Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Fed. Civ Pro Midterm
Modules 1-13
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| General Jurisdiction | Step 1 in Personal Jurisdiction analysis. Individual and Corporation. (Pennoyer, Milikin vs. Meyer, Carnival Cruise Line) |
| Specific Jurisdiction | Step 2 in Personal Jurisdiction analysis. Same rules apply to individuals and corporations--1)LAS, 2)Minimum Contacts, 3)Fair Play Factors/Due Process. (Gibbons vs. Brown, WWV, International Shoe, Asahi Metal, Hanson vs. Deckla, McIntyre) |
| Notice of Service & Process | Defendant must be conveyed nature of complaint against them and afforded a reasonable time for due process. |
| Pennoyer vs. Neff | Tag jurisdiction (general jurisdiction). Served with summons and complaint in the state. (also Burnham vs. Superior Court) |
| International Shoe vs. Washington | Established the Minimum Contacts Test. Defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum state and traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice are not being violated. |
| Hanson vs. Denckla | Purposeful availment toward the forum state. Specific Jurisdiction. |
| In rem proceeding | When the property seized to establish personal jurisdiction is the subject of the lawsuit. Last step in Personal Jurisdiction Analysis if General and Specific Jurisdiction do not apply. |
| J.McIntyre vs. Nicastro | stream of commerce + ... targeting a forum state, purposeful availament, etc. Mere awareness that the product may end up in the forum state is not sufficient to show this. |
| World Wide Volkswagen Corp. vs. Woodson | If there are minimum contacts, does asserting PJ offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice/ violate Fair Play Factors? (Burden on defendant, interest in forum state to resolve claims, judicial economy-witnesses & evidence) |
| Fair Play Factors | Burden on the defendant in resolving claims in the forum, judicial economy--can witnesses & evidence be found in the forum, interests of the forum in resolving the claim, substantive social polices between states, etc. |
| Purposeful Conduct | Minimum contacts in a stream of commerce case means that the company is targeting the forum, solicits business, advertised products, travels between forum to get to destinations regularly, sells through a distributor, etc. |
| Abdouch vs. Lopez | Sliding Scale Test and Caldor Effects Test. Established ways to assert personal jurisdiction over ppl through internet transactions. |
| Sliding Scale Test | Considers websites interactivity and the nature of the commercial activities conducted over the internet to determine if courts have PJ over nonresidents. Knowing and repeated transmission of files over the internet satisfies test. |
| Caldor Effects Test | Defendants tortious acts can serve as a source of PJ when acts were committed intentionally outside the forum state, expressly aimed at the forum state, and caused harm, which was mostly suffered in the forum state |
| BSNF Railway vs. Tyrrell | Created the Comparative Contacts Analysis. Basically renders a corporation "at home" based on contacts with the forum state. Replaced the original Daimler standard. |
| Waiver/Consent | Applies to both individuals and corporations. Waiver --failing to properly object to PJ, if you waive your right then you can be subject to PJ. Consent--agree to be subject to PJ in a forum. (Carnival Cruise Line) |
| "Citizen" | Mas vs. Perry defined what it means to be a citizen in regard to Diversity Jurisdiction. Resident of and domiciled in United States. Must have intent to remain in forum. |
| Forum Selection Clauses | Limit forum to a single location. (Carnival Cruise Line) |
| Arbitration Clauses | Take disputes out of the hands of the judicial system and place them in a arbitration system largely beyond judicial review. |
| Consent by Registration | Most states require foreign corporations to register with the state in order to conduct business there. Foreign corp must name an agent for service of process within the state (Mallory vs. Norfolk Southern Railway) |
| Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. vs. Shute | Forum selection clauses are followed. Court could refuse to enforce it if it finds reason to believe bad faith. (Consent) |
| Long Arm Statute (LAS) | State statute that allows a court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant only when the state or fed. gov authorizes it to. State reaches beyond its own borders when authorized too. Blanket & Enumerated. Only needs to be analyzed when enumerated LAS. |
| New York Civil Practice Laws & Rules (CPLR) §302 | New York State long arm statute explained. |
| Gibbons vs. Brown | LAS. |
| LaMarca vs. Pak-Mor Manufacturing | LAS. |
| First Step in analyzing Specific Jurisdiction? | Analyze the Long Arm Statute of state to see if it applies to assert PJ. |
| Minimum Contacts | Purposeful availment, targeted at state, tons of business revenue/sales, advertising, the claim arises out of these minimum contacts with the forum state? |
| Mullane vs. Central Hanover Bank | Established that service of process be reasonably convey required info to the defendant and in such a manner that it affords a reasonable time for due process for the defendant. |
| Hollow vs. Hollow | Court says service by email is okay because it was the last resort. Plaintiff made other unsuccessful attempts to serve defendant. |
| In re Noel | Court said that Facebook service to defendant was okay bc it was last resort option as location and contacts of defendant was unknown. |
| FRCP Rule 3 | Civil action is commenced with a complaint is filed, |
| FRCP Rule 4 | Service & Process Generally. Wavier/Consent. If defendant waives formal service they have 60 days to answer instead of 21. Service must be given to defendant within 90 days of filing the complaint. |
| FRCP Rule 12 | Motion to Dismiss. Defendant can file MTD based on lack of personal jurisidiction and get all or some claims dismissed if successful. |
| Subject Matter Jursidiction | Includes two offshoots: Federal Question Jurisdiction and Diversity Jurisdiction. A way for courts to determine if they may hear a case. Cannot consent or waive SMJ. |
| No Waiver/ No Consent Rule | Defendant cannot consent to or waive Subject Matter Jurisdiction. It may be raised at anytime. Can file Rule 12 motion to dismiss or by filing an answer. No counterclaims allowed for SMJ, |
| Federal Question Jurisdiction | Complaint must "arise under" Constitution. Defendant may not raise as a defense. Mottley. Well Pleaded Complaint Rule. |
| Well Pleaded Complaint Rule | Defendant may not raise constitutional defense, complaint that arises under constitution must be raised in plaintiffs own complaint. |
| Louisville & Nashville Railroad vs. Mottley | Created the Well Pleaded Complaint Rule. Mottley tried to raise 5th amendment as a defense, cannot do this. |
| 28 USC §1331 | Federal Question Jurisdiction formal #. |
| 28 USC §1332 | Diversity Jurisdiction formal #. |
| Diversity Jurisdiction | AIC exceeds $75,000, plaintiffs & defs completely diverse, one side same state other side foreign parties. |
| Mas vs. Perry | Established who was a citizen under Diversity Jurisdiction. Naturalized or natural born US person and domiciled in forum state which they are deemed a citizen of. |
| Redner vs. Sanders | US citizen domiciled outside of the US is not a citizen of any state in US or of a foreign country and therefore fed courts have no diversity jurisdiction over that individual |
| Hertz Corp. vs. Friend | Corporations are "citizens" in states in which they are incorporated and which they have their PPB. |
| Supplemental Jurisdiction | Must have SMJ to assert this. Court can assert this over claims it would otherwise not have jurisdiction over in the federal court. |
| Anchor Claim | To assert supplemental jurisdiction over claims they must arise out of same common nucleus of operative facts. (United Mine Workers vs. Gibbs) |
| United Mine Workers vs. Gibbs | Case or controversy means same transaction or occurrence. Common nucleus of operative facts to assert supplemental jurisdiction. |
| 28 USC §1367 (b) | Section prohibits SJ when original jurisdiction is based solely on diversity, and plaintiffs supplemental claim is asserted against a person made a party under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24 and when complete diversity is not met. |
| 28 USC §1367 (c) | Section prohibits SJ when there is a complex/novel issue of state law at hand, state law claims predominate, original claim over which the court have jurisdiction has been dismissed, exceptional circumstances like jury confusion and fairness to litigants |
| Removal | When a case is moved to federal court to be heard. 28 USC §1441. |
| Must you have diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction to assert supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims? | Yes! |
| IF court cannot assert general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction what is the last resort option if applicable? | In rem jurisdiction. But property must be central to claim in complaint. If it has nothing to do with the claim at hand then you cannot use in rem jurisdiction to assert PJ over a defendant. |
| In re means.... | a case without an opposing party, generally brought about by probate courts to confer about a will or estate or in juvenile courts. Could be brought by the government or state or used to show property or something was seized in the proceeding. |
| How many steps are there in analyzing General Jurisdiction? | Individuals- 3 steps, Corporations- 4 steps |
| How many steps are there in analyzing Specific Jurisdiction? | For both individuals and corporations there are 3 steps (with some sub-steps) |
| How many steps are there in analyzing Fed. Question Jurisdiction? | Fed. Question Jurisdiction- 1 step |
| How many steps are there in analyzing Diversity Jurisdiction? | Diversity Jurisdiction- 4 steps |
| How many steps are there in analyzing Supplemental Jurisidiction? | Supplemental Jurisdiction- 4 steps |
| Removal is allowed only by a defendant if...... | In federal question jurisdiction case the whole case is removed if defendants all consent and claims can be remanded to state court. In diversity jurisdiction cases the whole case must be removable before being removed. |
| Home State Rule | Defendant being sued in their own home state cannot remove a case to federal court in diversity jurisdiction cases. This rule does not apply to federal question cases. |
| 30 Days | Within 30 days when a federal question cases becomes removable it must be removed to fed court within that time frame otherwise it will expire and not be able to be removed to fed court. |
| 1 Year limit | Within 1 year diversity jurisdiction cases must be removed to fed court otherwise time limit expires and the court case can no longer be removed to fed court. |
| Remand | Send claims back down to state court, cannot be heard in fed court so the court does this with those claims. |
| After Acquired Eligibility | After the time which the fed question jurisdiction case becomes eligible to be removed defendant has 30 days within this time to do so otherwise limit will expire and no longer be able to be removed to fed court. |
| Who may removed a case to federal court for it to be heard? | Defendant(s) in a case only, plaintiffs may not do this. |
| Who can remand state claims to state court after removal? | Plaintiffs and courts may remand state claims after a defendant removes them. Motion to remand must be made within 30 days in which the notice to remove was filed. |
| Where is venue proper for a case that is being removed? | Venue is proper in the division or district of the state in which the case is pending/in where the state court sits. |
| FRCP Rule 14 | Person the defendant has brought into the action. Plaintiff may not assert a claim against a person under this rule. §1367 (b) |
| FRCP Rule 19 | A person required to be joined in the complaint/suit. A plaintiff may not assert a claim against a person under this rule. §1367 (b). |
| FRCP Rule 20 | A person permitted to be joined in the suit/complaint. A plaintiff may not assert a claim against a person under this rule. §1367 (b). |
| FRCP Rule 24 | A party seeking to intervene. A plaintiff may not assert a claim against a person under this rule. §1367 (b). |
Created by:
kfott783
Popular Law sets