barbri civpro outline

8/9/2019 Barbri CivPro Outline

1/101

CIVIL PROCEDURE


2/101

CIVIL PROCEDURE i.

CIVIL PROCEDURE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A. PERSONAL JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1B. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1. Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. Federal Question Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. Removal Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. Supplemental Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

C. VENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1D. DISCOVERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2E. MULTIPLE PARTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

I. PERSONAL JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3A. OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1. Limitations on Personal Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3a. Statutory Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3b. Constitutional Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3c. Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Three Types of Personal Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3a. In Personam Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3b. In Rem Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4c. Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1) Defendant Is Not Bound Personally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4B. STATUTORY LIMITATIONS ON IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1. Physical Presence at Time of Personal Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42. State Law Exceptions to Traditional Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

a. Service by Fraud or Force Invalid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5b. Immunity of Parties and Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Domicile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5a. Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5b. Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4. Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5a. Express Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1) By Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52) By Appointment of Agent to Accept Service of Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

a) Appointment Required by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6b. Implied Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6c. Voluntary Appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5. Long Arm Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6a. Unlimited Long Arm Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6b. Limited (or Specific) Long Arm Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1) Limitations in Tort Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62) Limitations in Contract Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73) Limitations in Property Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7


3/101

ii. CIVIL PROCEDURE

4) Limitations in Marital Dissolution Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7C. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION . . . . 7

1. Sufficient Contacts with the Forum: Contact and Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7a. Traditional Rule: Physical Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

b. Modern Due Process Standard: Contact and Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81) Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

a) Purposeful Availment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8(1) “Stream of Commerce” Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9(2) Internet Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

b) Foreseeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102) Relatedness of Claim to Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

a) Claim Arising from Activity in the State (SpecificJurisdiction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

b) “Essentially At Home” in the State (General Jurisdiction) . . . . 113) Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

a) Convenience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12b) Forum State’s Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12c) Other Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2. Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13a. Traditional Methods of Personal Service Satisfy Due Process Notice

Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13b. Requirement that Agent Notify Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13c. Requirements for Cases Involving Multiple Parties or Unknown

Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13d. Knowledge that Notice by Mail Was Not Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

D. IN REM JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141. Statutory Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2. Constitutional Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14a. Nexus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141) No Jurisdiction If Property Not Located in State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142) No Jurisdiction If Property Brought in by Fraud or Force . . . . . . . . 14

b. Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15E. QUASI IN REM JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1. Statutory Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152. Constitutional Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

a. Nexus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151) Quasi In Rem Type I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152) Quasi In Rem Type II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153) Procedural Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

b. Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

II. DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16A. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16B. DIVERSITY AMONG THE PARTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1. Complete Diversity When Action Is Commenced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16a. Multiple Parties—Complete Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1) But Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172) Interpleader Exception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17


4/101

CIVIL PROCEDURE iii.

a) Federal Interpleader Statute—Minimal Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . 17b) Interpleader Under Federal Rules—Complete Diversity . . . . . . 17

b. “Alienage” Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171) Aliens as Additional Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

c. Diversity When Action Is Commenced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182. Questions of Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

a. State Citizenship of an Individual—Domicile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18b. Citizenship of a Corporation—Possible Multiple Citizenships . . . . . . . . . 18

1) Special Rule for Direct Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182) Incorporation or Principal Place of Business in Foreign Country . . 18

c. Unincorporated Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191) Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192) Class Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193) Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194) Limited Liability Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

d. Business Trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19e. Legal Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19f. Class Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19g. Nonresident United States Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3. Collusion and Devices to Create or Defeat Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20a. Assignment of Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20b. Class Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20c. Voluntary Change of State Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4. Realignment According to Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20a. May Create or Destroy Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20b. Shareholder Derivative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5. Ancillary (“Supplemental”) Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6. Subsequent Addition of Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21a. Restriction on the Use of Supplemental Jurisdiction in Diversity Cases . . 21b. Intervention of Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21c. Permissive Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21d. Substitution of Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21e. Third-Party Practice—Impleader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22f. Cross-Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23C. JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT: IN EXCESS OF $75,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1. What Is “In Controversy”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23a. Collateral Consequences of the Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

b. Interest and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24c. Equitable Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24d. Punitive Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2. Aggregation of Separate Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24a. One Plaintiff Against One Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24b. One Plaintiff Against Several Defendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25c. Several Plaintiffs Against One Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3. Supplemental Jurisdiction over Claims Not Exceeding $75,000 in DiversityCases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


5/101

iv. CIVIL PROCEDURE

4. Counterclaims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26a. Compulsory Counterclaim Need Not Meet Jurisdictional Amount . . . . . 26b. Permissive Counterclaim Must Meet Jurisdictional Amount . . . . . . . . . . 26c. No Removal to Federal Court Based on Counterclaim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

D. ERIE DOCTRINE AND THE LAW APPLIED UNDER DIVERSITYJURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261. Federal Statutes or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

a. Caution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27b. Recent Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2. If There Is No Federal Statute or Rule on Point, Is the Issue Substantive orProcedural? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27a. Some Situations Are Clearly Established . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27b. Law Is Unclear in Other Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3. Statutes Involving Both Substance and Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284. Interpreting State Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

a. De Novo Review of District Court’s Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28b. Subsequent State Court Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

E. EXCEPTIONS TO DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . 281. Domestic Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282. Probate Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

F. MULTIPARTY, MULTIFORUM TRIAL JURISDICTION ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

a. The Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29b. Minimal Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29c. One Additional Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2. Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293. Service of Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

III. FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29A. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29B. FEDERAL QUESTION MUST APPEAR IN THE COMPLAINT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

1. Defendant’s Answer or Defense Is Irrelevant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302. Anticipation of a Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

C. IMPLIED FEDERAL RIGHT OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30D. FEDERAL CORPORATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30E. PENDENT (SUPPLEMENTAL) JURISDICTION OVER STATE CLAIMS . . . . . 30

1. Pendent Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30a. Effect of Dismissal of Federal Claim on Pendent Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2. Pendent Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

F. SPECIFIC STATUTORY GRANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321. Amount in Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322. Exclusive Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

a. Bankruptcy Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32b. Patent and Copyright Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32c. Many Cases Where United States Is Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32d. Cases with Consuls and Vice-Consuls as Defendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32e. Antitrust Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32f. Admiralty Cases—Caveat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32


6/101

CIVIL PROCEDURE v.

g. Foreign State—Caveat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32h. Postal Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32i. Internal Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 j. Securities Exchange Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

IV. VENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33A. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION DISTINGUISHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33B. GENERAL RULES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

1. General Rules for Most Civil Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332. Special Venue Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

C. RESIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331. Natural Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342. Business Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

a. Note for Corporations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343. Nonresident of United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

D. IMPROPER VENUE MAY BE WAIVED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

E. TRANSFER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341. Original Venue Proper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

a. Effect of Forum Selection Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342. Original Venue Improper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353. Original Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

F. LAW APPLICABLE UPON TRANSFER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351. Original Venue Proper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352. Original Venue Improper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

V. REMOVAL JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35A. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION NECESSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1. When . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352. Federal Defense Insufficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363. State Court Need Not Have Had Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

B. ONLY DEFENDANT MAY REMOVE; ALL MUST SEEK REMOVAL . . . . . . . . 36C. VENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36D. DEFENDANT MAY REMOVE FEDERAL QUESTION CLAIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36E. DISMISSAL OF NONDIVERSE PARTY ALLOWS REMOVAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

1. Limitations on Removal in Diversity of Citizenship Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36a. Defendant Citizen of Forum State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36b. One Year Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

F. PROCEDURE FOR REMOVAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371. Notice of Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

a. Allegation of Amount in Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382. Thirty Day Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383. Procedure After Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384. Right to Jury Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

a. Demand for Jury Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38b. Demand Not Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5. Remand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39a. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Generally Considered First . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

G. SPECIFIC TYPES OF ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39


7/101


8/101

CIVIL PROCEDURE vii.

d. Effect of Failure to Answer—Default and Default Judgment . . . . . . . . . . 471) Default . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472) Default Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

a) Default Judgment Entered by the Clerk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

3) Notice Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474) Setting Aside a Default or a Default Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4. Inconsistent Claims or Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475. Special Pleading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

a. Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48b. Fraud or Mistake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48c. Conditions of the Mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48d. Conditions Precedent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48e. Official Document or Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48f. Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48g. Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48h. Special Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

6. Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487. Amendment and Supplemental Pleadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

a. Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491) Relation Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492) Changing Party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493) Conform to Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494) Due Process Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

b. Supplemental Pleadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508. Rule 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

a. Certification upon Presenting Paper to Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50b. Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

1) Court’s Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502) Party’s Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50G. JOINDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

1. Joinder of Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51a. Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51b. Compulsory Joinder (Indispensable Parties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

1) Should the Absentee Be Joined? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512) Can the Absentee Be Joined? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513) Should the Action Proceed Without the Absentee? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

c. Permissive Joinder—Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522. Joinder of Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

a. Successive Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

b. Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53c. Class Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531) Prerequisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532) Consideration in Treating Case as a Class Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

a) Court Must Define Class Claims, Issues, or Defenses . . . . . . . . 54b) Appointment of Class Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3) Effect of Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54a) Personal Jurisdiction Over Absent Class Members Not

Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54


9/101

viii. CIVIL PROCEDURE

4) Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54a) Notice Required in Common Question Suits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54b) Notice Discretionary in Other Types of Class Action Suits . . . . 54

5) Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

a) Diversity Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54b) Federal Question Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

6) Court Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55a) Notice of Dismissal or Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55b) Procedures for Settlements of Class Action Suits . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

(1) “Opt Out” Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55c) Appeal of Approval of Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

7) Appeal of Class Action Certification Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55d. Class Action Fairness Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

1) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the CAFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562) Removal Under the CAFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563) Excluded Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

a) Primary Defendants Are States or Governmental Entities . . . . 56b) Claims Based on Securities Laws or Regarding Corporate

Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564) Local Considerations May Defeat Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

a) Mandatory Decline of Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56b) Discretionary Decline of Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

5) Protections Under the CAFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57a) Coupon Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57b) Protection Against Loss by Class Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57c) Protection Against Discrimination Based on Geographic

Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

d) Notification of Federal and State Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57e. Shareholder Derivative Suits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571) Minority Shareholder Allegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582) Corporation Named as Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583) Jurisdictional Amount and Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584) Court Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

f. Interpleader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581) Purpose Is to Avoid Double Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582) Rights of Plaintiff Stakeholder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583) Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

a) Rule 22 Interpleader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58b) Federal Interpleader Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

g. Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591) Intervention of Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592) Permissive Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593) Caveat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

h. Third-Party Practice (Impleader) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591) Claims for Indemnity or Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592) Non-Indemnity or Non-Contribution Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603) Severance of Third-Party Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604) Response of Impleaded Party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60


10/101

CIVIL PROCEDURE ix.

5) Impleading Insurance Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60i. Cross-Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

H. DISCOVERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601. Duty of Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

a. Types of Disclosure Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601) Initial Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

a) Exemptions from Initial Disclosure Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . 612) Disclosure of Expert Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613) Pretrial Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

2. Discovery of Electronically Stored Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62a. Format for Producing Electronic Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62b. Safe Harbor Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

3. Scope of Disclosure and Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62a. In General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62b. Trial Preparation Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

1) Procedure for Claiming Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632) Inadvertent Disclosure of Trial Preparation Materials . . . . . . . . . . . 63

c. Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63d. Protective Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63e. Supplementation of Disclosures and Discovery Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4. Types of Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63a. Pre-Action Depositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

1) Contents of Petition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642) Notice and Appointed Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643) Court Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

b. Discovery of Documents and Things; Orders for Physical and MentalExaminations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

1) Oral Deposition of a Witness, Including a Party-Witness . . . . . . . . . 64a) Compulsory Appearance of Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64(1) Subpoena Not Needed for Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64(2) Nonparties Should Be Subpoenaed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64(3) Costs When Notifying Party Fails to Attend . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

2) Deposition of Witnesses on Written Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653) Interrogatories to the Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654) Production of Physical Material; Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655) Physical and Mental Examinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

a) Order for Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65b) Report of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

6) Requests for Admission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

5. Enforcing Disclosure and Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66a. Motion to Compel and Sanctions for Violation of Order to Compel . . . . . 661) Motion to Compel Disclosures and Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662) Sanctions for Violation of Order to Compel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

b. Immediate Sanction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66c. Automatic Sanction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

6. Use of Depositions at Trial or Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677. Errors and Irregularities in Depositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

a. As to Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67


11/101

x. CIVIL PROCEDURE

b. As to Manner of Taking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67c. As to Completion and Return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67d. As to Form of Written Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

I. PRETRIAL CONFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

1. Rule 26(f) Conference of Parties—Planning for Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682. Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683. Pretrial Conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684. Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

J. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681. Contractual Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

a. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691) Judicial Review of Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

2. Judicial Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693. Mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

K. TRIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

1. Jury Trial Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69a. Right to Jury Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70b. Jury Trials in Diversity Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

1) Right to a Jury Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702) Motion for New Trial Based on Excessiveness of Verdict . . . . . . . . . . 70

c. Jury Size and Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71d. Jury Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71e. Jury Verdicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

1) General Verdict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712) Special Verdict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713) General Verdict with Special Interrogatories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714) Jury Deliberations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

5) Erroneous Verdicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72a) Correctable Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

6) Juror Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722. Consolidation and Separate Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723. Involuntary Dismissals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734. Voluntary Dismissals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

a. Without Leave of Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73b. With Leave of Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5. Offer of Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736. Summary Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

a. Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

b. Applicable to All Civil Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74c. Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74d. Partial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74e. Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74f. Affidavits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74g. Nonappealability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74h. Relationship to Motion to Dismiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75i. Relationship to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

7. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Formerly Directed Verdict) . . . . . . 75


12/101

CIVIL PROCEDURE xi.

8. Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Formerly JudgmentNotwithstanding the Verdict (“JNOV”)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

9. Motion for New Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75a. Reasons for Granting New Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

1) Remittitur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762) Additur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

b. Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law with Motion for NewTrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

10. Effect of Failure to Move for a Renewed Judgment as a Matter of Law or fora New Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

11. Judgment on Partial Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

VIII. ATTACK ON THE JUDGMENT AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76A. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

1. Clerical Mistakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772. Defendant Not Personally Notified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

3. Motions to Reconsider Prior Orders or Renew Prior Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774. Other Grounds for Relief from Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

B. INDEPENDENT ACTION IN EQUITY TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT . . . . 78

IX. FINAL JUDGMENT AND APPELLATE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78A. JUDGMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

1. Relief that May Be Given . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 782. Judgment on Multiple Claims or Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 783. Final Decision on Merits May Be Valid Despite Lack of Subject Matter

Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78B. TIME FOR APPEALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78C. REVIEWABLE ORDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

1. Interlocutory Orders as of Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79a. Injunction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79b. Receivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79c. Admiralty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79d. Patent Infringement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79e. Property Possession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

2. Interlocutory Appeals Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793. Fewer than All Claims or Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794. Collateral Order Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 795. Review of Nonappealable Orders by Writ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806. Certification of Class Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

D. STAY PENDING APPEAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801. Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802. Enforceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803. Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804. Injunction Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

a. Power of Trial Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80b. Power of Appellate Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

E. SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811. Court of Appeals Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81


13/101

xii. CIVIL PROCEDURE

2. Cases from Highest State Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

X. EFFECTS OF JUDGMENT ON FUTURE CASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81A. RES JUDICATA (CLAIM PRECLUSION) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812. Terminology Used to Describe Effect—“Merger” and “Bar” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813. Requirements for “Merger” and “Bar” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824. Valid, Final Judgment “On the Merits” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825. Same Claimant Versus Same Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826. “Cause of Action” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

a. Common Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831) Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832) Installment Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

B. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (ISSUE PRECLUSION) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

a. Final Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83b. Issue Actually Litigated and Determined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84c. Issue Was Essential to the Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84d. Due Process and Mutuality Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

1) Against Whom Is Collateral Estoppel Used? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842) By Whom Is Collateral Estoppel Used? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

C. RES JUDICATA AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IN SPECIALSITUATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851. Judgments for Specific Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852. In Rem Judgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853. Quasi In Rem Judgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

D. WHICH PERSONS ARE BOUND BY A JUDGMENT? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851. Parties Are Bound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852. Privies to Parties Are Bound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853. Strangers May Take Advantage of Collateral Estoppel in Certain

Circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86a. Traditional “Mutuality” Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86b. Exceptions to Mutuality When Judgment Used as a Shield . . . . . . . . . . . . 86c. Exceptions to Mutuality When Judgment Used as a Sword . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

1) Collateral Estoppel Generally Unavailable to Nonparty Plaintiffs . . 862) Courts Should Consider Fairness to Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

d. Present Status of Mutuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87E. WHICH CHOICE OF LAW RULES APPLY TO PRECLUSION QUESTIONS? . 87

1. Case One Decided in State Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872. Case One Decided in Federal Court Under Diversity Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . 88


14/101

INTRODUCTION

This outline is designed to acquaint you with commonly tested areas within the fields of federal juris-diction and procedure. These are: personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, venue, discovery,

and joinder of multiple parties.

A. PERSONAL JURISDICTIONPersonal jurisdiction refers to the ability of a court to exercise power over a particular defendantor item of property. It may be categorized as in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. The primarylimitations on a court’s power to exercise personal jurisdiction are found in the United StatesConstitution and state statutes.

B. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTIONThe subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited to that authorized by the Constitu-tion as implemented by federal statute and decisional law. In general, it may be categorized asfollows:

1. Diversity of Citizenship JurisdictionDiversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332 is grounded historicallyin the desire to protect out-of-state parties from local prejudice. Its main requirement isthat there be complete diversity between opposing parties. Each plaintiff must be of diversecitizenship from each defendant. Also, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.

2. Federal Question JurisdictionFederal question jurisdiction under section 1331 presents fewer specific difficulties. Theprincipal problem in this area is to determine when an action “arises under” federal law. Asecondary problem is to know what types of actions are within the exclusive jurisdiction of

the federal courts under other specific statutes.

3. Removal JurisdictionRemoval jurisdiction allows defendants to remove an action brought in a state court to afederal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action.

4. Supplemental JurisdictionThe doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction is codified under section 1367 and includes, undera single name, the concepts of “ancillary” and “pendent” jurisdiction. In any form, supple-mental jurisdiction allows a federal court to entertain certain claims over which it wouldhave no independent basis of subject matter jurisdiction, i.e., claims that do not satisfy diver-sity or federal question jurisdiction requirements. It is important to note that supplemental

jurisdiction operates only after a claim has invoked federal subject matter jurisdiction, afterthe case is properly in federal court. Supplemental jurisdiction operates to bring additionalclaims into that case that arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim,but it cannot be used to get the case into federal court in the first instance.

C. VENUEVenue is the designation of the proper geographic district in which to bring an action. Venue willdepend on where the cause of action arose and on the nature of the parties (i.e., whether corporateor natural persons).

CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.


15/101

D. DISCOVERYDiscovery issues principally revolve around the scope of the examination allowed in discovery,the uses of depositions at trial, and the available methods of enforcing discovery rights.

E. MULTIPLE PARTIESMultiple party questions concern whether various types of joinder are permitted under federal lawand, if so, whether there is a jurisdictional basis for a particular attempted joinder. The majorityof the issues that arise in this area are grounded in the interpretation or application of statutes andthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Federal Rules”), and also require knowledge of subjectmatter jurisdictional bases, especially supplemental jurisdiction.

2. CIVIL PROCEDURE


16/101

I. PERSONAL JURISDICTION

A. OVERVIEWThere are two branches of jurisdiction: subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction involves the court’s power over a particular type of case. Personal jurisdiction involves the ability of a court having subject matter jurisdiction to exercise powerover a particular defendant or item of property. This section discusses personal jurisdiction.

1. Limitations on Personal JurisdictionLimitations on a court’s personal jurisdiction arise from two sources: state statutes and theUnited States Constitution. An exercise of personal jurisdiction must not exceed the limita-tions of either source.

a. Statutory LimitationsStates have the power to decide over whom their courts may exercise jurisdiction.Therefore, the first place to look to determine whether the court has properly exercised

personal jurisdiction is state law. If no state statute grants the court the power over theparties before the court, then the court lacks personal jurisdiction. On the other hand,an exercise of jurisdiction will not be proper merely because it comports with a statestatute; it must also be within the limitations set by the Constitution (below).

b. Constitutional LimitationsThe Due Process Clause of the Constitution places two restrictions on the exercise ofpersonal jurisdiction. First, the defendant must have such contacts with the forum statethat the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable. Second, the defendantmust be given appropriate notice of the action and an opportunity to be heard. Note thatthese requirements are the outer limits to which a state may reach in exercising juris-diction over a person. A state statute cannot exceed these constitutional boundaries,

but is not required to exercise the full limit of constitutional power. Thus, in evalu-ating jurisdiction over a person, both constitutional and statutory limitations must beconsidered.

c. Personal Jurisdiction in Federal CourtsThe main jurisdictional problem in state courts arises when the defendant over whompower is sought lives in another state. Since the federal borders encompass all states,one might expect that federal courts would encounter problems of personal jurisdictiononly when the defendants were foreign nationals. However, Rule 4 of the Federal Rulesprovides that, absent some special federal provision, each federal court must analyzepersonal jurisdiction as if it were a court of the state in which it is located . Thus, innearly every case, the assessment of whether the court has personal jurisdiction over the

defendant will be exactly the same in federal court as it is in state court.

2. Three Types of Personal Jurisdiction

a. In Personam JurisdictionIn personam jurisdiction exists when the forum has power over the person of a partic-ular defendant. (Jurisdiction over a plaintiff is generally not an issue because the plain-tiff accedes to the court’s jurisdiction by bringing suit in that court.) In these cases, thecourt may render a money judgment against the defendant or may order the defendant

CIVIL PROCEDURE 3.


17/101

to perform acts or refrain from acting. Such a judgment creates a personal obligationon the defendant and is entitled to full faith and credit in all other states; i.e., if adefendant is ordered to pay a sum of money to a plaintiff, the plaintiff may enforcethe judgment against the defendant’s property in any other state where that property is

located.

b. In Rem JurisdictionIn rem jurisdiction exists when the court has power to adjudicate the rights of allpersons in the world with respect to a particular item of property. This jurisdiction islimited to situations where the property is located within the physical borders of thestate and where it is necessary for the state to be able to bind all persons regarding theproperty’s ownership and use. This occurs with respect to actions for condemnation(eminent domain cases), forfeiture of property to the state (e.g., when the property isused for the unlawful transportation of narcotics), and settlement of decedents’ estates.

c. Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

One type of quasi in rem jurisdiction exists when the court has power to determinewhether particular individuals own specific property within the court’s control. Unlikein rem jurisdiction, however, it does not permit the court to determine the rights ofall persons in the world with respect to the property. A second type of quasi in rem jurisdiction permits the court to adjudicate disputes other than ownership based on thepresence of the defendant’s property in the forum (see E.2.a.2), infra, regarding appli-cable constitutional limitations).

1) Defendant Is Not Bound PersonallyThe basis of a court’s power to exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction is the propertywithin the state. (See E., infra.) The judgment does not bind the defendant personally and cannot be enforced against any other property belonging to the defendant.

B. STATUTORY LIMITATIONS ON IN PERSONAM JURISDICTIONEach state is free to prescribe its own statutory bases for personal jurisdiction. Of course, theexercise of jurisdiction in a given case must also satisfy the constitutional requirements. (See C.,infra.) Most states have statutes granting their courts in personam jurisdiction in the followingfour situations:

(i) Where the defendant is present in the forum state and is personally served with process;

(ii) Where the defendant is domiciled in the forum state;

(iii) Where the defendant consents to jurisdiction; and

(iv) Where the defendant has committed acts bringing him within the forum state’s long armstatutes.

Each of these bases of in personam jurisdiction will be discussed in detail below.

1. Physical Presence at Time of Personal ServiceMost states grant their courts in personam jurisdiction over any defendant who can be servedwith process within the borders of the state, no matter how long he was present (i.e., even if

4. CIVIL PROCEDURE


18/101

merely passing through). The Supreme Court has upheld this type of jurisdiction, allowinga transient defendant to be served with process for a cause of action unrelated to his briefpresence in the state. [Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604 (1990)]

2. State Law Exceptions to Traditional RuleEven though jurisdiction through presence at the time of service has been upheld under theConstitution, state statutes and court decisions have limited the power of their courts incertain situations.

a. Service by Fraud or Force InvalidIf a plaintiff brings a defendant into a state by fraud or force to serve process, mostcourts will find the service invalid. [See, e.g., Copas v. Anglo-American Provision Co.,73 Mich. 541 (1889)]

b. Immunity of Parties and WitnessesMost states likewise grant immunity from personal jurisdiction to nonresidents who

are present in the state solely to take part in a judicial proceeding, or who are passingthrough the state on their way to a judicial proceeding elsewhere.

3. DomicileMost states grant their courts in personam jurisdiction over persons who are domiciliariesof the state, even when the defendant is not physically within the state when served withprocess.

a. DefinedDomicile refers to the place where a person maintains her permanent home. If a personhas legal capacity, her domicile is the place she has chosen through presence (even fora moment), coupled with the intention to make that place her home. If a person lackscapacity, domicile is determined by law (e.g., infant is domiciliary of custodial parent’shome state).

b. CitizenshipA United States citizen, even though domiciled abroad, is subject to personal jurisdictionin the United States. The scope of this basis for jurisdiction is unclear, because stateshave never attempted to enact laws or rules enabling their courts to obtain jurisdictionsolely on the basis of citizenship. However, the power of federal courts to subpoena aUnited States citizen domiciled abroad to return to the United States to give testimonyhas been upheld by the Supreme Court.

4. ConsentVirtually every state provides for in personam jurisdiction through the defendant’s consent.

Such consent may be express or implied or through the making of a general appearance.

a. Express ConsentA party’s express consent to the jurisdiction of local courts, whether given before orafter suit is commenced, serves as a sufficient basis for in personam jurisdiction.

1) By ContractA person can, by contract, give advance consent to jurisdiction in the event a suit isbrought against him.

CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.


19/101

2) By Appointment of Agent to Accept Service of ProcessA person can, by contract, appoint an agent in a particular state to receive servicein that state in an action against him. The terms of the contract determine theextent of the agent’s power and, thus, the scope of the jurisdiction conferred.

a) Appointment Required by StateWhen the state heavily regulates a type of business (e.g., sale of securities)to protect its citizens, it can require a nonresident engaged in that businessto appoint an agent for service of process in the state. Note: The state cannotrequire every nonresident businessperson to appoint such an agent, becausethe state lacks power to exclude individuals from the state. However, a statecan require nonresident corporations to make such an appointment beforedoing business in the state.

b. Implied ConsentWhen the state has substantial reason to regulate the in-state activity of a nonresi-dent of the state, it may provide that by engaging in such activity, the nonresidentthereby appoints a designated state official as his agent for service of process. Thus, forexample, the Supreme Court has upheld statutes that use such implied consent to subjecta nonresident motorist to jurisdiction in any state in which he has an accident. [Hess v.Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927)]

c. Voluntary AppearanceA defendant may consent to jurisdiction by a voluntary appearance, i.e., by contestingthe case without challenging personal jurisdiction. Generally, any sort of appearanceprovides a sufficient basis for jurisdiction, but many states allow “special appearances” through which a defendant can object to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction. The defen-dant usually must make this special appearance—by stating grounds for his objectionto jurisdiction—in his initial pleading to the court; otherwise, the defendant will bedeemed to have consented to jurisdiction.

5. Long Arm StatutesMost states also grant their courts in personam jurisdiction over nonresidents who performor cause to be performed certain acts within the state. In personam jurisdiction is grantedregardless of whether the defendant is served within or outside the forum, but is limited tocauses of action arising from the acts performed within the state.

a. Unlimited Long Arm StatutesA few states, such as California, have long arm statutes that give their courts power over

any person or property over which the state can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction.(See C., infra.) These are known as unlimited long arm statutes.

b. Limited (or Specific) Long Arm StatutesMost states, however, have long arm statutes that specify in detail the situations inwhich their courts can exercise jurisdiction.

1) Limitations in Tort CasesSome statutes permit jurisdiction when a “tort” occurs within the state, while

6. CIVIL PROCEDURE


20/101

others require a “tortious act.” The latter language has caused problems wherean out-of-state manufacturer puts his products into the stream of commerceknowing that some items will end up in the forum state. When the gravamen of thecomplaint is negligent manufacture, some courts have read “tortious act” narrowly

and confined jurisdiction to the place of manufacture; others have read it to mean“the place the tort occurred,” interpreting that to be the place of injury.

2) Limitations in Contract CasesMany statutes permit jurisdiction if the cause of action arises out of the “transac-tion of business” in the state. Some states require the defendant or his agent tohave been physically present in the state at the time the transaction took place, butothers have taken a broader view—e.g., New York has upheld jurisdiction over aCalifornia resident who made telephone bids from California on paintings beingsold in New York.

3) Limitations in Property ActionsMany state statutes permit jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when thecause of action arises from ownership of property within the state—as in thecase of a tort action based on negligent maintenance of realty or a contract actionregarding the sale of the property. Some statutes include chattels, while others areconfined to realty.

4) Limitations in Marital Dissolution CasesAll states provide that when a married couple last lived together in the state andone spouse then abandons the other, the remaining spouse may obtain personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse for divorce or legal separation proceedings.States vary on whether the plaintiff spouse must be living in the state at the time

of abandonment (or other cause for dissolution) or whether jurisdiction may beacquired whenever the plaintiff has acquired domicile in the state.

C. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON IN PERSONAM JURISDICTIONOnce it is determined that a state has a statute that allows the court to exercise in personam juris-diction over the parties before it, the constitutionality of the exercise must next be determined. Asnoted above, there are two components of the constitutional aspect: contacts with the forum andnotice.

1. Sufficient Contacts with the Forum: Contact and Fairness

a. Traditional Rule: Physical PowerTraditionally, jurisdiction over a person (or res) was a consequence of the state’sphysical power to carry out its judgment; i.e., it was based on the power to arrest theperson to force compliance with a judgment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheldexercises of jurisdiction whenever the defendant was served with process within theforum state. [See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)] The Court later expanded thestates’ physical power to extend not only to those defendants who were served withinthe state, but also to those defendants who consented to the state’s power or who weredomiciled in the state, regardless of where they were served.

CIVIL PROCEDURE 7.


21/101

b. Modern Due Process Standard: Contact and FairnessThe concept of power by which a state could enforce its judgments was greatlyexpanded by the Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.310 (1945). No longer was power controlled solely by whether one of the traditional

bases of presence, residence, or consent was present. Instead, the focus became whethersufficient minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum so that mainte-nance of the suit against the defendant does not offend “traditional notions of fair playand substantial justice.” The Supreme Court has listed a series of factors by which toassess the constitutionality of personal jurisdiction. In general, the factors fall under twoheadings: contact and fairness.

1) Contact International Shoe requires that the defendant have “such minimum contacts” withthe forum that the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable. In consid-ering whether there are such contacts, a court will look to two factors: purposefulavailment and foreseeability.

a) Purposeful AvailmentDefendant’s contact with the forum must result from her purposeful availmentwith that forum. The contacts cannot be accidental. Defendant must reach outto the forum in some way, such as to make money there or to use the roadsthere. The court must find that through these contacts the defendant purposefully availed herself “of the privilege of conducting activities within theforum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” [Hanson v.Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958)] Examples: 1) Defendants, Michigan residents, entered into a franchise

contract with a Florida corporation. The agreement required,

among other things, that fees be sent to the franchisor’s homeoffice in Florida, and provided that Florida law would governany dispute. The Court held that the defendants could besued in Florida; their contact with Florida resulted from theirpurposeful availment of that state. [Burger King v. Rudzewicz,471 U.S. 462 (1985)]

2) Defendant manufactures widgets in Alabama and marketsthem to customers in Mississippi. Plaintiff, a resident ofMississippi, purchases a widget from Defendant. Defendantaccepts the order and ships the widget to Plaintiff in Missis-sippi. If the widget explodes and injures Plaintiff, she can

probably sue Defendant in Mississippi. Defendant purposefullyavailed itself of the market in Mississippi. [See InternationalShoe Co. v. Washington, supra]

Compare: 1) Father, in New York, agreed to give up custody of Daughterto Mother in California. Mother sued Father in California foradditional support. Father’s only contact with California wasletting Daughter go there. The Court held that California couldnot obtain in personam jurisdiction over Father because, in

8. CIVIL PROCEDURE


22/101

acting in the interest of family harmony, Father could not besaid to have purposefully availed himself of the benefits andprotections of California laws. [Kulko v. Superior Court, 436U.S. 84 (1978)]

2) Defendant, a New York car dealer, was sued in Oklahomabased on an injury that Plaintiff received from an accidentin Oklahoma. The only basis for jurisdiction over Defen-dant was the sale of the allegedly defective car in New Yorkby Defendant, who knew no more than that any vehicle soldmight be driven elsewhere. The Court found that there wasno purposeful availment of the privileges or protections ofOklahoma. [World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444U.S. 286 (1980)]

(1) “Stream of Commerce” CasesThere is great difficulty in assessing purposeful availment in “streamof commerce” cases. Stream of commerce cases typically arise whenDefendant manufactures its product in State A (or even CountryA) and sells them to a second party in State B, thereby placing theproduct in the stream of commerce. The product eventually winds upin another state (State C) and causes an injury therein. The question iswhether Defendant purposefully availed itself of State C. The SupremeCourt has addressed such a scenario twice, but it has failed to reach aconsensus both times. [Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480U.S. 102 (1987); J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780(2011)] For bar exam purposes, the important points to remember are:

(i) Merely placing an item in the stream of commerce, by itself, is not a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction.

(ii) It is unresolved whether (probably unlikely that) placing an itemin the stream of commerce with the knowledge or hope that itwill wind up in a particular state would be a sufficient basis forpersonal jurisdiction. If you encounter such a question on the exam,you should scour the question for facts showing an intentional targeting (purposeful availment) of the forum. (See (iii), below.)If there is no targeting, you should discuss the connections thedefendant has with the forum, and fairness to the defendant, while

mentioning the state’s interest in providing a forum for its citizensand noting that the question has not been definitively resolved. Yourconclusion will be less important than the discussion.

(iii) Placing an item in the stream of commerce, coupled with some other act that shows the intent to serve a particular state (e.g.,modifying its product to comply with state law, maintaining a salesoffice within the state, etc.) is a sufficient basis for personal juris-diction.

CIVIL PROCEDURE 9.


23/101

(2) Internet CasesThe Supreme Court has not set out a specific test or standard forassessing purposeful availment based on the defendant’s Internet activity.Many courts will look at the degree of Internet activity to determine

whether the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction; e.g., does defen-dant have a passive website that only allows people to view content, anactive website that allows people to order and download products, orsomething in between? The maintenance of a website for only infor-mational purposes, without more activity in the forum, is probablyinsufficient to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant for all causes ofaction (i.e., general jurisdiction), but it probably is sufficient for a claimarising from the maintenance of the website itself and brought underthe state’s long arm statute (thus invoking specific jurisdiction) if thedefendant is specifically targeting readers in the forum. On the otherhand, maintenance of an active website alone is probably sufficienteven for an exercise of general jurisdiction (i.e., a claim unrelated to thewebsite activities) if the defendant is conducting significant businessin the jurisdiction. For defendants with websites in between the twoextremes (e.g., a defendant with a website that allows the user to submitand request information and place orders but does not have downloads)courts will closely scrutinize the level of business activity to determineif the defendant should be deemed “present” in the forum for all causesof action. As with passive sites, specific jurisdiction hinges on whetherthe defendant was purposefully directing his activities to the forum.[See, e.g., Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 1054(2006)—Nevada hotel subject to personal jurisdiction in California when itspecifically targeted California consumers by providing rate information

to and accepting reservations on its website, by touting its proximity toCalifornia, and by providing driving directions from California]

b) ForeseeabilityIn addition to purposeful availment, the contact requirement of InternationalShoe requires that it be foreseeable that the defendant’s activities make heramenable to suit in the forum. The defendant must know or reasonably antici-pate that her activities in the forum render it foreseeable that she may be“haled into court” there. Example: A national magazine is probably subject to in personam juris-

diction for libel cases in every state in which the magazine ismarketed. Its publishers may reasonably anticipate causing

injury in every state in which the magazine is sold, and thusshould reasonably anticipate being haled into court in eachstate. [Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, 465 U.S. 770 (1984);Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)]

2) Relatedness of Claim to ContactOne important factor is whether the claim asserted against the defendant arisesin some way from the defendant’s contacts with the forum. If it does, the court ismore likely to find that jurisdiction is fair and reasonable. This assessment requires

10. CIVIL PROCEDURE


24/101

the court to determine the nature and quality of the defendant’s contacts with thestate. Some authorities consider this factor to be part of the “contact” assessment;others consider it, as we do here, to be part of the “relatedness” assessment. Theimportant point is that you address the issue in your answer, whether under the

contact, relatedness, or fairness prong of the analysis.

a) Claim Arising from Activity in the State (Specific Jurisdiction)If the defendant’s in-state activity is less than systematic or continuous (e.g.,isolated acts), in personam jurisdiction over the defendant will be proper onlyfor causes of action arising from that in-state activity; i.e., the court will have“specific jurisdiction.”

b) “Essentially At Home” in the State (General Jurisdiction)General jurisdiction—in personam jurisdiction for any cause of actionagainst the defendant, whether the cause of action arose from the in-stateactivity or from activity outside the state—requires that a defendant engage

in systematic and continuous activity such that the defendant be “essentially at home” in the forum. The Supreme Court has indicated that examplesof “essentially at home” include the domicile of a person and the states ofincorporation and principal place of business of a corporation. [GoodyearDunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011)] Also, it isclear that general jurisdiction cannot be based on purchases or sales, so some physical presence appears necessary. In the past, lower courts have held thata company such as Ford Motor or Wal-Mart, which has retail operations anda physical presence in every state, might be subject to general jurisdictionin every state. Whether this is still the case under the “essentially at home”language is unclear, although a number of commentators suggest that therewould be no general jurisdiction in such cases.

Examples: 1) Due process requirements for personal jurisdiction were notsatisfied in Texas in a wrongful death case against a Colom-bian corporation whose contacts with the forum state consistedof only one trip to Texas by the corporation’s chief executiveofficer to negotiate a contract, acceptance of checks drawnon a Texas bank, and purchases of helicopters and equipmentfrom a Texas manufacturer and related helicopter trainingtrips. The claims were not related to the defendant’s activi-ties in Texas, making specific jurisdiction inappropriate, anddefendant’s contacts with Texas were not so continuous andsystematic as to justify general jurisdiction. [HelicopterosNacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984)]

2) The defendant, a subsidiary of Goodyear, regularly hadits tires sold in North Carolina by others, but such sales werea small fraction of its total sales, and the subsidiary was notinvolved in the sales process. The Court concluded that merepurchases of the defendant’s products in the forum cannotconstitute “continuous and systematic” contact for general jurisdiction. [Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v.Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011)]

CIVIL PROCEDURE 11.


25/101

Note: Remember that the discussion here is about general jurisdiction, not specific jurisdiction. It is far more likely that you will encounter a questionon the exam calling for an answer centering primarily on specific (long arm) jurisdiction. If a plaintiff is injured in State A by a defendant, he may still

sue in State A regardless of whether the defendant is “essentially at home”in State A, because there will very likely be specific (long arm) jurisdiction.Should you need to discuss general jurisdiction, make sure to use the “essen-tially at home” phrase, note the examples the Supreme Court gave, discuss thefacts of the defendant’s activities in the forum, and conclude that it is unset-tled whether the concept of “doing business” suffices for general jurisdiction.

3) FairnessIn addition to the defendant’s having relevant contacts with the forum, Interna-tional Shoe requires that the exercise of jurisdiction not offend “traditional notionsof fair play and substantial justice.” The Court has listed several factors relevantto assessing whether jurisdiction would be fair. It is possible that an especiallystrong showing of fairness might make up for a lesser amount of contact (althoughminimum contacts are always required).

a) ConvenienceA defendant will often complain that the forum is inconvenient. The S