FULL OUTLINE - barexamdoctor.com

1 FULL OUTLINE . Bar Exam Doctor N S M. CIVIL PROCEDURE. N A CO. FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE. CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE. O SS . I. PERSONAL JURISDICTION. S E OR. a. Do federal courts need personal jdx over the parties? Yes. LI Y. b. How is it assessed? i. The same as in state ct. E! c. Basic idea PT ED CTi. Whether there's personal jdx is a two-step analysis: 1. Satisfy a statute ( , a state long-arm statute), AND. 2. Satisfy the Constitution (Due Process). D IT O. d. In personam jdx i. Statutory analysis 1. Most states have a series of statutes that allow personal jdx in a variety of D. contexts, such as personal jdx over Ds who AN IM M. a. Are served with process in the state; or b. Are domiciled in the state; or c. Do certain things (commit a tortuous act, enter a K, conduct business, etc.)

2 N A. in the state; or U EX. d. Otherwise consent to jdx. 2. In CA, the statutory analysis is easy because the statute reaches to the constitutional limit, so we have to look to the constitutional analysis. ii. Constitutional analysis R. 1. Test L. a. Does D have such minimum contacts with the forum so that exercise of BA. jdx does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice? 2. Easy cases a. If D is domiciled in the forum or consents, or is present in the forum when served with process (at least if not forced or tricked into forum), those are traditional bases and almost always meet the constitutional test. Tougher cases involve lesser contact. 3. Factors in the constitutional analysis: a. Contact 1. Bar Exam Doctor i. There must be a relevant tie between D and the forum state.

3 There are 2 factors to be addressed here: 1. The contact must result from purposeful availment: D's voluntary act. a. D must reach out to the forum. Must direct activities N S M. to the forum in some way. b. Examples: trying to make money in the forum, N A CO. using the roads there, causing some effect there. 2. Foreseeability a. It must be foreseeable that D could get sued in this forum. O SS . b. Fairness (fair play and substantial justice). S E OR. i. If there is a relevant contact, now we assess whether the exercise LI Y. of jdx would be fair or reasonable under the circumstances. ii. Factors: 1. Relatedness between the contact and P's claim E! PT ED CT a. We assess the quality of D's contact with the forum. b. Ask: does P's claim arise from D's contact with the forum? i. If yes, the ct might uphold jdx even if D.

4 D IT O. does not have a great deal of contact with the state. Where the claim is related to D's D. contact with the forum, it is called specific personal jdx. AN IM M. ii. If the claim does not arise from D's contact with the forum, jdx is OK Only if the ct has N A. general personal jdx D must have continuous and systematic ties with the U EX. forum. iii. A D with continuous and systematic ties with the forum may be sued there for a R. claim that arose anywhere in the world, but L. a D with limited ties with the forum can BA. only be used there for a claim arising from those activities. Continuous and systematic ties: domicile, incorporation, doing continuous business, etc. 2. Convenience a. D may complain that the forum makes it tough to litigate because it's far from D's home and maybe it's tough to get D's witnesses and evidence to the forum.

5 B. Standard 2. Bar Exam Doctor i. The forum is OK unless it puts D at a severe disadvantage in the litigation. This is almost impossible to show. 3. State's interest (ALWAYS MENTION THIS). a. , provide forum for its citizens. N S M. SUMMARY OF CONSTITUTIONAL TEST. N A CO. My Parents Frequently Forgot to Read Children's Stories Minimum contacts Fair play and substantial justice Purposeful availment Relatedness of contact and claim Foreseeability Convenience State's interest O SS . S E OR. LI Y. Special note about the internet: interactive website can be purposeful availment; passive websites, which only provide information, in another state, is probably not a relevant contact with the forum. E! e. In rem and quasi in rem jdx PT ED CT i. Here, the jurisdictional base is not the person, but her property.

6 The statutory basis is an attachment statute, , allowing ct to attach property owned by non-resident. ii. Constitutionally, all exercises of jdx, even in rem and quasi in rem, must satisfy the International Shoe test (constitutional analysis). Despite this statement, constitutionality D IT O. probably depends on whether dispute is related to the property attached. 1. If dispute related to property, constitution probably satisfied by presence of D. property in the forum. 2. If claim is unrelated to the property attached, the D's contacts with the forum AN IM M. must satisfy the International Shoe test. II. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. N A. a. Basic idea i. Will P sue D in state ct or federal ct? U EX. 1. Federal cts can only hear certain types of suits: a. Diversity of citizenship and b.

7 Federal question. R. b. Diversity of citizenship cases L. i. Two requirements: BA. 1. The action must be between citizens of different states (or between a citizen of a state and a foreign citizen); and 2. The amount in controversy must EXCEED $75,000. ii. Complete diversity rule 1. There is no diversity if any P is a citizen of the same state as any D. iii. Citizenship 1. A natural person who is a US citizen citizenship is the state of her domicile. a. Domicile is established by 2 factors: i. Presence in the state; and ii. The subjective intent to make it her permanent home. 3. Bar Exam Doctor 1. For intent, look at all the relevant info: instate tuition, voting, etc. b. We test for diversity when the case is filed. A later change is irrelevant. 2. Corporations citizenship equals: a.

8 State where incorporated; AND. N S M. b. The one state where the corp has its principal place of business (PPB). i. To determine PPB, use 2 tests: 1. Nerve center where decisions are made, which is N A CO. usually the headquarters; and 2. Muscle center where the corp does more stuff than anywhere else. O SS . a. Usually, nerve center unless all corp activity is in S E OR. one state. LI Y. 3. Unincorporated associations (like partnerships, LLCs) use the citizenship of ALL members (that includes general and limited partners). 4. Decedents, minors, and incompetents look to their citizenship, NOT the E! PT ED CT citizenship of their representative iv. Amount in controversy 1. Must EXCEED $75,000. D IT O. 2. Whatever the P claims in good faith is OK unless it is clear to a legal certainty that she cannot recover more than $75,000 very rare, such as a statutory ceiling D.

9 On recovery. 3. What P actually recovers is irrelevant, but a P who wins less than $75,000 may AN IM M. have to pay D's litigation costs. 4. Aggregation N A. a. Adding 2 or more claims to meet the amount requirement. b. We aggregate claims if there is ONE PLAINTIFF against ONE. U EX. DEFENDANT. i. The claims don't have to be related to each other. c. BUT for joint claims, use the total value of the claim; the number of R. parties is irrelevant. Ex: P sues joint tortfeasors, X, Y, and Z for 76,000. L. This is OK. BA. 5. Equitable relief a. P sues D for an injunction to tear down part of his house that blocks P's view. b. Two tests (if either is met, most cts say it's OK): i. Plaintiff's viewpoint: does the blocked view decrease value of P's property by more than 75k? ii. Defendant's viewpoint: would it cost D more than 75k to comply with the injunction?

10 V. Exclusions 4. Bar Exam Doctor 1. Even if the requirements for diversity of citizenship jdx are met, federal cts will not hear actions involving issuance of divorce, alimony or child custody decree or to probate an estate. c. Federal question cases N S M. i. Complaint must show a right or interest founded substantially on a federal law. ii. The claim arises under federal law. N A CO. iii. Well-pleaded complaint rule 1. P's claim, properly pleaded, must be based on federal law. a. Properly pleaded means the complaint would set forth only a claim and nothing else. So, in assessing whether there is federal question jdx, the ct O SS . ignores any extraneous stuff that has nothing to do with the claim itself. S E OR. 2. ALWAYS ASK: IS P ENFORCING A FEDERAL RIGHT? LI Y. a. If yes, the case can go to fed ct under FQ jdx.