Jurisdiction

Personal Jurisdiction (What state will the court be located in?) (must be valid for each D)
○ Court must have statutory authority, and rule must be constitutional
■ Constitutional look at 14th Amendment (due process- fairness)
○ Most states have long-arm statutes that just say “up to the constitutional limits”
○ 4k1A makes federal court use their state’s standard
○ 4k1B Joined under Rule 14? 100 mile radius from courthouse is PJ.
○ Pennoyer - in personam (citizen or resident), in rem (where property is located),
quasi in rem (dispute not about prop., but sue in that state for up to value of
prop.)
● Specific jurisdiction - only over cases related to contacts. CHECK FIRST.
● General jurisdiction - even if case has nothing to do with forum, relies on citizenship,
residence, presence, corp. headquarters, PPB
○ For an individual, citizenship, residency, or presence.
■ Shaffer - all PJ must use minimum contacts/ purposeful availment
■ Burnham - we don’t want to say that ^, but we did....so
● Scalia(4) - don’t use min contacts to override traditional
● Brennan(4) - Presence shows purposeful availment?
● Stevens - Tradition and purposeful availment
○ For corp, many standards but certainly PJ in states of incorporation, PPB, and
maybe where they have substantial and continuous activities.
○ Int’l Shoe - Minimum Defendant contacts, no longer about the categories. Also
does not offend notions of fair play and justice.
■ Continuous systematic contacts give rise to general jurisdiction
■ Sporadic contacts - specific - only suits involving those contacts
○ Hanson - Trust lady moves to florida. Her beneficiaries sue the Delaware bank in
Fla. They had no office, do no business, she moved there on her own, they did
not “purposefully avail” themselves of the privileges of that state. (could they
foresee a lawsuit in that state?)
○ WWVolkswagon - Stream of commerce for Gen. Jur.
■ White - sig # of products, & mf tried “directly or indirectly” to serve that
market or mf expected purchases to be made in that market
○ Asahi - O’Connor - White + intent to serve market (advertising to them (maybe
national is good), designed for them, marketing there through a distributor who
agrees to be a sales agent in that state.
○ McIntyre - 1-4 machines sold
■ Kennedy(4) - White + targeted the forum, not just nationally
■ Breyer(2) - Doesn’t want to change existing law (White or Oconnor?)
■ Ginsburg(3) - national distribution network (or avail yourself of one) + any
number actually sold in that state
○ Yes, Perkins - Ohio dude leaves Philippine co. during WWII, he holds directors
meetings & has 2 bank accounts in Ohio
○ No, Helicopteros - Peruvian helicopter co been to texas to negotiate a K, bought
helicopters from a texas co, trained their pilots there.

1
 ○ McGee - Buys life insurance by mail from out of state. Even though all P
contacts, D benefitted from them, so they’re on the hook.
● Challenges to jurisdiction
■ Make 12b2 or state equivalent (using special appearance)
■ Collateral attack (D has no assets in forum state, doesn’t appear, when
they bring suit in home state to collect he raises personal jurisdiction
question, if he loses, no trial at all, so very risky).
● Jurisdiction on the internet (No Sp. Ct. decisions, so who knows) (Revell case)
○ Zippo says that the more active it is, the more likely
○ Calder, for defamation these factors support jurisdiction: knew D was in that
state, involved events in that state, website targeted to or has lots of viewers in
that state, other related contacts with state. (did it have an effect on the state)
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (State Court or Federal Court?) (Dismissed by judge 12h3)
● Diversity Jurisdiction 1332
○ 1332a1 Complete Diversity at time of filing (Citizenship is where domiciled) Corp
is citizen of state of incorporation and principal place of business(headquarters)
that’s it - Hertz
○ If dispute is for over $75,000 1332a
■ P may aggregate claims against single D
■ 2 or more Ps may only aggregate if their claims are part of a common
undivided interest (co-ownership of something)
○ 1332a2 - US citizen and foreigner. (Foreign permanent resident deemed citizen
of state they reside in)
○ NO DJ when citizen of state v citizen of US domiciled abroad. 1332 a.
● Federal Question Jurisdiction 1331
○ If a well pleaded complaint (minimum necessary) alleges a federal statute
violation or a constitutional issue (train voucher - Motley)
● Supplemental Jurisdiction 1367
○ Same transaction or occurrence? No, then NO 1367a
○ Original claim has federal question? Yes, you’re good. 1367b
○ Brought by original P? No, then you’re good. 1367b
○ D made party by 14 or 20? No, then you’re good. Yes, then NO. 1367b
○ Exxon shows that P2’s claim is good if complete diversity still satisfied
● Removal from State to Federal Court
○ 1441(a) - If Fed. had original jurisdiction. (b) Can’t remove if any D is citizen of
original state, and jurisdiction would be based on diversity.
Venue (Which court within a state?) 1391
● Where substantial part of event occurred or property lies 1391b2 OR
● 1391(b)1 Where any D domiciled if they all domiciled in state (corp. resides in dist.
where PJ over them) 1391a1 OR
● If nowhere else, where any D is subject to PJ(if Districts were states) 1391b3, if not that,
where any D is found
● Alien with permanent residence is deemed to reside where they are domiciled 1391c1
● Foreigner subject to venue anywhere in the US. 1391c3

2
 ● Transfer 1404(a) - to another venue it could have been brought in, consider interests
○ 1406(a) if it’s improper venue judge can dismiss or transfer it
● Forum non conveniens - dismiss case if it’s too inconvenient, need to refile.
Choice of Law
● Federal or state law. Only use federal if doing fed question.
● Klaxon says that federal court uses Choice of Law provision of the state they’re sitting in
● Traditional - place of last incident (lex loci commissi)
○ Torts - place of accident maybe? or manufacture? it’s unclear.
○ K - formation? then formation state. Breach? then breach state.
● Restatement 2 - place with most significant relationship? place of injury, manufacture,
residence, strong forum bias
● When transferring, use new place CoL if 1406, otherwise original court’s
● Erie Doctrine - Feds apply common law as interpreted by state courts
● Guaranty Trust - look as substance(state) v procedure(federal), but if it’s close(Statute of
limitations) then use state stuff if it’s “outcome determinative”
● Hannah - try to discourage forum shopping, FRCP applies in fed court, unless its not
procedure or unconstitutional, basically all fed rules and practices get applied now
Service (120 days 4m) (Reasonably calculated to give notice - Greene v Lindsey)
● Summons must contain names of parties + lawyers, court, when they must appear,
they’ll get default against them if they don’t, signed by clerk, sealed by court.4a1A-G
● summons and complaint must be served together 4c1
● 4e1: Can serve by state law
● 4e2: personal delivery(by a non-party 18+ 4c2, or marshall or person specially appointed
by court 4c3), or person at home of suitable age, or agent authorized to receive it.
● Corp: any way under 4e(4h1A),officer, managing or gen. agent(4h1b). Must be
constitutional
Pleadings
● Complaint (Short and plain is the name of the game)
○ Statement of Jurisdiction
○ Statement of Claim (Iqbal - discard conclusory, test the rest for plausibility) Can
plead in alternative 8d.
○ Prayer for Relief
● Pre-Answer Motions
○ 12b1 Subject Matter Jurisdiction
○ 12b2 Personal Jurisdiction
○ 12b3 improper venue
○ 12b4 insufficient process (no summons)
○ 12b5 insufficient service of process
○ Dismissal under 12b6 (Remember Iqbal) (21 days for this or answer under 7a)
■ Assume all allegations are true, does it still state a claim?
■ P almost always gets a chance to amend
○ 12b7 failure to join a party under rule 19
○ 12e motion for more definite statement
○ 12h - 12b2-5 are waived if not raised in answer or pre-answer motion

3
 ● Answer
○ Can’t generally deny, answer with particularity, or state that you don’t know (8b)
○ Assert affirmative defenses and 12b motions (8c)
● Joinder (Adding Parties is allowed only by a rule) (Still need PJ, SMJ, Venue)
○ 1P -> 1D. Adding claims always allowed 18(a). Same occurrence compulsory.
■ Counterclaims always allowed 13b. Same occurrence compulsory 13a
■ 13h. Can add new parties if claims arise out of same occurrence by Rule
20(a1-Plaintiffs)(a2-Defendants).
○ 1D -> 2D.
■ Crossclaims only allowed out of same occurrence 13g.
● Once one goes, you can bring unrelated crossclaims 18a
■ Rule 14 - join for indemnity or contribution
● 3rd party P can join any claims against 3rd party D
● Claim by P to impleaded D only same T or O. 14a3
● PJ of impleaded 100 mile radius from courthouse. 4k1b
● Class Actions (Rule 23)
○ Need numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. 23a 1-4. AND
○ For injunctive relief appropriate for whole class, only one issue needs to be in
common, standard service of process (b2 -easy) OR
○ Money damages (b3) ($5mil 1332D2 or one P has more than $75k) Common
issues must predominate, Class Action is superior method, must give “best
notice practical under the circumstances”, opportunity to “opt out”
○ Can interlocutory appeal these decisions 23f
○ Settlement with court approval only 23e (but judges dont care)
○ Subject Matter jurisdiction for Class Actions
■ Complete diversity is only measured by named plaintiff if >100
○ Wal Mart shows that courts are getting more strict about commonality
○ Rhone shows no Cla. Act when state laws will differ, large claims
● Amendments/Relation Back (Rule 15)
○ No need to ask permission if with 21 days of a starting paper 15a1b
○ Otherwise courts should give permission freely as justice requires 15a2
■ Consider Timing, Fault, and Prejudice (how much worse off is D now,
than if it would have been in original pleading)
○ Relation Back only applies when statute of limitations runs out
■ If not changing the party and same T or O, cool 15c1b
■ If changing party, same T or O and within 120 days of complaint (+ ext.)
and new D had notice of lawsuit (so he won’t be prejudiced) and new D
had reason to know he was proper and old D was wrong,15c1c .
Sanctions (rule 11) (court or party can start) (does not apply to discovery)
● Papers must be signed by lawyer (11a), warranted by law or non-frivolous
argument(11b2), not for improper purpose(11b1), have evidentiary support (11b3),
denials are reasonable (11b4).
● limited to what would deter repetition (11c4)
● 21 days to pull the paper before filed with the court (11c2)

4
Pretrial Conference (Rule 16)
● Timing, discovery limits, non-disputed and disputed issues, jury instructions, documents
Discovery (Rule 26)
● Privileges the bar discovery: Attorney-Client, Doctor-patient, self-incrimination
● Must be relevant, reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. 26b1
● Depositions - Much like trial (sworn in, court reporter) 30
○ Don’t answer if privileged or limited by court order.
● Interrogatories (33). Production of Documents (34) Compel Discovery (37)
● Work Product (“documents and tangible things”[not textually followed by judges] 26b3a
prepared in anticipation of trial - by lawyer or anyone else) can’t be discovered without
“substantial need” (Witness died or something). 26b3aii
● 3 types of Experts
○ Testifying - 26a2b - disclose name and a report of what the testimony will be
(deposable)
○ Hired non-testifying - treated like other work product (26b4d) except in
exceptional circumstances (26b4dii)
○ Not hired (engineer who built bridge) - treated like normal witness (26a2c)
● Sanctions (sort of) (26g) (mandatory)
○ requests, responses, & objections must be signed by lawyer (26g1), warranted
by law or non-frivolous argument(26g1bi), not for improper purpose(26g1bii), not
unreasonable or unduly burdensome (26g1biii).
○ Disclose everything you’re supposed to 37a3a
○ Don’t impede, delay or frustrate deposition 30d
○ Generally not doing what you’re supposed to 37a+b
Trial
Final Judgement
● 12b motions
● Summary Judgement - Generally done post-discovery, forces thorough discovery 56
○ No genuine dispute as to material fact/ no reasonable jury could find 56a
○ Sometimes filed earlier because decisive proof is had
○ Generally P has burden of Production & Persuasion (SJ almost always D motion)
○ Just have to prove that P has put forth no evidence (Celotex- don’t have to put
forth any of your own)
○ Each side submits docs, only stuff that would work in trial goes. 56c2
■ Affidavits still work, because it can reasonably be anticipated. 56c4
○ Court can grant partial SJ on certain issues
● JMOL (Penn - RR witness that couldn’t have seen it) Rule 50
○ No rational juror could decide for P. Judge doesn’t assess credibility-50a1
○ After trial finishes, D requests, judge always defers until after jury decision 50b
● Verdict
● New Trial - Rule 59
○ Verdict contrary to “great weight of evidence” -allowed to assess credibility
○ Non-Harmless error in trial (improper jury instructions, evidence, etc.)
● Reversal on appeal is also final.

5
Appeal (Only the losers)
● De Novo - look at it anew reverse even if it’s a close call.
○ SJ, JMOL, 12b6, purely legal issues
● Deferential - reverse only if trial court made a serious error
○ Clearly Erroneous Standard- Bench trial, purely factual issues
○ Abuse of Discretion - new trial, sanctions, some evidentiary issues
● Can’t appeal to change reasoning, only judgement.
● Generally only after judgement, but interlocutory if District and Appellate Court agree
● You can defend appeals with things the trial court rejected. When in doubt cross-appeal
● You waive any issues you didn’t raise in trial court
● Only overturn non-harmless errors (appellate court decides what is harmless)
Preclusion
● Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion) (Asserted as affirmative defense by rule 8c)
○ Same Claim (Fed-same T or O)(use whatever method original court uses)
○ Judgement on the merits (not for lack of jurisdiction) but default counts
○ Final Judgement (Entered on all claims)
○ Same Parties (Except when you buy land, still precluded)
● Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)
○ To invoke use partial SJ Rule 56
○ Same Issue
○ Actually Litigated
■ Counts: JMOL, allowing discovery and argument for hearing
■ Doesn’t: Default Judgement, 12b6
○ Actually Decided (If it could’ve been multiple reasons, you can relitigate)
■ Shoulda asked for a special verdict under Rule 49.
○ Essential to Judgement (If it doesn’t change the outcome you can relitigate)
■ If the court decides two reasons (Rest 2nd - neither precluded unless
appealed and affirmed) (1st - both precluded)
○ Non-Mutual CE (When only the party being estopped was in the first suit)
■ Defensive almost always fine.
■ Offensive very controversial (strategic waiting, no incentive, inconsistent)
Settlement
● Economic Model

Don’t restate rules. Make conclusions. One or two sentence intro and conclusion is good.