ClvlL 8CCLuu8L

LkSCNAL IUkISDIC1ICN
! ls a geographlcal llmlLaLlon on Lhe places a may choose Lo sue a u for a parLlcular clalm
s can'L brlng sulL wherever Lhey wanL (ennoyer v neff)
1he 14
Lh
AmendmenL Lo Lhe uS ConsLlLuLlon forblds sLaLes from deprlvlng any person llfe llberLy or properLy wlLhouL
due process of law"
SLaLes musL follow a falr [udlclal procedure (Lhls means Lhey musL seL approprlaLe llmlLs on places where a u can be
requlred Lo have a lawsulL)
1o exerclse personal [urlsdlcLlon over a u means Lo requlre a u Lo come Lo a sLaLe Lo defend Lhemselves
lorum sLaLe ls Lhe sLaLe where Lhe sulL ls broughL



under Lhe consLlLuLlon (14
Lh
AmendmenL) Lhere ls a llmlLed basls for !
A u musL esLabllsh a slgnlflcanL relaLlonshlp Lo Lhe forum sLaLe such as a domlclle lnsLaLe presence conLlnuous and
subsLanLlal buslness wlLhln Lhe sLaLe consenL Lo sulL ln LhaL sLaLe or mlnlmum conLacLs wlLh Lhe sLaLe LhaL gave rlse Lo
Lhe clalm ln sulL

MlnlMuM CCn1AC1S 1LS1 (esLabllshed ln lnLernaLlonal Shoe v WashlngLon)
ln many cases when u ls noL from Lhe forum sLaLe Lhe only basls for exerclslng ! over Lhe u ls Lhrough appllcaLlon of
Lhe mlnlmum conLacLs LesL esLabllshed ln lnLernaLlonal Shoe

ln lS Lhe courL held LhaL sLaLe courLs may exerclse ! over a u lf she has such mlnlmum conLacLs wlLh Lhe sLaLe LhaL lL
would be falr Lo requlre her Lo reLurn Lo LhaL sLaLe Lo defend herself Lhere
WheLher [urlsdlcLlon ls permlsslble depends on Lhe quallLy naLure of Lhe conLacLs wlLhln Lhe sLaLe
(ln some cases even a slngle conLacL wlll sufflce buL noL conLacLs LhaL are casual or lsolaLed)
1hls reasonlng suggesLs LhaL a corporaLlon who chooses Lo conducL acLlvlLles wlLhln a sLaLe accepLs (lmpllclLly) a
reclprocal duLy Lo answer for lLs lnsLaLe acLlvlLles

u ls CnL? sub[ecL Lo clalms arlslng ouL of Lhe mlnlmum conLacLs Lhey have wlLhln Lhe forum sLaLe
Shoe specLrum
u has no conLacLs wlLhln a sLaLe no !
u has causal or lsolaLed conLacLs wlLhln a sLaLe no !
u has a slngle conLracL sollclLed ln Lhe sLaLe can supporL ! (accordlng Lo McCee v lnLernaLlonal lnsurance Co)
u has conLlnuous buL llmlLed acLlvlLy ln Lhe forum sLaLe (ex 8urger klng Corp v 8udzewlcz) wlll supporL
speclflc [urlsdlcLlon whlch ls [urlsdlcLlon over clalms arlslng ouL of LhaL conLlnuous acLlvlLy
u has subsLanLlal or pervaslve conLacLs wlLhln a sLaLe Ceneral ln ersonam !urlsdlcLlon applles permlLLlng
LhaL Lhe u can be sued ln Lhe sLaLe for any clalm even one compleLely unrelaLed Lo lLs lnsLaLe acLlvlLles (u
would suffer no lnconvenlence from defendlng sulL Lhere)

MlnlMuM CCn1AC1S AnAL?SlS
1 Mlnlmum conLacLs LesL applles Lo lndlvlduals as well as corporaLlons
2 LlmlLaLlons on ! found ln longarm sLaLuLes are dlsLlncL from Lhe consLlLuLlonal llmlL lmposed by Lhe mlnlmum
conLacLs LesL
3 A u may have sufflclenL conLacLs wlLhln a sLaLe Lo supporL mlnlmum conLacLs LesL even Lhough she dld noL acL
wlLhln Lhe sLaLe (ex lf u commlLs an ouLslde acL LhaL she knows wlll cause harmful effecLs wlLhln Lhe sLaLe she
wlll be sub[ecL Lo MC! Lhere for clalms arlslng ouL of LhaL acL)
4 MC analysls focuses on Lhe Llme Lhe u acLed noL Lhe Llme of Lhe lawsulL
a Compare [urlsdlcLlon based on servlce of process on Lhe u wlLhln Lhe sLaLe (reafflrmed ln 8urnham
v Superlor CourL of Callfornla) !urlsdlcLlon based on lnsLaLe servlce only requlres LhaL Lhe u be
presenL ln Lhe sLaLe aL Lhe Llme LhaL Lhe summons and complalnL are served upon her ln such
cases Lhe u need noL have any conLacL wlLh Lhe sLaLe aL Lhe Llme of Lhe evenLs glvlng rlse Lo Lhe
sulL

u8CSLluL AvAlLMLn1
MosL dlfflculL problem ln applylng MC ls deflnlng Lhe quallLy and naLure LhaL makes a conLacL sufflclenL Lo supporL
[urlsdlcLlon
1he u musL have made a dellberaLe cholce Lo relaLe Lo Lhe sLaLe before she can be made Lo bear Lhe burden of
defendlng Lhere unllaLeral conLacLs of Lhe or oLhers wlll noL sufflce
WorldWlde volkswagen v Woodson (Lhe courL concluded LhaL a n? Audl dealer Seaway alLhough lL could
foresee LhaL lLs buyers mlghL Lake Lhelr cars Lo Cklahoma dld noL purposely avall lLself of Lhe opporLunlLy Lo
conducL acLlvlLles Lhere 1he dealer had noL sold cars Lhere adverLlsed Lhere culLlvaLed Cklahoma cusLomers
or dellberaLely focus on Cklahoma as a markeL lL had noL soughL any dlrecL beneflL from Cklahoma acLlvlLles
sufflclenL Lo requlre lL Lo submlL Lo [urlsdlcLlon Lhere)
Lx of when a u purposely avalls lLself of Lhe opporLunlLy Lo engage ln lnsLaLe acLlvlLles ulsLrlbuLlng magazlnes
wlLhln a sLaLe (keeLon v PusLler Magazlne)
SLream of Commerce debaLe WhaL happens when a u's goods reach Lhe forum sLaLe Lhrough a sLream of
commerce? 1hls generally happens ln Lwo ways
a An ouLof sLaLe componenL manufacLurer sells componenLs Lo a manufacLurer of a flnlshed producL
ln anoLher sLaLe 1haL manufacLurer lncorporaLes Lhe componenL lnLo a flnlshed producL and Lhe
flnlshed producLs are dlsLrlbuLed wlLhln Lhe forum sLaLe (Lhls occurred ln Ashal MeLal lndusLry Co v
Superlor CourL)
b A manufacLurer sells flnlshed producLs Lo a wholesaler ln anoLher sLaLe 1he wholesaler Lhen re
sells Lo a reLaller ln Lhe forum sLaLe and Lhe reLaller resells Lo Lhe consumer
ln Lhese slLuaLlons Lhe flrsL parLy dld noL lLself lmporL Lhe producL Lo Lhe forum sLaLe buL sold a producL Lo
oLhers who dld 1he manufacLurer or componenL manufacLurer may know resales Lake place ln Lhe forum
sLaLe may llkely know or may noL care abouL Lhe flnal desLlnaLlon of lLs producL
Asahl ma[orlLy sald LhaL Lhe mere awareness LhaL Lhe sLream of commerce may sweep goods lnLo Lhe forum
sLaLe afLer Lhey leave Lhe u's hands ls lnsufflclenL Lo saLlsfy purposeful avallmenL clearer evldence ls requlred Lo
serve Lhe markeL ln a cerLaln sLaLe such as deslgnlng Lhe producL for Lhe markeL ln LhaL sLaLe or adverLlslng Lhere

CLher facLors consldered ln purposeful avallmenL (from Ashal flve facLor LesL for falr play)
8urden on Lhe u
lnLeresLs of Lhe forum sLaLe
lnLeresLs of Lhe
lnLersLaLe efflclency
lnLersLaLe pollcy lnLeresLs
Asahl sald even lf mlnlmum conLacLs are esLabllshed lL ls unreasonable Lo exerclse [urlsdlcLlon on Lhe unusual facLs of
Lhe case Conversely 8urger klng suggesLs LhaL when a u has purposely dlrecLed acLlvlLles Lo Lhe forum sLaLe
[urlsdlcLlon ls presumpLlvely reasonable and Lhe u wlll have Lo make a compelllng case LhaL oLher conslderaLlons make
Lhe exerclse of [urlsdlcLlon unreasonable

1he u musL have flrsL purposely avalled hlmself Lo conducL acLlvlLles ln Lhe forum sLaLe
lL ls only when such dellberaLe mlnlmum conLacLs exlsL beLween Lhe u and forum sLaLe LhaL oLher facLors wlll be
welghed ln deLermlnlng wheLher Lhe exerclse of [urlsdlcLlon would comporL wlLh falr play and subsLanLlal [usLlce

Lvery ! lssue lnvolves a LwosLep analysls
1 ls Lhere a sLaLe sLaLuLe LhaL auLhorlzes Lhe exerclse of ! under Lhe clrcumsLances?
2 lf Lhere ls would Lhe exerclse of ! be consLlLuLlonal under Lhe due process clause?

LCnC A8M S1A1u1LS
Are sLaLe sLaLuLes LhaL reach ouL of Lhe sLaLe Lo brlng nonresldenL us back lnLo Lhe sLaLe Lo defend Lhe lawsulL
All longarm sLaLuLes LhaL base ! on speclflc enumeraLed acLs requlre LhaL Lhe clalm sued upon arlse ouL of Lhe
acL lLself
LlmlLed lnsLaLe conLacLs only supporL [urlsdlcLlon over clalms LhaL arlse ouL of Lhose conLacLs (Lhls ls from Shoe)
8y echolng LhaL llmlLaLlon ln Lhe longarm sLaLuLe lLself Lhe leglslaLure ensures LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe wlll noL be used
Lo reach cases beyond Lhe consLlLuLlonal bounds of due process

!urlsdlcLlon over us based on acLs commlLLed ouLslde of Lhe sLaLe
SomeLlmes Lhese conLacLs wlll sufflce under Lhe due process clause
a lnLernaLlonal lns Co v McCee SC held LhaL an lnsurer's offer Lo relnsure Lo a pollcy holder ln
Callfornla was a dellberaLe reachlng ln LhaL lL supporLed [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe lnsurer
b 8urger klng v 8udzewlcz one of Lhe us was sub[ecL Lo [urlsdlcLlon because he esLabllshed a 20 year
franchlse relaLlonshlp Lo a lL franchlsor even Lhough Lhe u had never acLually gone Lo lL

Su8!LC1 MA11L8 !u8lSulC1lCn
Pow Lo deLermlne whaL courL has sub[ecL maLLer [urlsdlcLlon Lhe power Lo hear Lhe parLlcular Lype of case LhaL Lhe
plans Lo flle (ex sLaLe or federal courL?)
SLaLe courLs ln every sLaLe have a very broad [urlsdlcLlon Lo hear mosL Lypes of cases
8uL sLaLe sLaLuLes vary as Lo whlch courL wlLhln Lhe sLaLe hears Lhose clalms
unllke sLaLe courLs whlch exerclse very broad SM! Lhe Lype of cases LhaL federal courLs can hear ls exLremely llmlLed
Any case noL ln ArLlcle lll 2 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon musL be broughL ln sLaLe courL

1wo maln Lypes of [urlsdlcLlon for federal courLs
1 !urlsdlcLlon over cases arlslng under federal law
2 ulverslLy [urlsdlcLlon

!u8lSulC1lCn CvL8 CASLS A8lSlnC unuL8 lLuL8AL LAW
1wo quesLlons musL be asked Lo deLermlne wheLher a sulL can be flled ln federal courL
1 ls Lhls case one whlch consLlLuLlonally may be granLed Lo Lhe federal courLs because Lhe power Lo hear Lhem ls
granLed ln ArLlcle lll s2 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon?
2 lf yes has Congress acLually conveyed [urlsdlcLlon over Lhls Lype of case ln a federal sLaLuLe?

28 uSC s 1331 auLhorlzes [urlsdlcLlon over cases arlslng under Lhe ConsLlLuLlon laws or LreaLles of Lhe uS
a Cnly applles lf Lhe 's clalm requlres proof of federal law 1he sLaLuLe does noL confer [urlsdlcLlon on Lhe
federal dlsLrlcL courLs over cases LhaL lnvolve federal law unless Lhe federal lssue ls necessary Lo Lhe proof of
Lhe 's case
b lor a Lo sue ln federal courL under Lhe sLaLuLory LesL for arlslngunder" [urlsdlcLlon he musL asserL a clalm
LhaL arlses under federal law 1he clalm musL be based on ConsLlLuLlonal law or federal sLaLuLes Louls
nash 88 v MoLLley (1he MoLLleys were glven a llfeLlme pass Lo rlde on Lhe rallroad Congress laLer
ouLlawed llfeLlme rall passes and Lhe rallroad refused Lo honor Lhe MoLLley's pass Lhey broughL Lhe case ln
federal courL because Lhey assumed Lhe 8allroad's defense was LhaL honorlng Lhe pass vlolaLed Congress'
sLaLuLe and Lhus vlolaLed Lhe llfLh AmendmenL Powever Lhey lacked sub[ecL maLLer [urlsdlcLlon because
Lhe MoLLley's clalm arouse under sLaLe conLracL law noL federal law
Wellleaded Clalm 8ule
1he courL ls able Lo deLermlne aL Lhe ouLseL wheLher lL has [urlsdlcLlon based on Lhe clalms asserLed by Lhe
wlLhouL walLlng for Lhe u's answer
ln MoLLley lL was noL enough LhaL Lhe referred Lo federal law ln her complalnL because Lhey could have sLaLed
a perfecLly adequaLe clalm for rellef by alleglng only conLracL breach and demand for speclflc performance
!urlsdlcLlon under 28 uSC s 1331 musL be deLermlned from whaL necessarlly appears ln Lhe 's sLaLemenL of
hls own clalm ln Lhe blll or declaraLlon" noL from any anLlclpaLed defense Lhe complalnL alleges LhaL Lhe u wlll
asserL (1aylor v Anderson)

SLaLe Law Clalms 1urnlng on a SubsLanLlal lederal lssue
8eference Lo a federal sLaLuLe ln a sLaLe clalm ls lnsufflclenLly subsLanLlal Lo confer federal [urlsdlcLlon under 28
uSC s 1331
a Merrell uow harmaceuLlcals lnc v 1hompson Lhe 's complalnL alleged a sLaLe cause of acLlon
(negllgence) buL lL asserLed LhaL Lhe s could prove Lhelr cause of acLlon by showlng LhaL Lhe u
vlolaLed Lhe sLandard governlng warnlngs ln Lhe federal sLaLuLe (luCA)
8uL a federal courL can hear clalms recognlzed under sLaLe law LhaL Lurn on subsLanLlal quesLlons of federal law
SomeLlmes Lhe need Lo resolve an lssue of federal law Lo prove a sLaLe cause of acLlon wlll supporL federal
[urlsdlcLlon
b Crable Sons MeLal roducLs lnc v uarue Lnglneerlng ManufacLurlng Pere Lhe federal
governmenL Look away 's properLy for nonpaymenL of Laxes and conveyed LhaL properLy Lo Lhe u
s broughL an acLlon Lo quleL LlLle alleglng LhaL Lhe conveyance was noL valld because had noL
recelved proper noLlce of Lhe sale under Lhe federal sLaLuLe auLhorlzlng sales for nonpaymenL of
Laxes 1he courL held LhaL Lhe 's acLlon arose under sLaLe law a LradlLlonal properLy acLlon Lo quleL
LlLle Powever Lhe could only esLabllsh lLs rlghL Lo reclalm LlLle by provlng a proposlLlon of federal
law WheLher Crable was glven noLlce wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe federal sLaLuLe ls Lhus an essenLlal
elemenL of lLs quleL LlLle clalm and Lhe meanlng of Lhe federal sLaLuLe ls acLually ln dlspuLe"

ulvL8Sl1? !u8lSulC1lCn
uescrlbed ln ArLlcle lll 2 as cases beLween clLlzens of dlfferenL sLaLes
ln dlverslLy cases Lhe sub[ecL maLLer [urlsdlcLlon of federal courLs ls deflned by who Lhe parLles are raLher Lhan
Lhe sub[ecL maLLer of Lhe underlylng dlspuLe A may seek recovery on any Lheory/clalm so long as Lhe u ls
dlverse and Lhe clalm ls for more Lhan $73000
a 73000 requlremenL whaL lf one 's clalm ls for over $73000 and an co [olns and hls clalm ls for
less? 1he courL has supplemenLal [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe co only ln a case agalnsL a slngle u
b As long as one asserLs a clalm LhaL saLlsfles Lhe amounL requlremenL oLhers may [oln as cos
even Lhough Lhey are seeklng less (Lxxon Mobll v AllapaLLah Servlces)
c Powever Lhe converse when a seeks over $73k for u1 and less Lhan $73k for u2 Lhe amounL
requlremenL ls noL saLlsfled for u2
lederal courLs may assume only LhaL porLlon of ArLlcle lll 2 [udlclal power LhaL Congress by sLaLuLe enLrusLs Lo Lhem
1he sLaLuLory granL of dlverslLy [urlsdlcLlon has hlsLorlcally been narrower Lhan Lhe consLlLuLlonal granL of dlverslLy
[urlsdlcLlon
Congress has granLed Lo Lhe federal courLs some buL noL all of Lhe ArLlcle lll dlverslLy [urlsdlcLlon
28 uSC 1332 ls narrower Lhan ArLlcle lll 2 ln LhaL lL requlres an amounL ln conLroversy requlremenL whlle
ArLlcle lll auLhorlzes [urlsdlcLlon over all dlverslLy cases regardless of Lhe sum ln dlspuLe
ulverslLy [urlsdlcLlon ls allowed under ArLlcle lll as long as some opposlng parLles Lo Lhe acLlon are dlverse
(SLaLe larm llre CasualLy v 1ashlre)

uLllnlnC Cl1lZLn
eople
a A person's domlclle ls Lhe sLaLe where he has Laken up resldence wlLh lnLenL Lo reslde lndeflnlLely
b Pavlng a resldence ln a sLaLe ls necessary buL noL sufflclenL Lo esLabllsh a domlclle for dlverslLy
purposes
c ln addlLlon sub[ecLlve lnLenL Lo sLay lndeflnlLely ls necessary buL lnsufflclenL lL musL colnclde wlLh
physlcal presence wlLhln Lhe domlclle
CorporaLlons
a 28 uSC 1332(c) provldes a sLaLuLory deflnlLlon of Lhe sLaLe clLlzenshlp of corporaLlons for
dlverslLy purposes
b 28 uSC 1332(c)(1) says corporaLlons are now clLlzens for dlverslLy purposes of boLh Lhe sLaLe
where Lhelr prlnclpal place of buslness ls locaLed and Lhe sLaLe ln whlch Lhey are lncorporaLed
c lor corporaLlons where lL ls hard Lo ascerLaln a prlnclpal place of buslness lf Lhere ls a deflnable
cenLer of Lhe producLlve acLlvlLles of Lhe corporaLlon LhaL ls Lhe manufacLurlng or oLher proflL
maklng acLlvlLy LhaL Lhe corporaLlon ls engaged ln mosL courLs Lend Lo choose LhaL sLaLe


! Anu S! CCMA8Lu
1hree baslc requlremenLs LhaL llmlL Lhe proper courLs for any lawsulL
1 1he need Lo flnd a courL LhaL can exerclse ! over Lhe u
2 1he musL choose a courL LhaL has SM! over Lhe klnu of case she wlshes Lo llLlgaLe noL all courLs can hear all
Lypes of cases
3 1he chosen forum musL be a proper venue under Lhe appllcable venue sLaLuLe

! ls a geographlcal llmlLaLlon on Lhe places a may choose Lo sue a u for a parLlcular clalm
S! concerns Lhe courL's auLhorlLy Lo hear generlc Lypes of cases
a lf SM! were Lhe only llmlL on Lhe 's rlghL Lo sue she could brlng a case arlslng under federal law ln any
federal courL ln Lhe counLry because all federal courLs have [urlsdlcLlon over clalms arlslng under federal
laws
b Powever ArLlcle lll 2 under dlverslLy [urlsdlcLlon allows federal courLs Lo hear cases based on where Lhe
parLles are from
1 Why ls Lhls dlfferenL from !? 8ecause lL does noL focus on Lhe geographlcal relaLlonshlp of Lhe
evenLs glvlng rlse Lo Lhe sulL Lo Lhe sLaLe where sulL ls broughL buL broadly granLs SM! Lo any federal
courL no maLLer where locaLed so long as Lhe case ls beLween clLlzens of dlfferenL sLaLes
2 lf Lhe crlLerla for SM! are meL any federal courL wlll have SM! over Lhe clalm alLhough many wlll noL
have ! over Lhe u
8oLh ! and SM! lnvolve Lhe concepL of domlclle
a uomlclle ls Lhe lasL sLaLe where Lhe person esLabllshed a resldence wlLh Lhe lnLenL Lo reslde lndeflnlLely
b ! a person ls sub[ecL Lo ! ln Lhe sLaLe where she ls domlclled
1 1he courL wlll ask wheLher Lhe u's domlclle ls ln Lhe same sLaLe where Lhe sulL ls broughL
c S! dlverslLy [urlsdlcLlon also requlres domlclle
1 1he courL wlll slmply compare Lhe 's domlclle Lo Lhe u's domlclle Lo make sure Lhey are noL Lhe
same

A courL of general [urlsdlcLlon (ex Lrlal level sLaLe courLs) ls a courL LhaL has very broad sub[ecL maLLer [urlsdlcLlon over
many dlfferenL Lypes of sulLs unless
a 1he Lype of dlspuLe has been delegaLed Lo a speclallzed sLaLe courL or
b ls wlLhln Lhose few caLegorles of cases ln whlch Congress has made federal SM! excluslve
8y conLrasL when used ln Lhe ! conLexL general [urlsdlcLlon refers Lo Lhe auLhorlLy of a sLaLe's courLs Lo hear any clalm
agalnsL a parLlcular u wheLher or noL lL ls relaLed Lo Lhe u's lnsLaLe conLacLs

L8SCnAL !u8lSulC1lCn ln lLuL8AL CCu81S
1he 14
Lh
AmendmenL due process clause does noL llmlL Lhe federal courLs' power Lo exerclse !
uue process clause applles CnL? Lo sLaLes
Powever federal courLs ! ls llmlLed by Lhe 3
Lh
AmendmenL
a A u need only Lo have an approprlaLe relaLlonshlp Lo Lhe uS (ex domlclled ln Lhe uS or havlng
mlnlmum conLacLs here LhaL glve rlse Lo Lhe clalm) Lo have ! ln federal courLs
unless a speclal [urlsdlcLlon enacLed by Congress governlng parLlcular Lypes of acLlons applles Lhe auLhorlLy of
Lhe federal courLs Lo exerclse ! over ouLofsLaLe us ls llmlLed by Lhe lederal 8ules of Clvll rocedure
a l8C 4(k)(1)(A) says a federal courL ls auLhorlzed Lo exerclse [urlsdlcLlon over a u who ls sub[ecL Lo
Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of a courL of general [urlsdlcLlon ln Lhe sLaLe where Lhe dlsLrlcL courL ls locaLed So
Lhe federal courL may exerclse ! only Lo Lhe exLenL lL could be exerclsed by Lhe courLs of Lhe sLaLe
ln whlch Lhe federal courL slLs
(* go over examples ln book p114)




8LMCvAL
8emoval ls an excepLlon Lo Lhe 's cholce of forum
AuLhorlzes Lransfer from Lhe sLaLe courL sysLem Lo Lhe federal courL sysLem ln a sLaLe
Allows u Lo second guess Lhe forum afLer a has chosen a sLaLe courL by removlng some Lypes of cases from Lhe
sLaLe courL Lo federal courL
Cnce removed Lhe case becomes a federal case and Lhe sLaLe loses [urlsdlcLlon over lL
28 uSC 1441(a) only auLhorlzes removal of sLaLe courL acLlons of whlch Lhe dlsLrlcL courLs of Lhe uS have
orlglnal [urlsdlcLlon
a lf Lhe could noL lnlLlally choose Lo brlng Lhe acLlon ln federal courL Lhe u cannoL remove lL
b lf Lhe could have lnlLlally chosen Lo brlng Lhe clalm ln federal courL because Lhere ls dlverslLy or a
federal quesLlon Lhen Lhe u can remove lL however
1 28 uSC 1441(b) says a dlverslLy case ls only removable lf none of Lhe parLles ln lnLeresL
properly [olned and served as us ls a clLlzen of Lhe SLaLe ln whlch such acLlon ls broughL lf a
u ls sued ln hls home sLaLe he cannoL remove on Lhe basls of dlverslLy
2 1441 (f) says Lhe federal courL ls noL precluded from hearlng Lhe case slmply because Lhe
sLaLe courL lacked [urlsdlcLlon over lL
1here ls only one courL LhaL a sLaLe courL case LhaL saLlsfles [urlsdlcLlonal requlremenLs for removal can be removed Lo
1he only courL LhaL can hosL a removed acLlon ls Lhe federal dlsLrlcL for Lhe dlsLrlcL and dlvlslon embraclng Lhe
place where such acLlon ls pendlng ln Lhe sLaLe courL 28 uSC 1441(a)
?ou can'L remove Lo anoLher sLaLe courL or Lo a sLaLe courL ln anoLher sLaLe
?ou can'L remove Lo a federal courL ln anoLher sLaLe or ln anoLher dlsLrlcL wlLhln Lhe same sLaLe
1hus removal only parLlally dlsplaces Lhe 's cholce of forum Pe sLlll geLs Lo choose Lhe sLaLe where Lhe acLlon wlll be
llLlgaLed even lf he ends up ln federal courL ln LhaL sLaLe due Lo removal by Lhe u
8emoval applles Lo cases noL clalms lf removed Lhe enLlre case ls removed
A u cannoL remove from federal courL Lo sLaLe courL
*lper AlrcrafL Co v 8eyno (p127)
rocedure for 8emoval ls lald ouL ln 1446


vLnuL
under 8urnham v Superlor CourL of Callfornla personal servlce ln anoLher sLaLe (such as someone who Lravels a greaL
deal for work so LhaL she could be personally served wlLh process ls oLher sLaLes) would probably sufflce Lo supporL
[urlsdlcLlon ln LhaL sLaLe

venue rules furLher resLrlcL Lhe 's cholce of where Lo sue Lo assure LhaL sulLs are Lrled ln a place LhaL bears some
senslble relaLlonshlp Lo Lhe clalms asserLed or Lo Lhe parLles Lo Lhe acLlon
Lvery sLaLe and federal courL sysLem has venue rules generally esLabllshed by sLaLuLe
a 1hey ofLen provlde LhaL cases musL be broughL ln Lhe counLy where one of Lhe parLles resldes or
does buslness where Lhe clalm arose or where properLy ln dlspuLe ls locaLed

28 uSC 1391 1PL lLuL8AL vLnuL S1A1u1L
1391(a) whlch governs venue ln dlverslLy cases auLhorlzes venue ln
1 A [udlclal dlsLrlcL where any u resldes lf all us reslde ln Lhe same sLaLe
2 A [udlclal dlsLrlcL ln whlch a subsLanLlal parL of Lhe evenLs or omlsslons glvlng rlse Lo Lhe clalm
occurred or a subsLanLlal parL of properLy LhaL ls Lhe sub[ecL of Lhe acLlon ls slLuaLed or
3 A [udlclal dlsLrlcL ln whlch any u ls sub[ecL Lo ! aL Lhe Llme Lhe acLlon ls commenced lf Lhere ls no
dlsLrlcL ln whlch Lhe acLlon may be oLherwlse broughL
1391(b) governs all oLher cases (where [urlsdlcLlon ls noL founded solely on dlverslLy of clLlzenshlp) and
provldes LhaL such cases may be broughL ln
1 A [udlclal dlsLrlcL where any u resldes lf all us reslde ln Lhe same sLaLe
2 A [udlclal dlsLrlcL ln whlch a subsLanLlal parL of Lhe evenLs or omlsslons glvlng rlse Lo Lhe clalm
occurred or a subsLanLlal parL of properLy LhaL ls Lhe sub[ecL of Lhe acLlon ls slLuaLed or
3 A [udlclal dlsLrlcL ln whlch any u may be found lf Lhere ls no dlsLrlcL ln whlch Lhe acLlon may
oLherwlse be broughL
venue based on lndlvldual resldence (1391 (a)(1) 1391 (b)(1))
AuLhorlze venue ln any dlsLrlcL where any u resldes lf Lhey all reslde ln Lhe same sLaLe
Cne of Lhe us musL llve ln Lhe dlsLrlcL and Lhey all musL llve ln Lhe same sLaLe
venue based on evenLs or omlsslons glvlng rlse Lo Lhe clalm (1391 (a)(2) and (b)(2))
1he subsLanLlal" parL language used would presumably auLhorlze venue ln Lhe dlsLrlcL where Lhe declslon Lo
markeL Lhe lnfrlnglng producL was made and ln dlsLrlcLs where Lhe producL ls sold (Lx ln producLs llablllLy case
Lhls would probably auLhorlze venue boLh ln Lhe dlsLrlcL where Lhe producL was manufacLured Lhe dlsLrlcL
where Lhe producL caused ln[ury)
1he purpose of Lhls venue provlslon ls Lo assure relaLlon beLween Lhe underlylng evenLs LhaL are llLlgaLed and
Lhe place where Lhe case ls Lrled
lallback provlslons ln 1391 (a)(3) and (b)(3)
8oLh of Lhese are fallback provlslons LhaL apply only lf Lhere ls no dlsLrlcL anywhere ln Lhe uS ln whlch Lhe case
can be broughL under Lhe oLher subsecLlons of Lhe sLaLuLe

1hree oLher lmporLanL polnLs
1 venue llke ! ls a personal prlvllege of Lhe u whlch may be walved
a u walves hls ob[ecLlon Lo venue by falllng Lo ralse lL when respondlng Lo 's complalnL
b arLles may agree ln advance Lo a parLlcular venue for sulLs LhaL may arlse beLween Lhem
A lorum selecLlon clauses Many ks have forum selecLlon clauses LhaL have generally been
held enforceable ln Lhe federal courLs even lf Lhey lay venue ln a dlsLrlcL LhaL would noL be
proper under 1391 (Carnlval Crulse Llnes v ShuLe upheld a forum selecLlon clause ln
absence of showlng unfalrness)
2 1391 (a) and (b) provlslons apply Lo dlverslLy and oLher federal cases LxcepL as oLherwlse provlded by law
a Speclallzed venue provlslons govern many Lypes of clalms LhaL appear Lo be covered by 1391 (ex
speclal venue provlslons ln sLaLuLes govern paLenL lnfrlngemenL clalms copyrlghL sulLs lnLerpleader
acLlons and acLlons agalnsL federal offlclals)
b Speclal venue provlslons may be excluslve (speclfles Lhe CnL? proper venue for Lhe acLlon) or Lhey
may supplemenL Lhe general venue sLaLuLe
3 LxcepLlon Lo Lhe general venue sLaLuLe for local acLlons"
a Local acLlons musL be prosecuLed ln Lhe counLy or dlsLrlcL ln whlch Lhe land ls locaLed
b 1he federal courLs conLlnue Lo dlsLlngulsh beLween LranslLory acLlons" (Lhe vasL ma[orlLy sulLs LhaL
are noL local and may be broughL ln any venue proper under Lhe sLaLuLe) and local acLlons (whlch
sLlll musL be broughL ln Lhe dlsLrlcL where Lhe land ls locaLed)
lederal venue provlslons baslcally requlre ln mosL cases LhaL Lhe us musL be sued ln a dlsLrlcL where Lhey reslde or
where lmporLanL evenLs relevanL Lo Lhe sulL Look place ln a rough way Lhese provlslons assure some reasonable
connecLlon beLween Lhe courL where Lhe sulL may be broughL and Lhe sulL lLself

vLnuL ln CASLS lnvCLvlnC CC8C8A1lCnS
28 uSC 1391(c)
Applles only Lo corporaLe us
ueflnes resldence as any dlsLrlcL ln whlch Lhe corporaLlon ls sub[ecL Lo !
lL applles resldence Lo sLaLes wlLh more Lhan one [udlclal dlsLrlcL
(p130)

PCW ! SM! Anu vLnuL WC8k 1CCL1PL8
Lach of Lhree docLrlnes has a dlfferenL legal source serves a dlsLlncL purpose and employs a dlfferenL sLandard
a 1he llmlLs on federal SM! are found ln ArLlcle lll 2 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon whlch auLhorlzes federal
[urlsdlcLlon over cerLaln llmlLed 1?LS of cases
b ! arlses from due process llmlLaLlons ln Lhe 14
Lh
AmendmenL and llmlLs Lhe power of sLaLes Lo
requlre ouLofsLaLe us Lo defend sulLs ln Lhelr courLs
c venue does noL have a consLlLuLlonal source lL ls a sLaLuLory llmlL LhaL lmposes separaLe consLralnLs
on Lhe place of Lrlal Lo proLecL parLles from lnconvenlenL llLlgaLlon
(* go over Lxamples on p162)


SuLLMLn1AL !u8lSulC1lCn
!olnder rules allow clalms Lo be [olned Powever a courL musL have SM! over a clalm Lo hear lL
CfLen rules wlll allow clalms Lo be [olned when Lhere ls no lndependenL basls of SM! 1hls causes a dllemma for Lhe
courLs 1he efflclency goals of Lhe 8ules favor lncluslon of Lhe relaLed clalms buL Lhe need for SM! appears Lo bar Lhe
courL from hearlng Lhem
Lxample 1 asserLs Lwo clalms lnvolvlng Lhe same occurrence agalnsL nondlverse u one ln sLaLe and Lhe oLher
under federal law 1he sLaLe law clalm has no lndependenL basls for federal SM! buL Lhe federal clalm does
under 1331 1he clalms are properly [olned under 18(a)
Lxample 2 brlngs federal clalm and u brlngs counLerclalm under sLaLe law
Lxample 3 brlngs auLo accldenL clalm agalnsL dlverse u whlch would be federal law under 1332 buL u
lmpleads a Lhlrd drlver from Lhe same sLaLe as u under 14(a)(1) and Lhls u has no lndependenL basls for federal
[urlsdlcLlon
1wo docLrlnes evolved Lo supporL supplemenLal [urlsdlcLlon over such relaLed clalms ln federal courL
1 endenL !urlsdlcLlon
a lnvolves clalms where a asserLs a [urlsdlcLlonally proper clalm a nondlverse parLy and added on a
relaLed sLaLe law clalm (Lxample 1)
b unlLed Mlne Workers v Clbbs esLabllshed guldellnes for Lhe exerclse of [urlsdlcLlon over pendenL
clalms
l arL Cne 1he courL held LhaL ArLlcle lll granLs [urlsdlcLlon over enLlre cases lf a case
lncludes a clalm LhaL ls [urlsdlcLlonally proper under ArLlcle lll Lhe courL has
consLlLuLlonal power Lo hear Lhe enLlre dlspuLe beLween Lhe parLles
ll arL 1wo Cnce a [udge deLermlnes he has Lhe power Lo hear Lhe relaLed clalm because
lL ls parL of Lhe same case he musL deLermlne wheLher lL makes sense Lo exerclse LhaL
[urlsdlcLlon lederal courLs are noL requlred Lo enLerLaln Lhe relaLed clalms 1he
dlscreLlonary declslon depends on facLors such as whlch clalm predomlnaLes wheLher lL
would requlre Lhe courL Lo declde senslLlve or novel lssues of sLaLe law wheLher hearlng
Lhe clalms LogeLher would confuse Lhe [ury wheLher Lhe federal lssues are resolved
early ln Lhe case leavlng only a sLaLe clalm for declslon 1hese facLors may lead a courL
Lo conclude LhaL whlle lL had power under Lhe flrsL parL of Clbbs Lo enLerLaln Lhe
pendenL clalm lL should refuse ln lLs dlscreLlon Lo do so
2 Anclllary !urlsdlcLlon
a Where relaLed clalms are asserLed by us or oLher addlLlonal parLles afLer Lhe lnlLlal complalnL
(Lxamples 23)
b ln Moore v n? CoLLon Lxchange Lhe sued u under a federal clalm and u counLerclalmed wlLh a
clalm under sLaLe law 1he parLles were noL dlverse and Lhere was no oLher lndependenL federal
[urlsdlcLlon over Lhe counLerclalm buL Lhe courL upheld Lhe [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe counLerclalm 1he
close connecLlon beLween Lhe orlglnal [urlsdlcLlonally proper clalm and Lhe added clalm made Lhem
parL of a slngle consLlLuLlonal case
c Anclllary [urlsdlcLlon was laLer exLended Lo many clalms asserLed by defendlng parLles LhaL bore a
loglcal relaLlonshlp" Lo Lhe maln clalm Loglcally relaLed clalms lncluded Lhose made under 8ules
14 13g 24 (buL noL 13(b) permlsslve counLerclalms because such clalms arose from dlfferenL
evenLs)

1hree Cases LhaL furLher llmlLed SupplemenLal !urlsdlcLlon
Aldlnger v Poward Cwen v kroger llnley v unlLed SLaLes
1hese cases held LhaL lL was noL enough for Lhe courL Lo have consLlLuLlonal power Lo hear Lhe clalms Lhey
requlred sLaLuLory auLhorlLy Lo exerclse LhaL [urlsdlcLlon as well

SLaLuLory 8asls for SupplemenLal !urlsdlcLlon ln lederal CourLs
28 uSC 1367
8y enacLlng 1367 Congress provlded Lhe necessary sLaLuLory auLhorlLy Lo hear Lhe relaLed clalms
(1367 baslcally raLlfled Lhe declslon from Clbbs)
1367(a) says supplemenLal [urlsdlcLlon applles Lo all oLher clalms ln Lhe acLlon wlLh such orlglnal [urlsdlcLlon
LhaL Lhey form parL of Lhe same case or conLroversy under ArLlcle lll such clalms shall lnclude [olnder or
lnLervenLlon of addlLlonal parLles
1367(b) says supplemenLal [urlsdlcLlon shall noL exLend Lo cerLaln clalms by s ln dlverslLy cases even lf Lhe
clalm ls wlLhln 1367(a)
a 1he courL may noL hear clalms by s agalnsL persons made parLles under 8ule 14 19 20 or 24 of
Lhe l8C or over clalms of persons proposed Lo be s under 8ule 19 of such rules or seeklng Lo
lnLervene as s under 8ule 24 of such rules when exerclslng supplemenLal [urlsdlcLlon over such
clalms would be lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe [urlsdlcLlonal requlremenLs of 1332
1hree parL analysls under 1337
1 1he courL musL deLermlne wheLher Lhere ls consLlLuLlonal power under ArLlcle lll 2 Lo hear Lhe
supplemenLal clalm
a ConsLlLuLlonal power Lo hear a relaLed clalm exlsLs lf Lhere ls a proper clalm wlLhln Lhe
[urlsdlcLlon of Lhe federal courL Lhe relaLed clalm arlses from Lhe same nucleus of
operaLlve facLs
2 1he courL musL deLermlne wheLher Lhere ls a sLaLuLory granL of [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe relaLed clalm
a 1337(a) granLs [urlsdlcLlon over all relaLed clalms LhaL are parL of Lhe same case" As long
as Lhe federal courL has a basls for orlglnal [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe case 1367(a) broadly
granLs sLaLuLory auLhorlLy Lo hear relaLed sLaLe clalms LhaL meeL Lhe Clbbs consLlLuLlonal
LesL
b Powever under 1337(b) cerLaln clalms ln dlverslLy cases whlch would conLradlcL Lhe llmlLs
on [urlsdlcLlon ln 1332 are excepLed
3 Cnce a courL deLermlnes LhaL lL has consLlLuLlonal and sLaLuLory auLhorlLy Lo hear Lhe relaLed clalms
lL musL declde based on Lhe varlous dlscreLlonary facLors ln LhaL secLlon wheLher Lo do so (facLors
ln 1367(c) and Clbbs analysls parL 2)
Lxamples (p319 333)


S1A1L LAW ln lLuL8AL CCu81S (L8lL)
ln dlverslLy cases where Lhe sulL can be broughL ln federal courL due solely Lo Lhe clLlzenshlp of parLles whaL law
applles? lederal? SLaLe?
roblem of subsLanLlve law Lo be applled ln dlverslLy cases
28 uSC 1632 1he 8ules of ueclslon AcL
Says sLaLe law applles excepL where Lhe consLlLuLlon LreaLles or sLaLuLes of Lhe uS shall oLherwlse requlre or
provlde

SwlfL v 1yson lnLerpreLed 1632 8uA more narrowly
1he [udge here held LhaL Lhe 8uA referred Lo sLaLe sLaLuLes (buL noL Lhe common law declslons of sLaLe courLs)
A federal courL would be bound under Lhe 8uA Lo apply sLaLe law ln a dlverslLy case
lf Lhere was no sLaLuLe (buL Lhe sLaLe supreme courL made a declslon on Lhe lssue) Lhe SwlfL courL held LhaL 8uA
dld noL blnd federal courLs Lo LhaL declslon
So ln SwlfL lf Lhe courL dldn'L apply A law Lo Lhe case Lhen whaL law was lL Lo apply?
1he [udge held LhaL courLs look aL general common law Lo deLermlne Lhe approprlaLe prlnclple Lo apply Lo Lhe
case (Lhls ls someLhlng a Lrlal courL would do CnL? when Lhere ls no governlng precedenL on an lssue)
1he quesLlon ln SwlfL was noL WhaL ls n?'s rule on conslderaLlon for cancellaLlon of a debL?" buL raLher WhaL
ls Lhe proper common law rule wlLh regard Lo conslderaLlon for cancellaLlon of a debL?"
under Lhe SwlfL analysls federal courL [udges rouLlnely reached Lhelr own concluslons abouL Lhe proper rule ln
common law cases even lf Lhelr concluslons conLradlcLed governlng case law ln Lhe sLaLe ln whlch Lhey saL

L8lL CvL81u8nS SWll1
Lrle 8allroad Co v 1ompklns
SC held LhaL SwlfL's lnLerpreLaLlon of 8uA resLrlcLlng lLs scope Lo sLaLe sLaLuLes local usages led Lo an
unconsLlLuLlonal assumpLlon of power by federal courLs
under SwlfL federal courLs were maklng Lhe law ln many subsLanLlve areas LhaL Lhe ConsLlLuLlon leaves Lo Lhe
sLaLes
1he 8uA musL be lnLerpreLed Lo requlre federal courLs Lo apply noL only Lhe sLaLe sLaLuLes buL also Lhe common
law of Lhe sLaLe ln a dlverslLy case
Changed Lhe federal dlverslLy courLs from belng lawmaklng courLs Lo lawapplylng courLs

Pow ls a federal dlverslLy [udge supposed Lo deLermlne whaL Lhe law of Lhe sLaLe ls?
A [udge may choose noL Lo apply an older sLaLe case law declslon LhaL Lhe [udge ls cerLaln would noL be appllcable Loday

Whlch sLaLe's law?
klaxLon v SLenLor held LhaL a federal dlverslLy courL should use Lhe cholceoflaw rules of Lhe sLaLe ln whlch lL slLs
(Lx A n? federal dlverslLy courL should apply whaLever sLaLe subsLanLlve law LhaL Lhe n? sLaLe courL would apply
Lo Lhe case)
klaxLon reasoned LhaL Lrle requlred Lhe case come ouL Lhe same way ln federal courL LhaL lL would ln sLaLe
courLs of Lhe sLaLe where Lhe federal courL saL

Su8S1AnCL 8CCLuu8L Al1L8 ?C8k 8?8u PAnnA
Lrle esLabllshed LhaL federal courLs slLLlng ln dlverslLy should apply subsLanLlve law noL general common law
Cne problem ls Lo dlsLlngulsh whaL rules are subsLanLlve (so LhaL sLaLe law applles) and whlch are procedural (so
Lhe federal courL can apply lLs own rules/pracLlces even lf Lhe courL procedures are dlfferenL ln Lhe relevanL
sLaLe)
a Lx would a federal courL have Lo apply Lhe sLaLe's sLaLuLe of llmlLaLlons or federal sLaLuLe of
llmlLaLlons? Would lL have Lo use Lhe sLaLe's rules for pleadlngs burden of proof or dlscovery? Cr
do Lhe l8C apply?
CuaranLy 1rusL Co v ?ork (Lhe courL had Lo deLermlne wheLher or noL Lhe sLaLe sLaLuLe of llmlLaLlons applled Lo
a federal dlverslLy case ?ork's case mlghL go forward lf Lhe federal courL applled Lhe federal SCL buL Lhe case
was barred under Lhe sLaLe SCL 1he courL held LhaL Lhe federal courL should apply Lhe sLaLe SCL)
a 1he cholce of sLaLe or federal courL ln a case should noL affecL Lhe ouLcome of Lhe case
b under Lhls raLlonale lf federal pracLlce dlffers from sLaLe pracLlce Lhe courL should deLermlne
wheLher Lhe case would come ouL dlfferenLly lf lL applled lLs own rule lf lL would a federal dlverslLy
courL should use Lhe sLaLe rule lnsLead
c CuLcomedeLermlnaLlve LesL 1he federal courL should defer Lo a sLaLe rule lf lgnorlng lL could lead
Lhe case Lo come ouL dlfferenLly ln federal courL Lhan lL would ln a SLaLe courL a block away"
8yrd v 8lue 8ldge
a ln cases lnvolvlng procedural dlfferences beLween sLaLe and federal law Lhls pollcybased deference
could be ouLwelghed by lmporLanL pollces concernlng Lhe lnLegrlLy of Lhe federal courL sysLem
b Such balanclng would only be approprlaLe however for maLLers of form and mode" lssues of
courL procedure ln processlng cases noL for maLLers closely relaLed Lo subsLanLlve rlghLs
c As Lo maLLers wlLh subsLanLlve rlghLs Lrle ?ork conLlnued Lo mandaLe use of sLaLe law
Panna v lumber
a Modlfled ouLcomedeLermlnaLlve LesL 1he [udge should conslder wheLher applylng Lhe federal
approach raLher Lhan Lhe sLaLe rule would lead Lo forum shopplng and lnequlLable admlnlsLraLlon
of Lhe law" 1he [udge should ask wheLher Lhe llLlganL before flllng sulL would have slgnlflcanLly
greaLer llLlgaLlon opporLunlLles ln federal courL lf LhaL courL followed lLs own pracLlce lnsLead of
sLaLe law on Lhe dlspuLed lssue lf Lhe federal approach were a maLLer of [udlclal pracLlce Lhe
federal courL could follow LhaL pracLlce even Lhough sLaLe law was dlfferenL
b Analysls for when sLaLe law confllcLs wlLh l8C lf a rule ls procedural Lhen l8C apply buL noL lf lL
lmplnges on subsLanLlve rlghLs

lCu8 1?LS Cl CCnlLlC1S 8L1WLLn lLuL8AL 8CvlSlCnS S1A1L LAW
1 ConfllcLs beLween a lederal ConsLlLuLlonal rovlslon SLaLe Law
a lf Lhe ConsLlLuLlon mandaLes a pracLlce dlfferenL from sLaLe law Lhe consLlLuLlonal requlremenL
prevalls
2 ConfllcLs beLween a lederal SLaLuLe and SLaLe Law
a 1he Congress has Lhe consLlLuLlonal auLhorlLy Lo enacL sLaLuLes governlng procedure ln Lhe federal
courLs lf whlle falllng ln Lhe uncerLaln area beLween subsLance procedure Lhey are raLlonally
capable of classlflcaLlon as elLher lf Lhls arguably procedural" LesL ls meL Lhe sLaLuLe musL be
applled lf lL confllcLs wlLh sLaLe pracLlce because Congress has Lhe auLhorlLy Lo enacL Lhe sLaLuLe
and valld federal sLaLuLes are Lhe supreme law of Lhe land" even lf Lhey confllcL wlLh sLaLe law
(Panna ArLlcle vl p2)
3 ConfllcLs beLween a lederal 8ule SLaLe Law
a Congress has Lhe consLlLuLlonal power Lo auLhorlze Lhe SC Lo adopL a lederal 8ule lf Lhe 8ule ls
raLlonally capable of classlflcaLlon" as a procedural regulaLlon (Pannah)
b 1he lederal 8ules are valld unless Lhey abrldge enlarge or modlfy a subsLanLlve rlghL under Lhe
second subsecLlon of Lhe 8LA
4 ConfllcLs beLween a lederal !udlclal racLlce SLaLe Law
a under Lrle such federal pracLlces are lnvalld lf Lhey purporL Lo esLabllsh rules of prlmary behavlor
whlch Lhere ls no federal consLlLuLlonal power Lo make
b ln oLher cases where Lhe pracLlce relaLes Lo Lhe conducL of llLlgaLlon Panna lndlcaLes LhaL a
dlverslLy courL should generally apply Lhe sLaLe rule lf Lhe dlfference beLween lL and Lhe federal
pracLlce could prove ouLcomedeLermlnaLlve" ln Lhe sense LhaL followlng a separaLe federal
pracLlce could lead Lo forum shopplng or lnequlLable admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe laws

ulrecL ConfllcL wlLh lederal 8ules
Walker v Armco SLeel Corp (Pere Lhe sLaLe pracLlce sald Lhe musL flle sulL wlLhln Lhe llmlLaLlons perlod and
serve process ln acLlon on Lhe u wlLhln 60 days Lo avold belng barred 1he l8C 3 says Lhe acLlon ls commenced
by flllng a complalnL wlLh Lhe courL 1he courL avolded Lhe problem of Lhe Lwo rules collldlng by holdlng LhaL Lhe
l8C3 dld noL address Lhe lssue of meeLlng Lhe llmlLaLlons perlod lL esLabllshes Lhe daLe for compuLlng varlous
Llme llmlLs under Lhe 8ules such as Lhe Llme Lo answer Lhe complalnL buL does noL affecL sLaLe sLaLuLe
llmlLaLlons 1here was no dlrecL colllslon