiedonlyoutofthatproperty.

2.ConstitutionalLimitations

a.Nexus
Before1977,astateclearlyhadpoweroverallpersonsandpropertyfoundwithinitsborders.
Adefendantwithnootherconnectionswiththestatecouldbesuedinthestate
foranydisputesimplybecauseheownedpropertythere.However,in1977,theSupreme
Courtheldthattheminimumcontactsstandardisapplicabletoeveryexerciseofjurisdiction.
TheCourtfurtherfoundthatthemerepresenceofpropertywithinastateisnotitself
sufficienttopermitacourttoexercisequasiinremjurisdictionoverpropertyinaquasiin
remaction.[Shafferv.Heitner,433U.S.186(1977)quasiinremjurisdictionisproper
onlywhenminimumcontactsexistmakingexerciseofjurisdictionfairandjust]
1)QuasiInRemTypeI
Thus,whenthedisputeinvolvestherightsofthepartiesinthepropertyitself(quasiin
remtypeI),jurisdictionbaseduponthepresenceofthepropertyinthestateisproper.
Thecloseconnectionbetweenthelitigationandthepropertyprovidesthenecessary
minimumcontacts.
2)QuasiInRemTypeII
Whenthedisputeisunrelatedtotheownershipofproperty(quasiinremtypeII),
jurisdictioncannotbebasedsolelyonthepresenceofpropertyintheforumstate;there
mustbeminimumcontactsbetweenthedefendantandtheforum.However,ifthe
20

defendanthasminimumcontactswiththeforum,itisalsolikelythatacourtcould
exerciseinpersonamjurisdictionoveradefendantundertheforumslongarmstatute,
thusremovingthelimitonrecoverytothedefendantsinstateproperty.Asaresult,use
ofquasiinremjurisdictiontypeIIwillberare.
Example:A,aMaineresident,fliestoOhioandentersintoacontractwithB,anOhio
resident.AllperformanceistooccurinOhio.Aflieshome.Bbreaches.A
doesnotwanttoflytoOhiotosueB,buthediscoversthatBhasaboat
dockedinMaine.Traditionally,Acouldhavesuedonhiscontractclaimin
Mainebyattachingtheboat(hisremedybeinglimitedbythevalueofthe
boat).Today,hewouldhavetoshowminimumcontactsbetweenBand
Maine.
3)ProceduralRequirements
Toobtainquasiinremjurisdiction,aplaintiffmustbringtheassetbeforethecourtby
attachment(orgarnishment).Thiswillinhibitthesaleormortgageofthedefendants
interest,sinceanewownermusttakesubjecttothedecisionofthecourt.Serious
questionshavebeenraisedastowhethersuchapretrialinterferencewithadefendants
propertyrightsisconstitutionalunlessthedefendantisaffordedahearingonthe
necessityofsuchprocedures.Mostcommentatorsthinktheprocessisvalid,butthe
SupremeCourthasthusfaravoidedtheissue.
b.Notice
Asininremcases,quasiinremcasesrequirethebestpracticalnotice.Therefore,postingof
noticeornoticebypublicationwillbeinsufficientwheretheaddressesofpersonsaffectedby
theactionareknownorreasonablyascertainable.
II.DIVERSITYOFCITIZENSHIPJURISDICTION
A.INTRODUCTION
Thefederalcourtshavebeengivensubjectmatterjurisdictionovercontroversiesbetweencitizensof
differentstates,eventhoughthecontroversiesdonotinvolvequestionsoffederalsubstantivelaw,in
ordertoprotectanoutofstatepartyfrompossiblelocalbiasinstatecourts.

21

B.DIVERSITYAMONGTHEPARTIES

1.CompleteDiversityWhenActionIsCommenced

a.MultiplePartiesCompleteDiversity
Everyplaintiffmustbeofdiversecitizenshipfromeverydefendant.Ifonedefendantandone
plaintiffarecocitizensofthesamestate,thereisnodiversityjurisdiction.Thisistheruleof
completediversity.
Example:A,B,andCbringanactionagainstX,Y,andZ.AandBarecitizensofNew
York;XandYarecitizensofFlorida;andCandZarecitizensofTexas.Sinceno
diversityexistsbetweenCandZ,therequirementofcompletediversityisnot
satisfied,and,asstructured,thecasecannotbebroughtinfederalcourtunder
diversityjurisdiction.
1)ButNote
Theruleofcompletediversitydoesnotrequirethateverypartybeofdiversecitizenship
fromeveryotherparty.Itrequiresonlythatnoplaintiffbeacocitizenwithany
defendant.Thus,twoplaintiffswhoarebothcitizensofMissourimayinvokediversityof
citizenshipjurisdictionagainstthreedefendants,allthreeofwhomarecitizensofKansas.
2)InterpleaderException

a)FederalInterpleaderStatuteMinimalDiversity
Thefederalinterpleaderstatute[28U.S.C.1335]requiresonlythatamongthe
partiestherebetwoormoreadverseclaimants,ofdiversecitizenship.Thus,
minimaldiversityissufficienttoconferjurisdictionunderthestatute.Ifthereis
diversitybetweenanytwooftheclaimants,allotherclaimantsmaybecitizensofthe
22

samestate.(Also,section1335onlyrequiresthatthemoneyorpropertyatissuebe
valuedat$500ormore.)
b)InterpleaderUnderFederalRulesCompleteDiversity
InterpleaderpursuanttoRule22oftheFederalRules,ontheotherhand,requiresthe
usualdiversitybetweenalltheplaintiffs(stakeholders)andallthedefendants
(claimants).
b.AlienageJurisdiction
Section1332(a)(2)grantssubjectmatterjurisdictionoveralienagecases,inwhichthe
disputeisbetweenacitizenofaU.S.stateandanalienmeaningacitizenorsubjectofa
foreigncountry.Jurisdictionisdenied,however,ifthecaseisbetweenacitizenofastateand
acitizenofaforeigncountrywhohasbeenadmittedtotheUnitedStatesforpermanent
residenceanddomiciledinthesamestateastheU.S.citizen.AlsonotethattheU.S.
Constitutiondoesnotprovideforfederaljurisdictionovercasesbyanalienagainstanalien;
theremustbeacitizenofaU.S.stateononesideofthesuittoqualifyforalienage
jurisdiction.
Examples:1)A,acitizenofVenezuela,suesB,acitizenofNewYork.Thisdisputewould
invokealienagejurisdiction(assumingtheamountincontroversyrequirement
wasalsomet),becauseitisbetweenacitizenofastateandacitizenofaforeign
country.
2)A,acitizenofVenezuela,suesB,acitizenofFrance.Thisdispute
wouldnotinvokealienagejurisdiction,becauseitisnotbetweenacitizenofa
stateandacitizenofaforeigncountry.Thereisnocitizenofastateinvolved
here.
3)A,acitizenofNewYork,suesB,apermanentresidentaliendomiciledinNew
York.AlienagejurisdictionwouldbedeniedbecauseBhasthesameU.S.
domicileasA.
1)AliensasAdditionalParties

23

28U.S.C.section1332(a)(3)grantsjurisdictioninacasebetweencitizensofdifferent
statesinwhichcitizensorsubjectsofaforeigncountryareadditionalparties.Theforeign
partiesaredisregardedforjurisdictionalpurposes.Therestrictioninexample2)above
doesnotapplyitappliesonlytosection1332(a)(2)actions.
c.DiversityWhenActionIsCommenced
Diversityofcitizenship(oralienage)mustexistasofthetimethesuitisinstituted.[Grupo
Datafluxv.AtlasGlobalGroup,541U.S.567(2004)]Itneednotexistatthetimethecause
ofactionarose,anditisnotdefeatedif,aftercommencementoftheaction,apartylater
becomesacitizenofthesamestateasoneofhisopponents.
2.QuestionsofCitizenship

a.StateCitizenshipofanIndividualDomicile
Thedeterminationofthestateofcitizenshipofanaturalpersondependsonthepermanent
hometowhichheintendstoreturn.Theconceptisthesame,exceptinname,asdomicile.A
newstatecitizenshipmaybeestablishedby(i)physicalpresenceinanewplaceand(ii)
theintentiontoremainthere,i.e.,nopresentintenttogoelsewhere.Thecitizenshipofa
childisthatofherparents.Inmostcases,thecitizenshipofapartywillbedeterminedbythe
court,butitmaybelefttothejury.
b.CitizenshipofaCorporationPossibleMultipleCitizenships
Fordiversitypurposes,acorporationscitizenshipisdefinedby28U.S.C.section1332.
Underthisstatute,acorporationisdeemedtobeacitizenofeverystateandforeigncountry
inwhichitisincorporatedandtheonestateorforeigncountryinwhichithasitsprincipal
placeofbusiness.TheSupremeCourthasheldthatacorporationsprincipalplaceof
businessisthestatefromwhichthecorporationshighlevelofficersdirect,control,and
coordinatethecorporationsactivities(i.e.,itsnervecenter,whichwillusuallybethe
corporationsheadquarters).[HertzCorp.v.Friend,559U.S.77(2010)]Thus,many
corporationshavetwocitizenshipstheirstateofincorporationandthestateinwhichtheir
principalplaceofbusinessislocated.Althoughrare,italsoispossibleforacorporation

24

tohavemorethantwostatecitizenshipsbecauseacorporationmaybeincorporatedinmore
thanonestate.Itisimpossible,however,foracorporationtohavemorethanoneprincipal
placeofbusiness.Ifanopposingpartyisacitizenofanyofthecorporatepartysstatesof
citizenship,thereisnodiversity.
1)SpecialRuleforDirectActions
Therulesofcorporatecitizenshiparesubjecttoaspecialruleindirectactioncases.
Whenaplaintiffsuesaninsureronapolicyorcontractofliabilityinsurance,anddoes
notalsojointheinsured,theinsurer(whetherincorporatedornot)istreatedasacitizen
ofallofthefollowing:(i)thestateorforeigncountryinwhichtheinsurerisincorporated
(ifitis),(ii)thestateorforeigncountryinwhichtheinsurerhasitsprincipalplaceof
business,and(iii)thestateorforeigncountryofwhichtheinsuredisacitizen.
2)IncorporationorPrincipalPlaceofBusinessinForeignCountry
Becauseacorporationisacitizenofbothitsplaceofincorporationanditsprincipalplace
ofbusiness,andeitherofthoseplacesmaybeinaforeigncountry,acorporationmight
simultaneouslybeanalienandacitizenofaU.S.state.Thefactthatacorporationisan
alienwilldefeatjurisdictioninasuitinvolvingsolelyanotheralien,eventhoughthe
corporationmayalsohaveU.S.statecitizenship.(See1.b.,supra.)
c.UnincorporatedAssociations

1)Citizenship
Inclaimsbasedonfederallawfororagainstanunincorporatedassociation,the
associationhasentitycapacity,butthequestionofitscitizenshipisnormallyirrelevant
becausethecourtwillhavefederalquestionjurisdiction.Whendiversityjurisdictionis
involved,anunincorporatedassociation:
(i)Maysueorbesuedinitsownnameiflocalstatelawsopermits;or
(ii)Isanaggregateofindividualsiflocalstatelawfollowsthecommonlawrule.

25

Ineithercase,theunincorporatedassociationscitizenshipisthatofeachandevery
oneofitsmembers.
2)ClassAction
Iftheassociationislarge,aclassactionispossible.Ifaclassactionisbrought,the
relevantcitizenshipisthatofthenamedmemberswhosueoraresuedonbehalfofthe
membersoftheassociation.(Seef.,infra.)
3)Partnerships
Thecitizenshipofageneralpartnershipisthatofeachandeverygeneralpartner,andthe
citizenshipofalimitedpartnershipisthatofeachandeverypartner,bothlimitedand
general.[Cardenv.ArkomaAssociates,494U.S.185(1990)]
4)LimitedLiabilityCompanies
Althoughlimitedliabilitycompanies(LLCs)areformedinamannersimilarto
corporations,theyaretreatedasunincorporatedassociationsforcitizenshippurposes.
Thus,anLLCisacitizenofallstatesofwhichitsmembersarecitizens.
d.BusinessTrusts
Thetrusteesofabusinesstrustaretherealpartiesininterestandtheircitizenship,notthatof
theindividualshareholders,determineswhetherthereisdiversity.[NavarroSavingsv.Lee,
446U.S.458(1980)]
e.LegalRepresentatives
Alegalrepresentativeofaninfant,anincompetent,oranestateofadecedentisdeemedtobe
acitizenofthesamestateastheinfant,incompetent,ordecedent.
f.ClassActions
IfsuitisbroughtbyseveralnamedpersonsonbehalfofaclassunderRule23,diversityis
determinedonthebasisofthecitizenshipofthenamedmembersoftheclasswhoaresuing.
Thus,thereisconsiderableroomformaneuveringtocreatediversityiftheclasshasmembers
26

whoarecitizensofseveraldifferentstates.TheClassActionFairnessAct
(seeVII.G.2.d.,infra)alsoexpandsthefederalcourtsjurisdictionoverclassactions.
g.NonresidentUnitedStatesCitizens
AUnitedStatescitizendomiciledabroadisnotacitizenofanystateandalsoisnotanalien.
(Alienstatusdependsonnationality,notdomicile.)
C.JURISDICTIONALAMOUNT:INEXCESSOF$75,000
Actionsbroughtinafederalcourtunderthediversitystatutemustmeetthejurisdictionalamount
requirement.Thematterincontroversymustbeinexcessof$75,000,exclusiveofinterestandcosts.
[28U.S.C.1332]Theamountisdeterminedfromwhatisclaimedinthecomplaint,disregarding
potentialdefensesorcounterclaims.Usually,allthatisnecessaryisagoodfaithallegationthatthe
amountofthedamagesorinjuriesincontroversyexceeds,exclusiveofinterestandcosts,thesumof
$75,000.Goodfaithmeansthattheremustbealegallytenablepossibilitythatrecoverywillexceed
thejurisdictionalamount.Thecomplaintcanbedismissedonlyifitappearsthereisnolegal
possibilityofarecoveryexceedingthejurisdictionalamount.Jurisdictionisnotretroactively
defeatedbythefactthattheamountactuallyrecoveredislessthanthejurisdictionalamount.
D.ERIEDOCTRINEANDTHELAWAPPLIEDUNDERDIVERSITYJURISDICTION
Afederalcourt,intheexerciseofitsdiversityjurisdiction,isrequiredtoapplythesubstantivelaw
ofthestateinwhichitissitting,includingthatstatesconflictoflawrules.[ErieRailroadv.
Tompkins,304U.S.64(1938);KlaxonCo.v.StentorElectricManufacturingCo.,313U.S.487
(1941)]However,thefederalcourtsapplyfederalprocedurallaw.
1.FederalStatutesorFederalRulesofCivilProcedure
Todeterminewhetherfederallawshouldbeapplied,thefirstquestiontoaskiswhetherthereisa
federallaw(e.g.,statute,FederalRuleofCivilProcedure)onpoint.Ifthereis,thefederalstatute
orfederalrulewillapply,providedthatitisvalid.(SincetheSupremeCourtreviewsandsends
proposedrulestoCongresspriortoenactment,itisveryunlikelythataFederalRulewouldbe
heldinvalid.)Ofcourse,ifthereisafederalconstitutionalprovision(e.g.,righttojurytrialin
casesover$20),itapplies.

27

Example:FederalRule4permitssubstitutedserviceofprocess.Supposethatstatelaw(ofthe
stateinwhichthefederalcourtsits)doesnotpermitsubstitutedservice.Thecourt
willapplytheFederalRule,becauseitisonpointandisvalid.AFederalRuleof
CivilProcedureisvalidifitisarguablyprocedural.[Hannav.Plumer,380U.S.
460(1965)]
2.IfThereIsNoFederalStatuteorRuleonPoint,IstheIssueSubstantiveorProcedural?
Ifthereisnofederalstatuteorruleonpoint,canafederaljudgerefusetofollowstatelawona
particularissue?Theanswerdependsonwhetherthelawonthatissueissubstantiveor
procedural.Ifitisamatterofsubstance,thefederaljudgemustfollowstatelawinadiversity
case.Ifitisamatterofprocedure,thefederaljudgemayignorestatelaw.
a.SomeSituationsAreClearlyEstablished
Insomeinstances,thecharacterizationassubstanceorprocedureiswellestablished.For
example,theSupremeCourthasestablishedthatstatutesoflimitationsandrulesfortolling
statutesoflimitationsaresubstantiveforEriepurposes;therefore,afederaljudgeina
diversitycasemustfollowstatelawonthoseissues.[GuarantyTrustCo.v.York,326U.S.
99(1945)]ChoiceoflawrulesarealsosubstantiveforEriepurposes,andafederaljudgein
adiversitycasemustfollowstatelawonthatissueaswell.[Klaxonv.StentorElectric
ManufacturingCo.,313U.S.487(1941)]Finally,ofcourse,elementsofaclaimor
defensearesubstantive.
b.LawIsUnclearinOtherSituations
Outsidetheseareas,whenthereisnofederaldirectiveonpoint,itisoftendifficultto
determinewhetheranissueissubstantiveorproceduralforEriepurposes.TheSupreme
Courthasgivendifferenttestsatdifferenttimesonthispoint,andhasfailedtointegrate
thetestscomprehensively.Onesuchtestisoutcomedetermination,whichholdsthatanissue
issubstantiveifitsubstantiallyaffectstheoutcomeofthecase.[GuarantyTrustCo.v.
York,supra]Anothertestisbalanceofinterests,inwhichthecourtweighswhetherthestate
orfederaljudicialsystemhasthegreaterinterestinhavingitsruleapplied.[Byrdv.Blue
RidgeElectricCooperative,Inc.,356U.S.525(1958)]Yetanothertestisforumshopping
deterrence,whichdirectsthatthefederaljudgeshouldfollowstatelawontheissueiffailing
todosowouldcauselitigantstoflocktofederalcourt.[Hannav.Plumer,supra]
28

3.StatutesInvolvingBothSubstanceandProcedure
Sometimes,astatestatuteorrulemaybebothsubstantiveandprocedural.Inonecase,thestate
tortreformlawrelaxedthestandardforgrantinganewtrial,makingiteasiertograntanewtrial
thanunderthebasicfederalstandard.Also,thestateappellatecourtwaschargedwiththe
responsibilitytoconsiderwhetheranewtrialshouldbeordered.Inadiversitycaseunderthis
statelaw,thestandardforgrantinganewtrialwasheldtobesubstantive,sothefederalcourthad
toapplythestatestandardforgrantinganewtrial.However,therequirementthattheappellate
courtconsiderwhetheranewtrialshouldbeorderedwasheldtobeprocedural,soa
federaltrialcourtwoulddeterminewhetheranewtrialshouldbeordered,usingthe
aforementionedstatestandard,ratherthananappellatecourt.[Gasperiniv.Centerfor
Humanities,Inc.,518U.S.415(1996)indiversitycase,federaltrialcourtappliedNewYork
excessivedamagesstandardfornewtrialratherthanfederalshocktheconsciencestandard]
4.InterpretingStateLaw
Thefederalcourtisboundtoapplythesubstantivestatelawthatwouldbeappliedbythehighest
courtofthestate.Ifthestatecourtshavenotdecidedtheissuethatisbeforethefederalcourt,or
ifthedecisionsonpointareoldandnolongercurrentwiththedecisionsofotherjurisdictions,
thefederalcourtmayconsiderthelawofotherjurisdictionsinreachingitsdecision.However,
thefocusofthefederalcourtistodeterminewhatdecisionthehighestcourtofthestatewould
reachifconfrontedwiththeissue.
a.DeNovoReviewofDistrictCourtsDecision
Onappeal,thefederalappellatecourtreviewsthefederaltrialjudgesdecisionastostate
lawdenovo.[SeeSalveReginaCollegev.Russell,499U.S.225(1991)]
b.SubsequentStateCourtDecisions
Ifthehigheststatecourtrendersadecisiononanissueafterthefederalcourthasmadeits
determination,thedecisionofthedistrictcourtmaybechangedtoconformtothenew
decisionofthehigheststatecourtuntilthedispositionofthefinalfederalappeal.
[SeeThomasv.AmericanHomeProducts,Inc.,519U.S.913(1996)]

III.FEDERALQUESTIONJURISDICTION
A.INTRODUCTION
Itisdifficulttoformulateasummaryofthecaseholdingsastowhenanactionarisesunderfederal
law.Thebestonecando,perhaps,isthefollowing:Acasearisesunderfederallawiftheplaintiffis
allegingarightorinterestthatissubstantiallyfoundedonfederallaw,whichconsistsoffederal
commonlaw,federalconstitutionallaw,federalstatutorylaw,treatylaw,andfederaladministrative
regulations.

29

B.FEDERALQUESTIONMUSTAPPEARINTHECOMPLAINT
Thefederalquestionmustappearaspartoftheplaintiffscauseofactionassetoutinawellpleaded
complaint.Itisthereforesometimesnecessarytodeterminewhethercertainallegationsareproperin
pleadingthecauseofaction,andwhetherthefederalelementisessentialtotheplaintiffscase.
1.DefendantsAnswerorDefenseIsIrrelevant
Thecontentofthedefendantsanswerisnotrelevant;theexistenceofadefensebasedonfederal
lawwillnotgivefederalquestionjurisdiction.Likewise,thecourtmaynotlooktoacounterclaim
assertedbythedefendanttodeterminewhethertheplaintiffscomplaintstatesafederalquestion
claim.[HolmesGroup,Inc.v.VornadoAirCirculationSystem,Inc.,535U.S.826(2002)]
2.AnticipationofaDefense
Similarly,acomplaintdoesnotraiseafederalquestionifitdoessoonlyinanticipationofsome
defense.
Example:AsuesBforspecificperformanceofacontractandallegesthatBsrefusaltoperformis
basedonBserroneousbeliefthatfederallawprohibitshisperformance.Nofederalquestion
jurisdictionexistsbecausethefederalquestionpresentedbytheplaintiffscomplaintismerelyin
anticipationofBsdefense.[Louisville&NashvilleRailroadv.Mottley,211U.S.149(1908)]
C.IMPLIEDFEDERALRIGHTOFACTION
Itisnotessentialthatthefederalstatuteexpresslyprovideforacivilcauseofactionforanalleged
violation.Thus,federalquestionjurisdictionwasheldtoexistinanactioninvolvinganallegedviolation
oftheFourthandFifthAmendments[Bellv.Hood,327U.S.678(1946)]andanallegedviolationofthe
SecuritiesExchangeActsof1934[J.I.Casev.Borak,377U.S.426(1964)],althoughneitherthe
Constitutionnortheactinvolvedcreatedaremedyforthewrongscomplainedof.However,notall
federalprovisionscreatingdutiesareheldtocreateanimpliedprivaterightofaction.[Cortv.Ash,422
U.S.66(1975)]
D.FEDERALCORPORATIONS
Federalquestionjurisdictiondoesnotarisemerelyfromthefactthatacorporatepartywasincorporated
byanactofCongressunlesstheUnitedStatesownsmorethanonehalfofthecorporationscapital
stock,inwhichcaseitistreatedasafederalagencythatcansueorbesuedonthatbasisinfederalcourt.
[28U.S.C.1349]
30

E.SUPPLEMENTALJURISDICTIONOVERSTATECLAIMS
Aspreviouslydiscussed(supra,II.B.5.),claimsassertedbypartiesotherthantheplaintiffcaninvoke
supplementaljurisdictioninanycasethatarisesfromthesametransactionoroccurrenceastheoriginal
claim,whetheritgotintofederalcourtbydiversityofcitizenshiporfederalquestionjurisdiction.
1. PendentClaims
Insomecases,theplaintiffwillhavebothfederalandstateclaimsagainstthedefendant.
Althoughtheremaybenodiversity,thefederalcourthasdiscretiontoexercisependent
jurisdictionovertheclaimbasedonstatelawifthetwoclaimsderivefromacommonnucleus
ofoperativefactandaresuchthataplaintiffwouldordinarilybeexpectedtotrythemallin
onejudicialproceeding.[UnitedMineWorkersofAmericav.Gibbs,383U.S.715(1966)]
Essentially,thismeansthatthetwoclaimsmustarisefromthesametransactionoroccurrence.
Thesupplementaljurisdictionstatute[28U.S.C.1367(a)]adoptsthisstandardforthegrantof
supplementaljurisdiction.
Example:P,acitizenofArkansas,assertstwoclaimsagainstD,whoisalsoacitizenof
Arkansas,infederalcourt.Importantly,bothclaimsarisefromthesametransaction
oroccurrence.Claim#1isforviolationofafederalstatute,andthusinvokesfederal
questionjurisdiction.Claim#2isbasedonstatelaw,andthusdoesnotinvokefederal
questionjurisdiction(becauseitisbasedonstate,notfederal,law).Also,Claim#2
doesnotinvokediversityofcitizenship(becausePandDarecitizensofthesame
state).Nonetheless,Claim#2invokessupplementaljurisdictionbecauseitarisesfrom
thesametransactionoroccurrenceastheclaimthatinvokedfederalquestion
jurisdiction.
a.EffectofDismissalofFederalClaimonPendentClaim
Thecourtmayexercisependentjurisdictionoverthestateclaimeventhoughthefederal
claimisdismissedonthemerits.However,thestateclaimshouldprobablyalsobedismissed
(withoutprejudice)ifthefederalclaimisdismissedbeforetrial.Indeed,thesupplemental
jurisdictionstatuteprovidesthatthecourtmayrefusesupplementaljurisdictionifthefederal
claimisdismissed,ifthestateclaimsarecomplexornovel,orifthestateclaimspredominate
substantiallyoverfederalclaims.Notealsothatafederalcourtmaynotawardreliefagainsta
stateofficialbasedsolelyonastatelawclaim.[PennhurstStateSchool&Hospitalv.
Halderman,465U.S.89(1984)]
31

2.PendentParties
Pendentpartiesjurisdictionisrelevantincasesinwhichtheplaintiffsuesmorethanone
defendant,thereisfederaljurisdictionovertheclaimagainstonedefendant,andtheclaim
againsttheseconddefendantdoesnotinvokefederalquestionordiversityofcitizenship
jurisdiction.Underthesupplementaljurisdictionstatute,theclaimagainsttheseconddefendant
mightinvokesupplementaljurisdictionifitarisesfromthesamenucleusofcommonfactasthe
claimagainstthefirstdefendant.
Example:PassertsafederalquestionclaimagainstD1andjoinsatransactionallyrelatedstate
law(notfederalquestion)claimagainstD2.PandD2arecitizensofthesamestate.
TheclaimagainstD2doesnotinvokefederalquestionjurisdiction(becauseitis
baseduponstatelaw)anddoesnotinvokediversityofcitizenshipjurisdiction
(becausePandD2arecitizensofthesamestate).TheclaimagainstD2invokes
supplementaljurisdiction,however,becauseitarisesfromthesametransactionor
occurrenceastheclaimthatinvokedfederalquestionjurisdictionandisassertedby
theplaintiffinafederalquestioncase.
Conversely,pendentpartiesjurisdictioncanarisewhenmultipleplaintiffsassertclaimsagainst
onedefendant.
Example:P1assertsafederalquestionclaimagainstD.Inthesamecase,P2assertsastatelaw
claimagainstD.P2andDarecitizensofthesamestate.TheclaimbyP2invokes
supplementaljurisdictionifitarisesfromthesametransactionoroccurrenceasthe
federalquestionclaimbyP1againstD.
Note:Rememberthat,inadiversitycase,supplementaljurisdictioncanbeusedbyaplaintiffto
supportaclaimthatfailstomeettheamountincontroversyrequirementfordiversityof
citizenshipjurisdiction,butthatsupplementaljurisdictioncannotbeusedtooverridethe
completediversityrule(seeII.B.3.,supra).

VII.THEFEDERALRULESOFCIVILPROCEDURE
A.COMMENCEMENTOFTHEACTION

32

Rule3providesthatanactioniscommencedbyfilingacomplaintwiththecourt.Federalcourtsmay
adoptlocalrulestopermitfilingbyfaxorotherelectronicmeans.Filingacomplaintbeforethestatute
oflimitationshasrunwillsatisfythestatuteoflimitationsinfederalquestioncasesandindiversity
caseswherethestateruleissimilar.However,theSupremeCourthasheldthatastaterulethatanaction
iscommencedforpurposesofthestatuteoflimitationsonlyuponserviceofprocessmustbeappliedin
diversitycases.[Walkerv.ArmcoSteelCorp.,446U.S.740(1980)]
B.SERVICEOFPROCESS

1.WhoMayServe
Rule4authorizesanypersonwhoisatleast18yearsoldandnotapartytotheactiontoservethe
summonsandcomplaint(togetherknownasprocess).Apartymayrequestthatservicebemadeby
aUnitedStatesmarshalorbyanotherpersonappointedbythecourtforthatpurpose.
2.HowServiceIsMade
Generally,Rule4providesthat:(i)personalservice,(ii)serviceleftatthedefendantsusualplaceof
abodewithoneofsuitableageanddiscretionresidingtherein,or(iii)serviceuponanauthorized
agentofthedefendant,isvalid.Alternatively,servicemaybemadeunderstaterulesorbymail
underthewaiverofserviceprovisionofRule4(d).
a.ServiceUnderStateRules
Rule4providesthatservicemayalternativelybemadeasprovidedbytherulesofthestateinwhich
thefederalcourtsitsorthestateinwhichserviceistobeeffected,regardlessofwhethertheactionis
foundedondiversityofcitizenshipjurisdiction.Hence,federalcourtscanusestatelongarm
provisions.
b.WaiverofService(ServicebyMail)
Theplaintiffmayalsorequestthedefendanttowaiveserviceofprocess.Torequestawaiverof
service,theplaintiffmustmailthedefendantcertainitems,themostimportantofwhichareaformal
requesttowaiveservice(thatalsoinformsthedefendantoftheconsequencesoffailingtowaive
service),twocopiesofthewaiverform,andacopyofthecomplaint.Thedefendantgenerallyhas30
days(60daysifoutsidetheUnitedStates)fromthedatethattherequestwassenttoreturnthe
waiver.
33

1)EffectofWaiver
Adefendantwhowaivesformalserviceofprocesshas60days(90daysifoutsidetheUnitedStates)
fromthedatetherequestwassent,insteadoftheusual21days(seeF.3.b.,infra)toanswerthe
complaint.Thewaiverofservicedoesnotwaivethedefendantsrighttoobjecttovenueand
jurisdiction.
2)EffectofFailuretoWaive
Ifthedefendantdoesnotwaiveserviceofprocess,theplaintiffmustservehimusingoneofthe
methodsdescribedin2.,supra.However,adefendantwhoislocatedintheUnitedStatesisliable
forthecostofsuchserviceifhedoesnothavegoodcauseforfailingtowaiveservice.
3.PartiesServedOutsideState
Thecourtwillacquirepersonaljurisdictionoverpartiesservedoutsidethestate:
a.Understatuteandrulesforextraterritorialserviceofthestateinwhichthefederalcourtsits
(domiciliaries,longarmjurisdiction,andinremjurisdiction);
b.Iftheyarethirdpartydefendants[Fed.R.Civ.P.14]orrequiredtobejoinedforjustadjudication
[Fed.R.Civ.P.19],ifservedwithin100milesfromtheplacewherethesummonswasissued(but
withintheUnitedStates);
c.Ifoutofstateserviceispermittedbyfederalstatute(e.g.,interpleader);and
d.Forcasesthatinvolveafederalquestion,whenadefendantisservedwithprocess(orwaiver
thereof),providedthatthedefendantisnotsubjecttogeneraljurisdictioninanystatecourt,thatthe
defendanthassufficientcontactswiththeUnitedStatestowarranttheapplicationoffederallaw,
andthattheexerciseofjurisdictionisnotprohibitedbystatute.
4.PartiesServedinForeignCountry
Unlessafederallawprovidesdifferently,acourtwillacquirepersonaljurisdictionoveraparty
servedinaforeigncountry:
a.Asprovidedinaninternationalagreement;

34

b.Inabsenceofanagreement,asprovidedbytheforeigncountryslaworasdirectedbyaforeign
officialinresponsetoaletterofrequest(butthemethodmustbereasonablycalculatedtoprovide
notice);
c.Unlessitisprohibitedbytheforeigncountryslaw,bypersonalserviceorbymail,signedreturn
receiptrequested.(However,acorporationmaynotbeservedbypersonalservice,andaminoror
incompetentpersonmaynotbeservedbyeitherofthesemethods);or
d.Anymethodthecourtorders(solongasthemethodisnotprohibitedbyinternationalagreement).
5.ImmunityfromProcess
Thefederalcourtsrecognizetheimmunityfromserviceofprocessofparties,witnesses,and
attorneyswhoenterastatetoappearinanotheraction.Inaddition,ifapartywasinducedbythe
plaintiffsfraudordeceittoenterastatesothathecouldbeserved,theserviceisinvalidandthe
courtdoesnotacquirepersonaljurisdiction.
C.EXTENSIONOFTIMEPERIODS
Rule6(b)givesthedistrictcourtpowertoextendtheperiodwithinwhichactionsundertheFederal
Rulesmustbeperformed.However,certaintimeperiodsmayneverbeextended.Thefollowingmotions
mustbefiled,withnoextensions,within28daysafterentryofjudgment:arenewedmotionfor
judgmentasamatteroflaw,amotiontoamendjudgment,amotionforanewtrial,amotiontoamend
findingsoffactinanonjurycase,andagrantofanewtrialonthecourtsinitiative.
D.INTERLOCUTORYINJUNCTIONS
Aninterlocutoryinjunctionisanequitableremedybywhichapersonisorderedtoactortorefrainfrom
actinginaspecifiedmanner.Interlocutoryinjunctionsaregrantedtomaintainthestatusquountilatrial
onthemeritsmaybeheld.
1.PreliminaryInjunction
Apreliminaryinjunctionissoughtbyapartypriortoatrialonthemeritsofthecomplaint.A
preliminaryinjunctionmaynotbeissuedwithoutnoticetotheadverseparty.[Fed.R.Civ.P.65(a)]
2.TemporaryRestrainingOrder

35

Atemporaryrestrainingorder(TRO)isgrantedbyacourtwhenitisnecessarytoprevent
irreparableinjurytoaparty,andtheinjurywillresultbeforeapreliminaryinjunctionhearingcanbe
held.
a.RequirementsforExParteTemporaryRestrainingOrders
Generally,noticeofthehearingfortheissuanceoftheTROmustbegivenbeforeaTROisissued.
However,acourtmaygrantaTROwithoutnoticeofthehearingtotheadversepartyifthree
requirementsaremet[Fed.R.Civ.P.65(b),(c)]:
1)SpecificFactsShowingImmediateandIrreparableInjury
Themovingpartymustgivespecificfactsinanaffidavitorintheverifiedcomplainttoestablishthat
immediateandirreparableinjurywillresulttothemovingpartybeforetheadversepartycanbe
heardinopposition.
2)EffortstoGiveNotice
Themovingpartymustcertifyinwritingalleffortsshemadetogivenoticeofthehearingtothe
adversepartyandthereasonswhynoticeshouldnotberequired.
3)Security
Themovingpartymustprovidesomesecurity,theamountofwhichisdeterminedbythecourt,to
payforanycostsanddamagesincurredbytheadversepartyifhewaswrongfullyenjoinedor
restrained.TheUnitedStates,itsofficers,anditsagenciesarenotrequiredtogivesecurity.
b.NoticeofHearingvs.ActualNotice
AlthoughaTROmaybeissuedwithoutnoticeofthehearing,dueprocessrequiresthataperson
mustreceiveactualnotice(throughserviceofprocessorotherwise)oftheTRO(oranyother
injunctionforthatmatter)beforehemaybeheldincontemptforviolatingit.[SeeFed.R.Civ.P.
65(d)]
c.DiscretionofCourt
Eveniftheaboverequirementsaremet,thecourtstillhasdiscretionwhethertoissuetheTRO.The
courtmaylookatthelikelihoodthattheplaintiffwillprevailonthemeritsofthecomplaint.Also,

36

thecourtmayweightheinjuryanticipatedbythemovingpartyagainsttheharmcausedbyissuing
theTRO.
d.TimeLimit
TheTROwillexpirewithin14daysunlesstherestrainedpartyconsentstoanextensionorgood
causeisshownforanextension.
E.REMEDIES
Provisionalremediesprovideforthepretrialseizureofpropertyforthepurposeofsecuring
satisfactionofajudgmentthatmaybeenteredinthecase.FederalRule64specificallyauthorizesthe
useofprovisionalremediesbutnotesthattheremedysprecisenameandthepreciseproceduretobe
usedwillbegovernedbystatelaw.:
(iii)ReplevinAprocessbywhichtheplaintifftakespossessionofandholdsdisputedproperty
duringthelawsuit(possession
F.PLEADINGS
a.Rule12(b)
Priortofilingananswer,thedefendantmay,ifhechooses,fileamotionandraiseanyorall
ofthefollowingdefenses:
(i)Lackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction;
(ii)Lackofpersonaljurisdiction;
(iii)Impropervenue;
(iv)Insufficientprocess;
(v)Insufficientserviceofprocess;
(vi)Failuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted(i.e.,evenifplaintiffs
allegationsaretakenastrue,reliefcouldnotbegranted);or
(vii)Failuretojoinapartyneededforajustadjudication(includesnecessaryand
indispensableparties).
Thefirstdefensemayberaisedatanytimeevenforthefirsttimeonappeal.Thedefendant
mustraisedefenses(ii)through(v)atthetimehefilesamotionorhisanswerwhichever
isfirst.Ifhedoesnot,thedefendantwaivesthesedefenses.Thelasttwodefenses(iflimited
tofailuretojoinanindispensableparty)canbemadeatanytimepriortotrialorat
37

trial.Thedefendantmaychoosenottofileamotionandinsteadraisethesedefensesinhis
answer.

38