Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I. Personal Jurisdiction
A. Introduction
In order to try a case, the court must have the adjudicatory power consisting of:
1. Personal jurisdiction over the ;
2. Subject matter jurisdiction over the case; and
3. Appropriateness as a venue.
(Adequate notice must be served on .)
Personal (aka territorial) jurisdiction: a reflection of the geographic limitations on the judicial power of the sovereign
states within our federal system.
Subject matter jurisdiction: allocates power between federal and state court systems.
Federal courts have limited SMJ
Constitutional and statutory provisions restrict their adjudicatory authority to certain types of cases, mainly
disputes between citizens of different states (diversity) and disputes arising under federal law (federal Q cases),
such as patent, antitrust, and civil rights cases.
State courts have general SMJ
They can hear and decide most categories of cases, including those that can be heard in federal court over which
there is a concurrent jurisdiction
In personam jurisdiction: the power of a court to enter a money judgment against the ; a judgment may, if necessary, be
satisfied by seizing and liquidating the defendants assetsCourt has property over the herself
In personam judgment is said to follow the , meaning that it must be given full faith and credit and be enforced by any
state in which the or his assets are found.
In rem jurisdiction: the power of a court to act with regard to property (such as real estate) within its borders Court has
power over the s property:
Affects the interest of persons in the property (and may indeed extinguish those interests) but, unlike in personam
judgment, does not create an obligation on the s part to pay money to the .
An action to determine title to property among opposing claimants is an example of in rem jur.
Quasi in rem jurisdiction: hybrid of the other two forms of adjudicatory power.
Based on the presence of the s property (either real or personal) within the forum state, but it permits the court to enter
a judgment for an amount of money not exceeding the value of the property, and which may be satisfied from the forced
sale of the property.
Unlike the true in rem action, the claim for relief in a quasi in rem action is unrelated to the property, which merely
provides the basis for jurisdiction.
General Jurisdiction (all-purpose): can be sued in a forum for a crime that arose anywhere in the world.
Test 1: Is the s contact continuous and systematic?
Test 2: Is the a citizen of that forum state?
Test 3: Has the been served with a process?
Test 4: Does the corporation have the principal place of business in that state? Or, is that where they are incorporated?
Specific Jurisdiction (conduct-linked): Defendant can only be sued for a claim that occurred in that forum.
Although each state retains its own sovereignty, a valid judgment entered in state A is entitled under our Constitution (Art.
4 1) to full faith and credit in all other states.
Minimum Contacts Analysis not to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
A. Contact between the and the forum state
- Assess if the purposefully availed himself of that state (Calder)
- Does the reach out to conduct business in that state?
- Assess the foreseeability that the could be sued in that forum (WWVW)
B. Fairness: a high degree of fairness can make up for lesser contacts.
- Relatedness - Does s claim arise from s contact with the forum state?
- Inconvenience - Is it inconvenient for and witnesses to represent themselves in that state?
- States interest - Does the state have an interest in providing a forum state? (McGee)
- Other: s interest, judicial efficiency, interstate interest in shared substantial policy
C. Stream of Commerce
- Asahi
C. Cases
Case Issue Takeaway
The Breakthrough Case
International Is service of process upon WA statute set up unemployment compensation that required
Shoe v. State of s agent sufficient notice employer contributions. International Shoe was a DE corporation with
Washington when the corporations its principal place of business in MO (citizen of MO); International shoe
(1945) activities result in a large had a few employees in WA. They did not have authority to enter into
volume of interstate contracts or make collections. Shoe had no offices in WA. Notice of suit
commerce so that the was served on Shoes salespersons and a copy of the notice was sent by
corporation receives the registered mail to Shoes MO address.
protection of the laws of Historically, s presence in the forum state required (Pennoyer)
the state and the suit is DP only requires that in order to subject a to an in personam
related to the activities judgment, if he is not present within the territorial jurisdiction, he
which make the must have certain minimum contacts with the territory such
corporation present? that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions
of fair play and substantial justice.
Under what conditions is MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST: Quality and nature of the activity in
a corporation subject to relation to the fair and orderly administration of law.
personal jurisdiction in a Shoes contacts with WA were neither irregular nor casual - they
particular state? were systematic and continuous creates general jurisdiction
regardless of where it arose
Nowhere does this overturn Pennoyer it expands the basis of
jurisdiction.
Appropriateness of jurisdiction: (a) level of s activity in the forum;
(b) claim arise out of the contact
Exploring the Meaning of Contacts & Fair Play and Substantial Justice
WWVW Must the have VW was a regional distributor in the Northeast. The bought a car
(1980) minimum contacts with from and drove through OK; it exploded and they sued in OK state
the forum state before the court. challenges OK cts PJ.
court can exercise in OK court did not have jurisdiction over NY wholesaler.
personam jurisdiction No relevant contact with the forum b/c s did not purposefully
over him? avail themselves of any benefits in OK (e.g. closing sales, performing
services, soliciting business through salespersons or advertising).
Unilateral act of a third party moved the car from NY to OK
Minimum contact test: Contact test + Fairness test (Factors in
determining whether an exercise of PJ would offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice):
- s burden (a primary concern);
- States interest in adjudicating the dispute;
- s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief;
- Interstate judicial systems interest in obtaining the most
efficient resolution; and
- Shared interest of the states in furthering their public and social
policies.
Although it may be foreseeable that the car could be driven into OK,
VW could not reasonably anticipate being sued there. (Circular!)
foreseeability alone is never a sufficient benchmark for PJ.
Would it matter if the accident was in CT, much closer? No, excluding
jurisdiction in a contiguous State such as PA as surely as in more
distant States such as OK. It was not the distance that counts, but the
state sovereignty.
Asahi Whether the mere (Maj)PJ in CA would be unfair under the unusual circumstances of
(1987) awareness on the part of the case. California lacks PJ over Asahi on fairness grounds.
a foreign that the California had no discernible interest; imposed severe hardship on
components it Asahi; issue had nothing to do with road safety in CA (corporate
manufactured, sold, and contract); no reference to CA law.
delivered outside the US OConnor, J. +3:
would reach the forum -Purposeful availment requires a conduct that indicates an intent or
State in the stream of purpose to serve the market in the forum state. Mere awareness that
commerce constitutes the stream of commerce may sweep goods into the state after they
minimum contacts leave the s hands insufficient to satisfy purposeful availment.
between the and the -Burger King: Substantial connection between the and the forum
forum State such that the State necessary for finding minimum contacts must come about by a
exercise of jurisdiction deliberate action of the purposefully directed toward the forum
does not offend state.
traditional notions of fair Clear evidence: E.g. designing the product for the forum state market;
play and substantial advertising in the forum; establishing channels for giving advice to
justice. customers in the forum; marketing through a distributor who agrees
to serve as the sales agent in the forum, etc.
Brennan, J. +3:
-Min requirements inherent in the concept of fair play and substantial
justice defeat the reasonableness of jurisdiction even though the
has purposefully engaged in forum activities.
-So long as places a product in the stream of commerce (at least in
substantial quantities) & is aware that the final product is being
marketed in the forum state, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot
come as a surprise. The maker both foresees and benefits from the
sales in other states, whether it distributes them there directly or
indirectly profits from the fact that another entity conveniently does
so in its place. Deliberate placement of products into the stream of
commerce is sufficient for PJ.
-Foreseeability: It must be foreseeable that the s conduct &
connection with the State are such that he should reasonably
anticipate being haled into ct. there. WWVW.
Stevens, J.: Examination of min contacts is not always necessary to
determine constitutionality of cts assertion of PJ.
-Whether or not the s conduct rises to the level of purposeful
availment requires a constitutional determination that is affected by
the volume, the value, and the hazardous character of the
components.
A foreign manufacturer or component maker that sells its products to wholesalers outside the US, without cultivating the
U.S. market in any way, will likely not be subject to jurisdiction, even if its product is imported into the US and injures a
consumer here. If that manufacturer develops a relationship with a U.S. distributor, sells goods to that distributor, and
encourages U.S. sales, it will likely be subject to jurisdiction for clams arising from those sales in the state where it directs
its goods, i.e., where the U.S. distributor is located. However, it is not clear whether the manufacturer will be subject to
jurisdiction in other states where the distributor resells the goods.
Walden v. Fiore Whether a court may No, b/c s contacts with the forum state cannot be decisive in
(2014) exercise personal determining whether the s due process rights are violated & had
jurisdiction over a on no other contacts in the forum state.
the basis that he knew his caused harm to suffered in a forum state while knowing they lived
allegedly tortious conduct in that state that fact alone does confer PJ.
in another state would -Fed cts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of
harm s with connections their PJ. Daimler AG. A fed dist. ct.s authority to assert PJ in most
to forum state. cases is linked to service of process on a who is subject to the
jurisdiction of a ct of general jurisdiction in the state where the
district ct is located. Whether the exercise of jurisdiction
comports with the limits imposed by federal due process on the
forum state. (14th Amendment); certain minimum contacts such
that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions
of fair play and substantial justice.
Shaffer: The inquiry focuses on the relationship among the , the
forum, and the litigation. s suit-related conduct must create a
substantial connection with the forum State.
(a) Relationship must arise out of contacts or affiliations that the
himself intentionally creates with the forum State. Burger King.
Unilateral action of vs. s purposeful action of reaching out
beyond their State and into another by entering a contractual
relationship that envisioned continuing and wide-reaching contacts
in the forum State. Burger King.
(b) Minimum contacts analysis looks to the s contacts with the
forum state itself, not the s contacts with persons who reside
there. cannot be the only link between the and the forum. (-
relationship, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for
jurisdiction.)
never traveled to, conducted activities within, contacted anyone in,
or sent anything or anyone to the forum state.
Calder v. Jones May a state court exercise Jones lived in worked in CA and sued Calder for libel who wrote a
(1984) jurisdiction over an out- nasty article about her in FL that was widely circulated in CA. Calder
of-state party whose was served with process by mail in FL.
intentional conduct in the Because s activities are calculated to cause harm in another state
second state is calculated than their own, the state court where the harm is suffered may
to cause, and does cause, exercise personal jurisdiction.
injury to the complainant Intent
in the first state? D purposefully availed himself of and established minimum
contacts with the state of CA through newspaper sales in CA.
It was okay that never set foot in CA! There was a targeted
outreach with a bad effect Calder Effect (Intentionally causing
an effect)
s conduct is not tethered to the state in which he was present
physically.
Johnson v. Arden cat breeders sued s, an Internet service provider (ISP) and
(2010) Internet bulletin board posters and website owners for claims arising
from allegedly defamatory posts.
Zippo test: Sufficiency of internet contacts under a specific
jurisdiction analysis.
Sliding scale measuring the likelihood of personal jurisdiction
(active contract formation & repeated transmission of computer
files to mere informational posts)
Calder test: should have known that the burnt of the injury would
be felt by in the State in which lives & works and intentionally
targeted the forum state. (Used merely as an additional factor to
consider when evaluation s relevant contacts with the forum state;
Additional contacts, mere effects in the forum state are insufficient to
confer PJ.)
Effects test: s tortious acts can serve as a source of personal
jurisdiction only where the makes a prima facie showing that the
s acts (1) were intentional, (2) were uniquely or expressly aimed at
the forum state, and (3) caused harm, the burnt of which was suffered
and which the knew was likely to be suffered in the forum state.
Statutory Authority for Jurisdiction (State Long-Arm Statutes)
Gray v. American manufactured an allegedly defective safety valve in OH and sold it
Radiator to American Radiator who incorporated the valve into a water heater
(1961) at his plant in PA. It was then sold to in IL, where it exploded.
Long-arm statute for tortious activity could read tortious act as the
place where the injury occurred. IL courts have PJ over OH
(speculating that many of the OH valves were in IL)
In law the place of a wrong is where the last event takes place which
is necessary to render the actor liable. To be tortious an act must
cause injury and the concept of injury is an inseparable part of the
phrase.
Feathers v. Allegedly defective tank enroute from PA to VT exploded near s
McLucas house in NY.
(1965) If in person of through an agent, he commits a tortious act within the
state under NY long-arm statute is too plain and precise to read it
to be synonymous with commits a tortious act without the state
which causes injury within the state.
The purpose of 302 was to confer on the court PJ over a non-
domiciliary whose act in the state gives rise to a cause of action or to
subject non-residents to personal jurisdiction when they commit acts
within the state. Had the legislature of NY intended to confer
jurisdiction in the strength of injurious forum consequences alone,
without regard to the locus of the commission of the tortious act
itself, it would presumably have used language appropriate to reflect
such a design.
Jurisdiction based on the presence of s property
Shaffer v. In order for the forum owned share of stock in Greyhound, which was incorporated in DE.
Heitner state to exercise in rem filed a shareholders derivative suit against the corp for violating
(1977) jurisdiction on a their fiduciary responsibilities. challenges PJ.
nonresident , must he DE law: If s property is sequestered, must make general
have minimum contacts appearance ( subject to PJ).
with the forum state such Court says no PJ
that has purposefully While the existence of s property within a forum state might
availed himself? suggest that it has other contacts with the forum, the existence of
property alone does not support personal jurisdiction over .
When proceeds in rem or quasi in rem against s property, min.
contacts test must be established to be consistent with DP clause.
Shoe test applies to both in personam and (quasi) in rem.
All assertions of state court jurisdiction must be evaluated according
to the standards set forth by International Shoe and its progeny.
Cause of action is not otherwise related to rights & duties growing
out of that ownership (Focus on relationship between the with the
forum & the litigation).
General Jurisdiction Alternative
Daimler AG v. Can a foreign corp be Argentine sued German for conduct that took place in Argentina
Bauman subjected to a courts by its Argentine subsidiary, premised on the agency relationship
(2014) general jurisdiction based between and its US subsidiary, whose contacts in the forum state
on the contacts of its in- may subject it to the general jurisdiction.
state subsidiary with the Even if MBUSA is at home in CA and its contacts are imputable to
forum? Daimler, no basis to subject Daimler to general jurisdiction in CA.
A subsidiarys jurisdictional contacts can be imputed to its parent
only when the former is so dominated by the latter as to be its alter
ego. A subsidiary, for e.g., might be its parents agent for claims
arising in the place where the subsidiary operates, yet not its agent
regarding claims arising elsewhere.
Concern for international comity.
Requirement of Notice
Mullane v. May a state The only notice given of the proceeding: publication in a newspaper
Central Hanover constitutionally dispense 4 times for a brief and cryptic ads that did not identify the
Bank with personal service of beneficiaries. Banks regular correspondence was nth alike
(1950) process even if it knows Ct held that news paper ads did not satisfy due process.
how to contact the ? Alternative (to personal service of written notice) means could also
be used in situations in which that form is impracticable
constructive notice for unknown persons is constitutionally OK (but
not for known s).
A method of service of process must either be (1) reasonably
certain to provide actual notice, or (2) the lesser of several evils, that
is, a feasible form of notice that is not substantially less likely to
give actual notice than other options.
Elementary & fundamental requirement of DP: notice reasonably
calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of
the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present
their objections. The notice must be of such nature as reasonable to
convey the required information, and it must afford a reasonable
time for those interested to make their appearance.
Not a guarantee that notice will be received. If certified mail notice is
returned, a reasonable person would take further actions if available.
First class mail is usually sufficient.
s whose interests or whereabouts could not with due diligence be ascertained. These beneficiaries simply could
not be identified. As to them, notice by publication was constitutionally permissible.
s whose whereabouts were not known in the ordinary course of business, but which could be discovered upon
investigation (with some effort & at some expense); Substituted service (e.g. notice by publication) permitted. The
practical difficulties and costs that would be attendant on frequent investigations into the status of great numbers of
beneficiaries, many of whose interests in the common fund are so remote as to be ephemeral.
s of known place of residence. As to them, notice by publication simply is not reasonably calculated to reach them.
Service upon Foreign : Hague Convention provides a uniform framework for serving process in civil or commercial
cases upon s located in any of the dozens of contracting states.
If has expressly stated his preference of manner of communication or if his domiciliary is nowhere to be found with
reasonable effort, substituted service (e.g. Facebook msg, emails, etc) could be authorized by the courts.
III. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A. Introduction
may be sued in any state with which she has sufficient contacts to satisfy the statutory and constitutional tests for PJ. The
next Q is: which court will hear the case?
Subject Matter Jurisdiction: the power of a court to hear a particular type of case & claims asserted in it.
State courts: Courts of general subject matter jurisdiction (can hear any claim*)
*In a very narrow subset of cases federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.
Federal courts: Courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction. Art. III 2 of the Constitution provides 9 categories (heads)
of jurisdiction incl. arising under the Constitution & laws of the U.S, and controversies between citizens of different states.
This jurisdiction is not automatically bestowed on the fed cts. It has to be conferred by statutes.
B. Diversity Jurisdiction
Rule Remarks
1332(a) Fed Cts original jurisdiction over civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum
or value of $ 75,000, exclusive of interest and costs; and between
(a) citizens of different States;
(b) citizens of a State & citizen/subject of a foreign state*;
(c) citizens of different States with citizens of foreign state as additional parties;
(d) a foreign state as & citizen of a State.
*Alienage jurisdiction; U.S. Constitution does not provide for federal jurisdiction over cases by an
alien against an alien; there must be a citizen of a US. State on one side to qualify.
1332(c) Corporation is deemed a citizen of (a) every State and foreign state as place of incorporation; and (b)
its principal place of business.
Citizenship: defined by domicile. To establish domicile, must reside there and have an intent to stay.
E.g. Drivers license, address, bank, employed, etc.
You dont lose your old domicile until you get a new one
Corporations will have dual citizenship: place of incorporation & Principal place of business Nerve Center* (Hertz)
*Nerve Center: where the corporations high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the cos activities.
N.B. Unincorporated associations are not treated as separate entities for diversity purposes, and in determining diversity
one must consider the citizenship of all members of the association.
Under 28 U.S.C. 1332, the district court has original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy
1) exceeds the sum or value of $75,000; and
2) is between citizens of different states.
C. Federal Question
Under 28 U.S.C. 1331, the district court has original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.
Although the constitutional grant of fed Q jurisdiction would permit jurisdiction if any federal issue might potentially be
raised in the case, 1331 is not nearly so broad. To invoke jurisdiction under 1331, federal law must be part of the s well-
pleaded complaint.
Mottley Rule: If a is invoking a federal Q jurisdiction then a federal Q must be pleaded in the complaint stating that its
claim is based upon federal law or the Constitution.
- Counterclaims (s answer or defense) is irrelevant in establishing federal Q jurisdiction.
- If jurisdiction over claims is based on mixture of federal and state law,
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1986) Complaint asserted state law claims of N and product liability and alleged
violations of a Federal Act (but the federal act did not give rise to an independent right of action). Court said there
was no federal Q b/c complaint alleging a violation of a federal statute as an element of a state cause of action, when
Congress has determined that there is no private right, does not state a claim arising under the Constitution.
Grable & Sons Metal Prods, Inc. v. Darue Eng. & Mfg. (2005) IRS seized property from Grable to satisfy delinquent
federal taxes. Grable brought a state court action to quiet the title (state law claim) and Grable argued the title was
invalid because IRS failed to provide them with personal notice required by statute. Court said the meaning of the
federal statute is in dispute.
D. Removal Jurisdiction
Rule
28 U.S.C Actions Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought
1441(a) Removable in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original
Generally jurisdiction, may be removed by the s, to the district court of the United States for
the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.
28 U.S.C Removal based may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served
1441(b) on Diversity of defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.
Citizenship If there is a diversity of citizenship but chooses to file a suit in the state court, it
is nonremovable to the federal court. (Protection is extended to ; , an in-stater,
doesnt need protection conferred by the federal court).
28 U.S.C Joinder of If an action includes a claim arising under a federal Q and a claim without original
1441(c) federal law OR supplemental jurisdiction of the district courts, the entire action may be removed
claims & state if the action would be removable without the inclusion of nonremovable claims.
law claims Permit removal if a piece of an action is removable (and some arent) that is not
within the supplemental jurisdiction (state law issue is not sufficiently closely
related to the federal claim) Remove the entire claim to federal court. District
courts will sever all the non-federal question and remand to the state court so it can
be resolved there.
28 U.S.C. Procedure for s desiring to remove any civil action from a State court shall file in district court
1446(a) Removal of where such action is pending a notice of removed signed pursuant to Rule 11 and
Civil Actions containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a
copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such s in such action.
(If removal is improper, should file a motion to remand the case back to state court
28 USC 1446(c)).
files a notice of removal in fed ct. (expressing his wish to remove a suit in state
ct to this particular district ct.). It can only be brought to the district court within the
state that encompasses/embraces the place in which the original state court can be
found. Notice of removal has to comport to the Rule 11 well-groundedness &
truthfulness required (accompanied by sanctions) & Supply the fed court with
summons, complaint, motions, judicial order (granted to the motions made), etc.
28 U.S.C. Requirements (1) The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days
1446(b) for Removal after the receipt by the a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for
relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within 30 days after the
service of summons upon the if such initial pleading has then been filed in court
and is not required to be served on the , whichever period is shorter.
(2)(A) When a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all s who have
been property joined and served must join in or consent to removal.
(B) Each shall have 30 days after receipt by or service on that of the initial
pleading or summons described in paragraph (1) to file the notice of removal.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (c), if the case stated by the initial pleading is
not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by the
a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may
first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.
28 U.S.C. Requirements; (1) A case may not be removed under (b)(3) on the basis of jurisdiction conferred
1446(c) removal based by section 1332 more than 1 year after commencement of the action, unless the
on diversity of district court finds that the has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a from
citizenship removing the action.
(2) If removal of a civil action is sought on the basis of the jurisdiction conferred by
section 1332(a), the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be
deemed to be the amount in controversy except if the initial pleading seeks (i)
nonmonetary relief; or (ii) money judgment.
If the basis of the action was diversity, you cannot remove after the 1st year mark
since the original filing of the action (even if amount of the suit has been notified
later), unless the deliberately concealed this piece of claim to preclude removal to
fed ct.
28 U.S.C. Notice to Promptly after the filing of such notice of removal of a civil action the s shall give
1446(d) adverse parties written notice thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of the notice with
the clerk of such State court, which shall effect removal and the State court shall
proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.
Court Permission is NOT required.
28 U.S.C. Procedure A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of SMJ must
1447(c) after Removal be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section
1446(a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks
SMJ, the case shall be remanded.
cannot just say I dont want my suit to proceed in fed ct. It needs to be filed in a
motion to remand (if not SMJ) within 30 days. But SMJ can be raised whenever.
28 U.S.C. Diversity after If after removal the seeks to join additional s whose joinder would destroy SMJ,
1447(e) Removal the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State
court.
0. A federal court in diversity is required to apply the substantive law of the state in which it is sitting, incl. that states
conflict of law rules. (Erie)
1. Is there a federal provision (FRCP, federal statute, Constitution) on point (covers the issue) & directly conflicts
with state law)?
Is the provision arguably procedural, meaning that it is valid under Rules Enabling Act?
Yes: Apply federal procedural law (Hanna) b/c REA & Supremacy Clause.
No: Apply Erie. The court must apply state substantive law where it conflicts with federal law
2. If there is no federal provision on point, federal judges must apply state law on a substantive issue. (Erie Test)
SoL and Choice of law rules are substantive. York & Klaxon.
Is there a different outcome when applying state v. federal law? York Outcome-Determinative Test
If a law is not clearly substantive federal court should apply the state law unless the federal court system has
an interest in doing things a certain way
Does use of the state law meet the Twin Aims of Erie from Hanna dicta?
o Avoiding Forum Shopping will parties flock to federal court to get a different outcome?
o Inequitable Administration of Justice are state citizens who cant get diversity citizenship to get into
federal court going to be disadvantaged?
Rule Category
2(a) One form of action There is one form of action the civil action.
7(a) Pleadings Only these pleadings are allowed:
(1) a complaint;
(2) an answer to a complaint;
s complaint can encompass answer against and a cross-claim against co-.
(3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim;
(4) an answer to a crossclaim;
Co- who receives a crossclaim has an opportunity to refute it.
(5) a third-party complaint;
(6) an answer to a third-party complaint; and
Third-party who is brought into the lawsuit by an original has an opportunity
to answer the complaint.
(7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.
s opportunity to answer to the eventual ruling.
8(d)(1) Pleadings to Be Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required.
Concise and Direct
Rule Category
3 Commencing an Action A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.
8(a) Claim of Relief A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (for both and )
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the courts jurisdiction, unless
the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or
different types of relief.
10 Form of Pleading (a) Caption; Names of Parties.
Every pleading must have a caption with the courts name, a title, a file number,
and a Rule 7(a) designation. The title of the complaint must name all the parties;
the title of other pleadings, after naming the first party on each side, may refer
generally to other parties.
(b) Paragraphs; Separate Statements.
A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as
far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. A later pleading may refer by
number to a paragraph in an earlier pleading. If doing so would promote clarity,
each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrenceand each defense
other than a denialmust be stated in a separate count or defense.
(c) Adoption by Reference; Exhibits.
A statement in a pleading may be adopted by reference elsewhere in the same
pleading or in any other pleading or motion. A copy of a written instrument that is
an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.
C. Consistency
Rule Category
8(d)(2) Alternative Statements A party may set out two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or
of a Claim or Defense hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. If a party
makes alternative statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is
sufficient.
*Alternatively: Either this happened or that happened;
*Hypothetically: If this really happened, then that happened.
8(d)(3) Inconsistent Claims or A party may state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of
Defenses consistency.
Since pleading comes early in the litigation (before discovery), it gives room for
to plead theories she cant prove together with easily provable claims.
D. Truthfulness - Sanctions
Rule 11 provides that a lawyer, by presenting to the court a pleading, motion, or other paper, certifies that to the best of
that lawyers knowledge, information, or belief formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that he or she
has complied with all the requirements under the rule.
The Complaint
***Unless there is a rule like 9(b) or 9(g) that requires a heightened pleading requirement, the court cannot impose that
requirement on you***
Complaint Cases
Case Issue Takeaway
Notice Pleading Standard
Conley v. Whether After Plaintiffs were fired, they brought a class action against their union
Gibson (1957) petitioners failed representative for violating the Railway Labor Act. D moved to dismiss for failure
to state a claim on to state a claim on which relief can be granted (12(b)(6)).
which relief could
be granted? Is the CONLEY TEST: a complaint may be dismissed under 12(b)(6) when it appears
claim sufficient? beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that support his claim
for relief.
Policy Rationales:
Court assumed that most plaintiffs could not provide substantial facts at
the pleading stage and that these facts would be gleaned during the
discovery phase they also believe that this is logic behind FRCPs
design
At pleading stages, the courts should be more concerned with keeping
plaintiffs claims in court rather than keeping out non-meritorious claims.
This function is best served after discovery at the summary judgment
phase.
Although, generally litigants must disclose their names, courts have made a few
exceptions:
To protect privacy in a very private manner. (birth control, abortion,
transsexuality, welfare rights of illegitimate children)
Danger of physical harm
Econ / Prof reasons should not permit parties to protect their identity