Civil Procedure
Civil Procedure Rules of Law
The following contains the Rules of Law you'll need for the Civil Procedure Practice Exam. These rules are presented in outline form only for purposes of the practice exam.
NOTE: Some rules are stated with elements that must be proven. Other rules are just stated without being broken into elements. In the latter case, you should figure out what the elements of the crime are yourself and incorporate that into your answer.
In personam jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction
In personam jurisdiction
Personal, or in personam, jurisdiction is imposed over a defendant when both statutory and constitutional issues are met.
Statutory issues
The forum state must have granted power to the courts to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. This can be done in one of four ways:
the defendant is present in the forum when served.
the defendant is domiciled in the forum
the defendant consents to jurisdiction or
the state's long arm statute provides for jurisdiction.
Constitutional Issues
In order for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction, the Due Process clause of the US Constitution requires that the defendant has maintained minimum contact with the forum state:
Minimum Contacts Test (International Shoe, Burger King)
Does the defendant have such minimum contacts with the forum state so that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?
Minimum Contacts is demonstrated by:
Purposeful availment, such that the defendant's voluntary act to reach out into the forum state was for some benefit to himself. Examples include putting goods into the stream of commerce, using the forum state's highways or taking advantage of the state's corporate law.
Foreseeability. The Defendant knew or should have known that it could get sued in the forum state.
Fair Play and Substantial Justice is a balance of the following factors:
The closeness of the relationship between the claim and the contact.
Whether it is convenient to call the defendant into the forum state.
The state's interest in protecting its citizens.
Subject matter jurisdiction
A defendant can be drawn into Federal court only if the subject matter of the claim is within its jurisdiction. There are two primary types of claims -- Federal Question and Diversity of Citizenship.
Federal Question
The complaint must find its basis in some federal law, such as the US Constitution, US Federal Law or Case Law. Citizenship is not relevant and parties can be from the same state.
Diversity of Citizenship
Diversity of citizenship cases require that the plaintiff and defendant be citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy be over $75,000.
Citizens of Different States
The parties must be of diverse citizen, such no single defendant can be a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff.
Citizenship
People: Whether a person is a citizen of a particular state is determined by domicile. Domicile is defined as presence in the state with the intent to remain indefinitely.
Corporations: Whether a corporation is a citizen of a particular state is determined by 1) state of incorporation and 2) the state where the corporation has its principal place of business.
Amount in Controversy
The claim for damages must be over $75,000 and must be made in good faith.
To reach the $75,000 limit, a plaintiff can
aggregate claims that arise from the same case or controversy
aggregate claims from different controversy if it's there's only one defendant and one plaintiff
Civil Procedure Practice Exam
Instructions:
Read the following fact pattern, and answer the question. Give yourself 60 minutes to complete this exam. Do not go over the time limit.
We recommend that you take this exam only after you have completed your study of jurisdictional issues. If necessary, review the Civil Procedure Rules of Law before starting this exam.
Once you have completed the practice exam in the time allotted, then compare your answer with this Civil Procedure Sample Answer.
Civil Procedure Fact Pattern
Peter is a model rocket hobbyist who lives in the State of X on the border with Y State. The closest shopping district next to him is in Y State. Donner Industries makes a model rocket called the A-5. Donner is incorporated in the state of Delaware and has its only place of operations in Z State. Donner does no national advertising itself and does not sell directly to stores or hobbyists. Donner sells only to a nationwide distributor in New York City. Donner provides the distributor with various promotional materials including tapes of radio advertisements that hobby stores can use to buy time on local radio stations. No hobby store in X State carries the A-5.
Peter hears the Donner-produced advertisement on a radio state broadcasting from the State of Y about the new A-5 model rocket being sold at a local Henry's Hobby Store in Y State. Peter travels from X State into Y State and buys an A-5 rocket. At his home in X State, Peter assembles the rocket correctly. Following all safety precautions, Peter attempts to launch the A-5 rocket but, due to a faulty design, the A-5 explodes causing substantial personal injury to Peter and igniting a fire that damages Peter's house. In Federal District Court in X, Peter sues Donner Industries claiming $40,000 in damages to the house, $30,000 in medical bills due to personal injuries and $10,000 in lost wages due the injuries.
State X's long-arm statute provides for jurisdiction against tortfeasors whose actions cause injury in the state of X.
You are a law clerk for the Federal District Court in the state of X, and the presiding judge has asked you to prepare a memo analyzing whether or not the case should be heard in this court. What are the issues, correct result and reasoning on whether or not this case should be heard?
Once you have completed the practice exam in the time allotted, then compare your answer with this Civil Procedure Sample Answer.
Civil Procedure Sample Answer
The following is a sample answer to the Civil Procedure Practice Exam. If you have not already done so, take the exam and then compare your answer to this sample. If necessary, you can also review the Civil Procedure Rules of Law for this exam. Since law school professors vary in what they consider excellent work, this answer is only presented as a sample.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may hear a case only if it has both personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.
Personal Jurisdiction
Personal (in personam) jurisdiction is imposed over a defendant when both statutory and constitutional issues are met.
From statutory point of view, one of four situations must occur to impose in personam jurisdiction. The defendant must 1) be present in the forum when served, 2) domiciled there, 3) consents to jurisdiction or 4) the state's long arm statute provides for jurisdiction.
Since Donner Industries (D) is not present in the forum of X, Peter (P) must use the state's long arm statute to reach D. X's long arm statute provides for jurisdiction over a defendant whose tortious actions cause injury in X. In this case, the underlying tort-the defective manufacture of the A-5 rocket - occurred in Z. However, since the actual injury occurred in X, the state's statute properly provides for jurisdiction.
Constitutionally, the court has jurisdiction over D only if brining D into the forum state comports with the Due Process Clause. The Due Process Clause is satisfied if the defendant meet the minimum contacts test (International Shoe, Burger King) in order that the defendant has "such minimum contacts with the forum so that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."
Minimum contact has been interpreted by the courts as including two elements 1) actual contact and 2) fairness. Under the actual contact prong, the factors considered are purposeful availment and foreseeability. Under these facts, D could argue that it did not purposefully avail itself directly to X residents because it did not sell directly to any hobby stores or to any hobbyists in the state. Furthermore, it does not advertise, therefore D could claim that it does not try to benefit from the state's consumers, and it was not foreseeable that it would be drawn into the state's court.
P, however, has a compelling argument that by merely selling its products to a national distributor in New York City, D knew or should have known that its rockets - a potentially dangerous item by its very nature - would be put into the stream of commerce nationwide. D will counter that even if was foreseeable that it might be called into Y, it was not foreseeable that X residents would cross the border into Y. In addition, the A-5 was never sold in X, therefore D could not have foreseen an action in this forum. However, the mere fact that the rocket was advertised on a State Y radio station suggests that Henry's Hobby Store (H) was reaching across to X citizens. P will argue that given the strength of the signal of some radio stations, it was foreseeable to D that stores in one state using the D-produced advertising would reach across borders into other states. Therefore, I think that the purposeful availment and foreseeability tests for contact have been met in these circumstances.
Fairness is tested by looking at factors such as 1) how close the relationship is between the claim and the contact, 2) whether the forum is convenient and 3) the state's interest. Here the evidence suggests that it is fair to call D into court in X. The injuries were a direct result of faulty design. But for the sale of the rocket to P, the damage would not have occurred. Therefore, the relatedness factor is satisfied. The forum is arguably as convenient as Y and bears no great burden to D. Given the wide availability of nationwide flights, D will have no great burden to appear before the X Federal District Court. In addition, the sate has a great interest in seeing that its citizens are protected from faulty design in potentially dangerous products such as model rockets.
Given all of these factors, it is reasonable to conclude that bringing D within the forum is both fair to the defendant and meets the minimum contacts test, therefore in personam jurisdiction is proper under these circumstances.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A defendant can be drawn into Federal court only if the subject matter of the claim is within its jurisdiction. Typically, cases fall into one of two classes - federal question and diversity of citizenship. Since there doesn't appear to be any federal law impacted here, we will proceed to analyzing this case on diversity issues.
Diversity of citizenship cases require that the plaintiff and defendant be citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy be over $75,000.
In the case of citizenship, the diversity must be complete. Citizenship for a person is determined by domicile. Here, all facts point to P being a citizen of X since he lives there, presumably with an intent to remain indefinitely. Citizenship for a corporation is determined by its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. Since D is incorporated in Delaware but operates only in Z, it has dual citizenship in both Delaware and Z. Since neither the plaintiff nor the defendant are citizens of the same state, the first prong of diversity jurisdiction is met.
The amount in controversy requires that the plaintiff make a good faith allegation that the claim exceeds $75,000. Here, P has aggregated three types of damages - none of which is over $75,000. However, since the damages all relate to the same case and since there is only one plaintiff and one defendant, P can aggregate his claims against D in order to meet the jurisdictional limit. The good faith requirement merely means there is a legal basis for the assessment of potential damages. If D is found liable for the tortious act, it is reasonable to conclude that they may have to pay damages for all three of the claims since property damage, personal damage and lost wages are likely results from a rocket that was not correctly designed.
Consequently, the defendant is subject to both personal and subject matter jurisdiction and may be properly brought before the X District Court.
The following contains the Rules of Law you'll need for the Civil Procedure Practice Exam. These rules are presented in outline form only for purposes of the practice exam.
NOTE: Some rules are stated with elements that must be proven. Other rules are just stated without being broken into elements. In the latter case, you should figure out what the elements of the crime are yourself and incorporate that into your answer.
In personam jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction
In personam jurisdiction
Personal, or in personam, jurisdiction is imposed over a defendant when both statutory and constitutional issues are met.
Statutory issues
The forum state must have granted power to the courts to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. This can be done in one of four ways:
the defendant is present in the forum when served.
the defendant is domiciled in the forum
the defendant consents to jurisdiction or
the state's long arm statute provides for jurisdiction.
Constitutional Issues
In order for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction, the Due Process clause of the US Constitution requires that the defendant has maintained minimum contact with the forum state:
Minimum Contacts Test (International Shoe, Burger King)
Does the defendant have such minimum contacts with the forum state so that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?
Minimum Contacts is demonstrated by:
Purposeful availment, such that the defendant's voluntary act to reach out into the forum state was for some benefit to himself. Examples include putting goods into the stream of commerce, using the forum state's highways or taking advantage of the state's corporate law.
Foreseeability. The Defendant knew or should have known that it could get sued in the forum state.
Fair Play and Substantial Justice is a balance of the following factors:
The closeness of the relationship between the claim and the contact.
Whether it is convenient to call the defendant into the forum state.
The state's interest in protecting its citizens.
Subject matter jurisdiction
A defendant can be drawn into Federal court only if the subject matter of the claim is within its jurisdiction. There are two primary types of claims -- Federal Question and Diversity of Citizenship.
Federal Question
The complaint must find its basis in some federal law, such as the US Constitution, US Federal Law or Case Law. Citizenship is not relevant and parties can be from the same state.
Diversity of Citizenship
Diversity of citizenship cases require that the plaintiff and defendant be citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy be over $75,000.
Citizens of Different States
The parties must be of diverse citizen, such no single defendant can be a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff.
Citizenship
People: Whether a person is a citizen of a particular state is determined by domicile. Domicile is defined as presence in the state with the intent to remain indefinitely.
Corporations: Whether a corporation is a citizen of a particular state is determined by 1) state of incorporation and 2) the state where the corporation has its principal place of business.
Amount in Controversy
The claim for damages must be over $75,000 and must be made in good faith.
To reach the $75,000 limit, a plaintiff can
aggregate claims that arise from the same case or controversy
aggregate claims from different controversy if it's there's only one defendant and one plaintiff
Civil Procedure Practice Exam
Instructions:
Read the following fact pattern, and answer the question. Give yourself 60 minutes to complete this exam. Do not go over the time limit.
We recommend that you take this exam only after you have completed your study of jurisdictional issues. If necessary, review the Civil Procedure Rules of Law before starting this exam.
Once you have completed the practice exam in the time allotted, then compare your answer with this Civil Procedure Sample Answer.
Civil Procedure Fact Pattern
Peter is a model rocket hobbyist who lives in the State of X on the border with Y State. The closest shopping district next to him is in Y State. Donner Industries makes a model rocket called the A-5. Donner is incorporated in the state of Delaware and has its only place of operations in Z State. Donner does no national advertising itself and does not sell directly to stores or hobbyists. Donner sells only to a nationwide distributor in New York City. Donner provides the distributor with various promotional materials including tapes of radio advertisements that hobby stores can use to buy time on local radio stations. No hobby store in X State carries the A-5.
Peter hears the Donner-produced advertisement on a radio state broadcasting from the State of Y about the new A-5 model rocket being sold at a local Henry's Hobby Store in Y State. Peter travels from X State into Y State and buys an A-5 rocket. At his home in X State, Peter assembles the rocket correctly. Following all safety precautions, Peter attempts to launch the A-5 rocket but, due to a faulty design, the A-5 explodes causing substantial personal injury to Peter and igniting a fire that damages Peter's house. In Federal District Court in X, Peter sues Donner Industries claiming $40,000 in damages to the house, $30,000 in medical bills due to personal injuries and $10,000 in lost wages due the injuries.
State X's long-arm statute provides for jurisdiction against tortfeasors whose actions cause injury in the state of X.
You are a law clerk for the Federal District Court in the state of X, and the presiding judge has asked you to prepare a memo analyzing whether or not the case should be heard in this court. What are the issues, correct result and reasoning on whether or not this case should be heard?
Once you have completed the practice exam in the time allotted, then compare your answer with this Civil Procedure Sample Answer.
Civil Procedure Sample Answer
The following is a sample answer to the Civil Procedure Practice Exam. If you have not already done so, take the exam and then compare your answer to this sample. If necessary, you can also review the Civil Procedure Rules of Law for this exam. Since law school professors vary in what they consider excellent work, this answer is only presented as a sample.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may hear a case only if it has both personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.
Personal Jurisdiction
Personal (in personam) jurisdiction is imposed over a defendant when both statutory and constitutional issues are met.
From statutory point of view, one of four situations must occur to impose in personam jurisdiction. The defendant must 1) be present in the forum when served, 2) domiciled there, 3) consents to jurisdiction or 4) the state's long arm statute provides for jurisdiction.
Since Donner Industries (D) is not present in the forum of X, Peter (P) must use the state's long arm statute to reach D. X's long arm statute provides for jurisdiction over a defendant whose tortious actions cause injury in X. In this case, the underlying tort-the defective manufacture of the A-5 rocket - occurred in Z. However, since the actual injury occurred in X, the state's statute properly provides for jurisdiction.
Constitutionally, the court has jurisdiction over D only if brining D into the forum state comports with the Due Process Clause. The Due Process Clause is satisfied if the defendant meet the minimum contacts test (International Shoe, Burger King) in order that the defendant has "such minimum contacts with the forum so that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."
Minimum contact has been interpreted by the courts as including two elements 1) actual contact and 2) fairness. Under the actual contact prong, the factors considered are purposeful availment and foreseeability. Under these facts, D could argue that it did not purposefully avail itself directly to X residents because it did not sell directly to any hobby stores or to any hobbyists in the state. Furthermore, it does not advertise, therefore D could claim that it does not try to benefit from the state's consumers, and it was not foreseeable that it would be drawn into the state's court.
P, however, has a compelling argument that by merely selling its products to a national distributor in New York City, D knew or should have known that its rockets - a potentially dangerous item by its very nature - would be put into the stream of commerce nationwide. D will counter that even if was foreseeable that it might be called into Y, it was not foreseeable that X residents would cross the border into Y. In addition, the A-5 was never sold in X, therefore D could not have foreseen an action in this forum. However, the mere fact that the rocket was advertised on a State Y radio station suggests that Henry's Hobby Store (H) was reaching across to X citizens. P will argue that given the strength of the signal of some radio stations, it was foreseeable to D that stores in one state using the D-produced advertising would reach across borders into other states. Therefore, I think that the purposeful availment and foreseeability tests for contact have been met in these circumstances.
Fairness is tested by looking at factors such as 1) how close the relationship is between the claim and the contact, 2) whether the forum is convenient and 3) the state's interest. Here the evidence suggests that it is fair to call D into court in X. The injuries were a direct result of faulty design. But for the sale of the rocket to P, the damage would not have occurred. Therefore, the relatedness factor is satisfied. The forum is arguably as convenient as Y and bears no great burden to D. Given the wide availability of nationwide flights, D will have no great burden to appear before the X Federal District Court. In addition, the sate has a great interest in seeing that its citizens are protected from faulty design in potentially dangerous products such as model rockets.
Given all of these factors, it is reasonable to conclude that bringing D within the forum is both fair to the defendant and meets the minimum contacts test, therefore in personam jurisdiction is proper under these circumstances.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A defendant can be drawn into Federal court only if the subject matter of the claim is within its jurisdiction. Typically, cases fall into one of two classes - federal question and diversity of citizenship. Since there doesn't appear to be any federal law impacted here, we will proceed to analyzing this case on diversity issues.
Diversity of citizenship cases require that the plaintiff and defendant be citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy be over $75,000.
In the case of citizenship, the diversity must be complete. Citizenship for a person is determined by domicile. Here, all facts point to P being a citizen of X since he lives there, presumably with an intent to remain indefinitely. Citizenship for a corporation is determined by its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. Since D is incorporated in Delaware but operates only in Z, it has dual citizenship in both Delaware and Z. Since neither the plaintiff nor the defendant are citizens of the same state, the first prong of diversity jurisdiction is met.
The amount in controversy requires that the plaintiff make a good faith allegation that the claim exceeds $75,000. Here, P has aggregated three types of damages - none of which is over $75,000. However, since the damages all relate to the same case and since there is only one plaintiff and one defendant, P can aggregate his claims against D in order to meet the jurisdictional limit. The good faith requirement merely means there is a legal basis for the assessment of potential damages. If D is found liable for the tortious act, it is reasonable to conclude that they may have to pay damages for all three of the claims since property damage, personal damage and lost wages are likely results from a rocket that was not correctly designed.
Consequently, the defendant is subject to both personal and subject matter jurisdiction and may be properly brought before the X District Court.
posted by alfieping at 11:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home