Personal jurisdiction and Eerie have no right answer, Maria. Just have an analytical framework.

Issue: Choosing a forum, are we in the right court? I. Personal Jurisdiction (PJ) II. Notice III. Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) IV. Venue V. Eerie I. Personal Jurisdiction -in what states can the P sue the D? -the court must have power over something -2 things to have power over; the D herself, or the Ds property 3 kinds of PJ a. in personam -court has power over the D herself b. in rem -court has power over Ds property (ex. Automobile, bank account) c. quasi-in-rem (QIR) How do we know if the court has power? 1. Due process clause set the outer boundary. Due process tells courts how far they can go in exercising PJ over any of those 3 kinds. -Fact that a case falls within the Due Process circle does not mean that the court does have PJ. 2. State must have a statute that allow PJ in the case -states may extend all the way to the boundaries of the Due Process (Long Arm) **Assess statute, is there a statute that allows PJ? -if no statute, no PJ. -if yes, then we asses whether PJ is Constitutional? Does it fall within the boundaries of the Due Process Clause? I. PJ (A.) in personam- power over the D herself not over her property -either GENERAL or SPECIFIC -with General Jurisdiction the D can be sued in the forum for a claim that arose anywhere in the world. -specific jurisdiction, the D is sued for a claim that arises in the forum. Arises out of something you did in the forum, does this claim asserted by the P arise from what the D did in the forum. If so Specific Jurisdiction

1. Constitutional Limit (Due Process Circle) -the law today is an amalgam of all case law Start with Pennoyer v Neff (1878): traditional basis for in personam jurisdiction (4 basis) 1. D is served with process in the forum gives court General Jurisdiction 2. Service on the Ds agent in the forum 3. D is domiciled in the forum gives court General Jurisdiction 4. D consents to jurisdiction *tough to get in personam, because if D doesnt have those 4 things, the only way to get it is to serve process to D in the forum state. As society got more mobile it became possible for D to drive into a state, commit a tort, then leave the state before serving process on him. Hess v Palowski (1927) Expands 4 traditional basis Pennsylvanian driving car to Mass. and is in a wreck. So Mass victim wants to sue the Penn in Mass but under Pennoyer they cant because the guy went back to Penn. Jurisdiction was upheld in Mass. Court says you can sue in Mass based on non resident motor act (legislative statute, every state has one). Ex. If you drive into our state, you are *consenting to in personam jurisdiction **You are appointing a state official as your agent for service. These are always specific jurisdiction, claim has to arise out of your operation of the motor vehicle. Consistent with Pennoyer, just expands the traditional basis. Consent becomes implied consent and service stretching to your agent. By driving a motor vehicle you are consenting and you are appointing someone as your agent for service of process right there in the state. International Shoe (1945) NOT PUSHING TRADITIONAL BASIS, WE COME UP WITH A NEW FORUMLA (MINIMUM CONTACTS) **Jurisdiction if the D has such minimum contacts with the forum so that jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (SHOE TEST) 1. You can serve process outside the forum just as long as D meets the test 2. There seem to be 2 parts: Minimum Contacts, Fairness 3. No where does this over rule Pennoyer -this is the test if the D is not present, meaning if you dont have a traditional basis, then you apply the Shoe test. It exists alongside the traditional basis, it does not replace it. McGhee (1957) Upheld jurisdiction in CA over a TX insurance company and that was true even though there was only 1 contact. Court emphasized 2 things 1. Court solicited the business, they reached into CA. 2. CA had an interest in providing justice -it hada statute that said whn our residents gets ripped off by out of state insurance companies, we want to prvude them a forum here in CA

Hanson (1958) **Under SHOE the contact between the D and forum must result from D purposeful availment D must reach out to the forum like in McGhee. In Hanson, the court held that there was no jurisdiction in FL over a Delaware bank. The Delaware bank did business with a woman in FL but the only reason was bc she moved to FL. The bank did not reach out to FL, she moved there. They set up the trust in Delaware. No puroposeful availment World Wide Volkswagen (1980) New York family uby a car in NY because they are moving to Arizona. On the way to Arizona they get into a car wreck in Oklahoma claiming a car defect. Among the D are 2 NY defendant; the NY retailor, and NY distributor S.C says no jurisdiction in Oklahoma Why? Bc there was no purposeful availment, the D did not reach out to Oklahoma at all. The only reason they got there was bc the family drove it there. There was no purposeful availment. opposing argument is that you can foresee that a car sold in NY would get to Oklahoma. Court said well foreseeability is relevant but it is not foreseeability that the product would get there, that is not enough. It must be foreseeable that the D could get sued there. Burger King (1985) Contract case in FL2 franchisee from Michigan Court makes it very clear that international shoe has 2 parts; -1. Contacts 2. Fairness Must asses contacts first: If you do not have a relevant contact then there can be no jurisdiction. All the fairness will not make up for lack of contact. Contact was easy in this case guys in Michigan had reached out to BK in FL to enter into a 20 year franchise contract (Contact) Big argument was that litigation would not be fair in FL. S.C said tough, you can travel *put an enormous burden on D Burden on D to show that this forum is so gravely inconvenient that you are at a sever disadvantage Relative wealth of the parties is irrelevant *If you argue jurisdiction is not FAIR, it will be hard to prove. You have a high burden to meet Due Process does not guarantee the D a good forum it just guarantees you one that is not unconstitutionally bad Asahi (1987) STREAM OF COMMERCE CASE I manufacture components for some machines, such as valves to go into a heat. Valves in state A. I sell the to a heater manufacturer in state B. I avail myself to state B bc I Reach out to them. State B puts my valves into his finished product and cells it to state C,D,E. The valve gets into C,D,E but I did not send it there. Th third party put it into his machines. My valve now

explodes in state C,D,E. Does the valve manufacture have a relevant contact under SHOE with C,D,E? We got no law, justice split 4-4. 2 valid theories: Brennan, OConnor **Brennan: it is a contact if I put the product into the stream of commerce and can reasonably anticipate that it will get to state C,D,E. I knew the 3rd party was selling to C,D,E because if they werent there I wouldnt sell so many valves **OConnor: You need MORE than that. You need what Brennan said (stream of commerce, reasonably anticipate it get there) plus some intent to serve state C,D,E. You have to show some kind of purposeful availment to target C,D,E (ex. Advertisement, customer service centers in C,D,E) *If I did not have some intent to target those states then it simply got there by the unilateral act of a third party and there is no purposeful availment McIntyre returns to stream of commerce English company and it manufacturers metal cutting machine. English company sells them into Ohio. Reach out ONLY to Ohio. In Ohio a separate company then sells it all over the country into various states. The machines end up in place like NJ. P is injured in NJ and trie to sell the English company in NJ S.C says no jurisdiction Before on stream of commerce we had a 4-4 split Now, they split 4-2-3 Kennedy (4 justices) clearly adopt the OConnor view and it was not met here. English company did not target NJ. No contact Breyer (2 justices) dont take sides. Adopts both, he agrees with both. But neither was met in this fact pattern Ginsburg (3 dissenters) consistent with Brennan but more broad. If you target the U.S. then you can be sued in any state where your product causes injury. NJ is in the U.S. Burham (1990) NJ citizen sued in CA He is served with process in CA present in CA when served but law suit does not relate to a claim that arose in CA (GENERAL J) Do the traditional basis alongside International Shoe? Traditional basis service of process in the forum. Is it consistent with SHOE Split 4-4 Scalia (4 justices) presence when served is okay by itself. You do not need to go through the SHOE test at all. He argues the historical pedigree. SHOE said that M.C. is th test if the D is not present when served. They are alternatives. Brenna (4 justices) you ALWAYS apply SHOE test. It has supplanted the traditional basis, there are traditional basis you have to go to SHOE. *court gives us no law, split 4-4 again. In Personam (General or Specific)

 Goodyear

Generalsued in forum on a claim that arose any where in the world S.C returned to General J in the Goodyear case Unanimous opinion When do we get general jurisdiction? Leading up to Goodyear the court gave us a phrase in Helicopteros and Perkins *you can have general j if the D contacts were continuous and systematic GOODYEAR says thats not enough GJ is ok only where states where the D is essentially at home, not every where contacts are continuous and systematic For a human, you are essentially a home in your domicile What about corporations? The state of incorporation and the state of the principal place of business on a claim that arose any where in the world Much more narrow GJ cannot be based on buying and selling in the state. You need some physical presence but how much is enough? We dont know.

Framework: Bottom line, this is unclear.

Constitutional analysis 1. does a traditional basis apply? Cite Pennoyer -if one does exist traditional basis by itself may be enough bc thats what Scalia said in Burnham -on the other hand they split 4-4 and Brennan said, you have to do SHOE even if there is a traditional basis STEP 1- CONTACTS 2. How to apply SHOE (2 steps) a. there must be a relevant contact between the D and the forum relevant contact *i. Relevant contact means that there is purposeful availment. D must reach out to the forum, she must avail herself of the forum in some way that is not the result of a unilateral act of a third party. **ii. Relevant contact means there is foreseeability it must be foreseeable that the D could be sued there. Not foreseeability that the product would get there, thats not enough. It has to be foreseeable that you can be sued there. Having found a contact, the next step is to asses whether this is specific or general jurisdiction 3. Relatedness. Does the P claim arise from the D contact with the forum? If the answer is yes specific jurisdiction (McGhee)

If the answer is no it is only ok if there is general jurisdiction. Under Goodyear, this must be a state where the D is essentially at home. Buying and selling is not enough continuous and systematic is not enough. *All of that relates to CONTACTS (Step 1)

STEP 2- FAIRNESS Once you establish minimum contacts now ask: Is it fair to litigate in this state? 5 fairness factors Burden is on the D to show that it is unconstitutionally inconvenient (Burger King) 5 fairness factor(s) a. inconvenience for the D b. forum states interest (McGhee) c. P interest (especially if she is injured) d. efficiency legal systems interest in efficiency e. shared substantive policies II. Statutory requirement must be statute that allows PJ every state has a series of PJ statutes, for example they all have statute that allow in personam jurisdiction on the traditional basis. What about going after non-residents? Non-resident motor act (Specific jurisdiction, has to be a motor vehicle crash case, and also appointed an agent for service of process) Long arm statutegoing after non-resident. CA long arm type says court has jurisdiction to the full extent of the constitution Long arm statues can be interpreted in different ways by different courts Hypo: I manufacture a machine in state A. I sell it to you in state B. No stream of commerce, I am availing myself to state B. The Machine blows up and you are injured in state B. You want to sue in state B. The Long arm in state B says we have jurisdictions of nonresidents who commit a tort in state B. Did I commit a tort in state B? Court split on that. (cite Grey v. American radiator) Some courts say yes bc the injury was in state B. The tort occurred when it physically injured the P. Some courts says no bc I manufactured it in state A. if I committed a tort, it was in state A not B.

A. PERSONAL JURISDICTION I. CONTACTS Analyze the (a.) Statute that allows jurisdiction then (b.) Would jurisdiction be constitutional?

SHOE TEST: 1. relevant contact a. purposeful availment did the D reach out to the forum state via advertisement, marketing etc.? (McGhee) b. foreseeabilityforeseeable that D could be sued in forum state. Not just enough for the product to get there, but if you know your product will get there and it is defective, it may be foreseeable. Now that CONTACT has been established look at relatedness 2. Relatedness (specific or general jurisdiction) ____________________________________________________________ II. FAIRNESS 5 factors: burden is on the D and it is a tough one a.) is the inconvenience the burden on the D? is it a big deal for the D? look at proximately of states b.) state interest c.) P interest d.) efficiency e.) shared substantive policy

B. Always prefer in personam, if you cannot get it then look for in rem jurisdiction In rem bank account, automobile, hous, try to get jurisdiction over property. Dispute is about who owns that property. Using the property as jurisdictional basis. Each claim ownership over it QIR dispute has nothing to do with ownership of property, clear D owns property. Dispute is over some thing else. Best example- Pennoyer, under lying case of Mitchell v Neff. Breach of k case, he could not go in personam bc Neff wasnt around so he attached Neffs property and proceed QIR. QIR because underlying dspute ahs nothing to do with who owns the property. When do we know when its ok? Pennoyer held that in rem or QIR is ok if the property is attached at the outset of the case. Have the court size the property at the outset of case. QIR and in rem 1. have to have a statue -statute is attachment statute, not a long arm (that is for in personam) We can seize property D owns or claims to own. 2. constitutional test (same as in personam) -Scaffer v Heightnerseizing property at outset is not enough. In addition the D must meet international shoe. A. minimum contacts B. fairness

Notice In addition to PJ Due Process requires notice we have to tell D she is being sued and a chance to be heard A. Service of Process (Federal Rule 4) FRCP 4 (5 subparts) A.) process consists of a summons and a copy of the complaint. 2 pieces of paper; summons and copy of complaint -summons is symbol of the courts power of the D. Must be signed by clerk, and contents of that summons are in Rule 4A1. You have been sued, you need to respond.. etc. B.) service can be made by any non-party who is at least age 18 -Rule 4C2 C.) how do we serve an individual? -Rule 4E Starting point 4E2 gives you 3 options o i. Personal service; can be done anywhere. Walk up and hand it to him o ii. Substituted service; very picky and technical. Must be at the D dwelling or usual abode AND you must serve someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there o suitable age and discretion, there is no preliminary age limit but the person has to reside there. o iii. Service on Ds agent. Sometime they are appointed by law, non motorist vehicle act o **4E1 allows you to use methods for serving process under state law. State where the federal court sits or where the service is to be effected. So if federal court in NY we can use 4E2 or any methods allowed by NY state law. o service by mail bc 4E1 allows us to use state law and usually state law allows for service through mail D.) Service on Business Rule 4H1 We are going to serve an officer or managing or general agent Does not just include any employee. Look for someone with sufficient responsibility that you expect her to transmit important papers. E.) Waiver of Service Rule 4D Not service by mail, it is waiver by mail Done by First Class mail, send to D the process and 2 copies of the waiver form and it allows D to waive service What if D fails to do that? Assuming she has no good reason then we serve process on her and she will have to pay for it. Thats the only penalty State law is always something you can look at, because of 4E1

What is the constitutional element? Mullane (1950) Notice must be reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise the parties under of the proceeding Methods under Rule 4 are all Constitutional. True even if the D does not get the process. If you use substituted service, and service is given to my wife and she throws it away, it is still constitutional. *Jones v Flowers (2006) if you become aware that the D has not gotten it you may have to try other steps. State was going after homeowner so state kept mailing certified letters to D and the letters kept getting returned, The state knew the guy was not getting that notice and in that notice that state did have to step up and try something else. III. Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) STATE V. FEDERAL COURTS Has nothing to do with PJ. PJ tells you that you can sue the D in a particular state. What court do we go to? There is always this choice, are we going to state or federal court? Why does it matter? PJ is over parties, SMJ is over claims. Federal courts have limited SMJ, they can only hear certain kinds of cases bc Article 3 says so. Cannot waive this. You can waive PJ. 2 major ways to get into federal court a.) diversity of citizenship o i. diversity o ii. Amount exceeding 75k b.) Federal Question State Courts have general subject matter jurisdiction meaning they can hear any type of case. Has nothing to do with PJ. State courts can hear any type of case with one minor exception: some FQ cases must be brought in federal court things like bankruptcy, patent infringement. Most FQ you can go to either state or federal courts i. Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction 1332 A(1) of the Judicial Code Not a Federal Rule If it has 4 numbers, it is a citizenship 2 requirements for diversity. MUST show BOTH o case is between citizen of 2 different states, o amount in controversy exceeds 75k 1. Citizens of different states a.) complete diversity rule means there is no diversity if any P is a citizen of the same state as any D b.) citizenship of a human being (natural person)

-for U.S. citizens, citizen of the state where domiciled -domicile takes 2 things; o physical presence in the state o forum the intent to make it your permanent home o only have 1 domicile at the time, it is a legal impossibility to have 2 domiciles at one time o you always have a domicile, you retain it until you go to the new state and form the intent to make that state you permanent home (Hypo:) Someone borne and raised in Missouri. Goes to college in Michigan for 4 years. Whole time he thinks, Im not going back to Missouri but I dont know where Im going to end up. Goes to law school in Oregon. Does not want to go back to Missouri. Goes to medical school in FL for 4 years. Thinks I dont want to g back to Missouri. What is his domicile? Missouri. (Did he register to vote? In state tuition? Etc.) 2. Citizenship of Corporation do not talk about domicile, but they do have citizenship defined by state 1332C1 corporation is a citizen of (1.) The states where incorporated AND (2.) Citizen of the one state where it has its principal place of business o corporation, unlike a human, can have 2 citizenships Hertz- gives us the test of what is the principal place of business PPB is where the managers direct, control and coordinate corporate activities (Corporate headquarters) **NERVE CENTER, usually the headquarters (note:) citizenship of non incorporated business (partnerships, LLC). Look to citizenship of all the members. (Still under diversity, subsection ii. Amount in controversy. Need BOTH diversity and amount to satisfy diversity of citizenship) ii. Amount in Controversy Must exceed 75k P claim governs unless it is clear to a legal certainty that she cannot recover more than 75k Aggregation- you must add 2 or more claims to get 75k Rule: We aggregate (add) the P claim if there is 1 P versus 1 D. No limit on claims, and they dont have to be related. 1 P and 1 D on 2 claims. One is for 40 k and the other is 50 for a totally unrelated claim. Is it ok? YES You cannot aggregate is there are multiple parties on either side. So if you had 1 P against 2D, you cannot aggregate. HOWEVER, WITH A JOINT CLAIM USE THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE CLAIM AND THE NUMBER OF PARTIES IS IRRELEVANT (hypo) 3 people follow me to street and beat me up. Damages is 75k and a penny. I sue all 3 of you under joint claim and I can sue for totally value bc any one of them could be liable for the full amount

How ill I know if its a joint claim? Look at the language, it must say joint.

B. Federal Question (FQ) 1331 citizenship is irrelevant and amount in controversy is irrelevant how do we know if federal question 1.) Claim must arise under federal law o RULE: WELL PLEADED COMPLAINT RULE look only at the complaint, do not look at anything the D says to counter-claim. Look only at P claim itself, you ignore other material. Often P in their complaint put more than their claim, they try to anticipate counterclaims and rebut them, only look at the claim Mottley Well pleaded means you look only at claim To apply well-pleaded complaint rule, ask yourself: is the P enforcing a federal right? o If yes, it goes to court under FQ o If no, it is not in FQ and you cannot take it to federal court (Hypo:) Motleys had free lifetime passes on railroad. Congress passes a law (Think federal law, is there federal question jurisdiction) that says railroads cannot give away free passes. Well, they already gave pass to Montleys. They show up and railroad says we cant honor bc of the federal statute. Montleys sue the railroad. They say (1.) You are breaching the k (2.) That new federal law does not apply to us. -cant go to court of federal court jurisdiction? -are the P enforcing a federal right? -answer is NO in Montley. They are saying the statute does not apply to them. Ignore claim (2) bc it has nothing to do with federal law. There only the issue of breach of k.

C. Supplemental Jurisdiction we have seen 2 ways to get a case into federal court. You either meet divert or federal question. P must meet 1 of those to get into federal court. Now, we are in federal court but in this case there is an additional claim. Some other claim being asserted in the case. Maybe P has more than 1 claim. For every claim in federal court, there must be federal subject matter jurisdiction (does this claim meet diversity, does this claim meet FQ) What happens if an additional claim that does not meet diversity or FQ? Then we try Supplemental jurisdiction RULE: 1367 Lets a federal court hear a non- diversity, non federal claim. A claim that by itself, could never go to federal court. Does not get a case into federal court, but once its thee Supplemental jurisdiction will help us get a non diversity non federal claim into court Gibbs (1966)

Labor disputes in coal mines of Kentucky. 1 P and 1 D. P sued for 2 claims; 1 arose under federal law for federal labor law issues and the other arose under state law. [FQ] P(TN)-------- D(TN) invokes FQ jurisdiction, claim is now in federal court [State law] -------------- D what about claim #2? Does not invoke FQ, no diversity. Claim #2 by itself could never go to federal court S.C said it can hear claim #2 under supplemental jurisdiction GIBBS TEST: **Supplemental Jurisdiction is okay if the claim shares a common nucleolus of operative fact. Both claims can come in. *must be the same overall dispute Gibbs is always met if those 2 claims occur from the same transaction or occurrence How do we handle it today? It is codified under 1367 How to apply Supplemental Jurisdiction? 1.) does 1367A (codifies Gibbs) grant jurisdiction? o The answer is YES if it meets Gibbs, common nucleus of operative fact 2.) does 1367B take away that grant? o **Applies only in diversity cases, not FQ o **it only takes away supplemental jurisdiction over certain claims by the P NOT by the D (Hypo) Gibbs 2 claims; claim 1=FQ, claim #2=non diversity, non FQ a. does 1367A grant jurisdiction over claim #2? Yes if it is met under Gibbs? Do they share a common nucleus of operative fact. b. does 1367B take away that grant? NO. It only applies in diversity cases. Gibbs was a FQ case initially. D. Removal Jurisdiction Term of art allows D to have a case filed in state court transferred to federal court So far we have made the choice from federal to state court based on the P choice. Removal jurisdiction gives the D a choice. Removes from state trial court to federal trial court Remands sends it back from federal to state. There is no appeal here, it is a removal GENERAL RULE: It is removable if the case meets federal subject matter jurisdiction 1.) If this is a case that could have invoked or federal question, generally, you can remove. It is a way to test diversity and FQ o EXCEPTION: you cannot remove a diversity case if any D is a citizen of the forum. That is the in state D rule. Applies only in diversity, not FQ.

(hypo) P of South Carolina sues 2 D in state Court -D1 is citizen of NY -D2 is citizen of Georgia -P sues in Georgia state court for 1 trillion dollars. -is it removable? Under general rule, YES because that is a case that could have bee filed in federal court, meets diversity EXCEPTION: cannot remove a diversity case if any citizen is D in forum. Georgia D brought in Georgia state court cant remove it 2.) All D must agree 3.) Must remove within 30 days of service of the document that first makes the case removable 4.) you can remove only to the federal district that embraces the state court where it was filed Sections 1441, 1446, 1447 are all removal statutes. _____________________________________________________________ IV. Venue Whats the difference between this and SMJ? SMJ says we can go to federal court. Venue tells us which federal court. A.) Basic Provisions This is where the P goes if she is going to file in federal court RULE 1391A and 1391B 1391A- choices in diversity cases 1391B- choice in FQ cases **The P can lay venue in diversity or FQ cases in: o i. any district where all D resides o SUBRULE: If all D reside in same state, you can lay venue where any one of them resides. (hypo) 2 D, 1 P 1 in Northern District in Dallas 1 resides in Western District of El Paso Different districts of same state, can sue both in western district or sue them all in northern district o -A human resides in district of domicile what about businesses? RULE: 1391C 1391C says businesses reside in all districts where they are subject to PJ. Broader than citizenship for corporation, a corporation may reside in multiple places o ii. Any district where a substantial part of the claim arose **Up to the P to lay venue where either (i.) any district where all D resides or (ii.) Any district where a substantial part of the claim arose. Neither one is preferred, up to P. Uusla identical for diversity and FQ.

The only time venue is different between diversity and federal question is diversity is 1391A(3) and B(3) Almost never apply Only come up if there is no district in the U.S. that meets one of those 2 test (only if claim arose overseas)

B.) Transfer of Venue- moving a case from one federal district to another federal district The original federal court is called the transferor Court to which is transfers is the transferee Federal court from MN to federal court in HI is okay if it meets the elements of BOTH STATUTES **THE TRANSFEREE MUST BE A PROPER VENUE AND HAVE PJ OVER THE D o those must be independently true. PJ and Venue must both be true with no waiver by the D. Transferee must have PJ and must be a proper venue independent of any kind of waiver -What are the 2 transfer statutes? 1404A and 1406A Whats the difference? 1404A applies when the transferor is a proper venue 1406A applies when the transferor is an improper venue **More likely is 1404 tells us we can transfer based on convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice Looking to see if the other court is the center of gravity. Where we are now is fine, but it makes more sense to transfer it to another federal court. o Public and private factors judge says the other place makes more sense because of the law and all the witnesses are there. Up to the judge to decide 1406 gives you a choice: o court can transfer OR dismiss o we might dismiss bc venue in the original court is improper C. Forum Non Convenience- Where a court dismisses bc there is another court that makes more sense. Another court is the center of gravity. Why would we dismiss? Because transfer is impossible. Because that center of gravity court is in a different judicial system and you cannot transfer. State courts are separate judicial systems Usually come up when the better court is in a foreign country, you cannot transfer to a foreign country. Piper v Reno (1981) Plane crash in Scotland, all people killed where Scottish, pilot Scottish but plane was manufactured in U.S. Ended up in Pennsylvania

S.C said that deferral court in Penn should dismiss under forum nonconvenience bc the litigation does not belong in the U.S. D love this bc P will never recover as much as it would here in U.S. We are very pro P Center of gravity was in Scotland not U.S. Footnote 6 pubic and private factors o Witnesses _____________________________________________________________ V. Eerie Doctrine: Problem usually comes up only in diversity. The federal judge must decide an issue. Must she apply state law or can she ignore state law and apply federal law? In diversity cases, the federal judge must apply state substantive law (Eerie) Why? 1. Rules of Decisions Act (RDA) 1652 2. Constitution (10th amendment) How do you know if something is substantive? In Eerie, the issue involved the element of a claim. That is always substantive. They define when someone is liable to someone else. What if issue is Statute of Limitations? How do you know? Start with HANNA 1. is there a federal directive on point that directly conflicts with state law? Federal rules of civil procedure, federal statute, etc. o If yes, we apply the Federal Law as long as its VALID. o Do not look at any Eerie factors, this is a Hanna issue o This is based on Supremacy clause of Constitution How do you know if its VALID? o If its FRCP you test validity through Rules Enabling Act (REA) Section 2072 o How do we know if its valid under the REA? o *Shady Grove- 4 justices said all you need is that the rule is arguably procedural o concurring opinion Stevenson says you have to see if it intruded into state policy? o *NO FRCP has ever held to be invalid 2. What if there is no federal directive on point. Does the judge have to follow state law? (EERIE Prong) if it is a matter of substance, the federal judge must follow state law. It is commanded by Eerie, RDA, and 10th amendment 3 cases, 3 different tests to figure out if this is substantive (a.) Outcome Determitive Gauranty Trust (1945) Substantive because it is outcome determitive If you apply state law the case is dismissed

 If you ignore state law, the case goes forward That is a different outcome and we font want that We want them to be the same so the federal judge must follow the state law Not clear how you limit this, ever been overturned (b.) Balance the Interest Byrd (1958) A state law said that a particular issue was decided by the judge and not the jury Goes into federal court under diversity and judge wants jury to decide No federal directive on point, no HANNA this is EERIE Not outcome determitive If something is not clearly substantive, we ordinarily follow state law UNLESS the federal court system has an interest in doing it differently Weigh the interests of the state and federal court systems State law under S.C. law had no reason for it, so it wasnt entitled to that much weight Federal interest outweighed the state interest and could ignore the state law (c.) Twin Aims of Eerie 1. Avoid: o i. Forum Shopping o ii. Inequitable administration of the law To apply this when the case is filed: if the federal judge ignores this state law, will it cause parties to flock to federal court? Will it lead to forum shopping? We do not like forum shopping, it is unfair to the instate people. (Hypo 1) -Federal Rule 23 allows class actions -case filed under diversity and it qualifies under FR 23 but there is a state law that says that this particular type of claim cannot be a class action and you must sue individually. -in federal court under diversity, do you have to follow state law? 1. Is there a federal directive on point that clashes with state law? Yes, FR 23 is on point. Therefore, it WINS. This is a Hanna issue, no need to analyze under Eerie. 2. Is it VALID? -No rule has been declared invalid under the REA and no rule has been declared invalid -Shady Grove case (Hypo 2) State X, legislature concerned about healthcare costs. They do so by state statute -when you sue for medical malpractice, the claim must be submitted to arbitration. You cannot go directly to a jury. P hate this bc juries are more sympathetic. -diversity case against a state X doctor, we are in a federal court against X -does federal judge have to follow the arbitration procedure? (1.) is there a federal directive on point? -NO, not a Hanna problem. -If no Hanna, apply Eerie

(2.) Eerie Test a. is it outcome determitive? who knows, not a strong argument b. balance the interest state has an enormous interest bc it is trying to drive down healthcare costs. Federal interest not hurt here. c. Twin Aims? if federal court ignore state law will it cause P to flock to federal courts? Yes! Every P will try to avoid the arbitration. It would promote forum shopping. It is unfair to citizens of state X bc they cannot go to federal court, bc they cannot invoke diversity **Under Twin Aims, we apply state law bc failing to do so would promote forum shopping

Myers Review: Fall Exam 2000 I. Personal jurisdiction: I. (Hypo) P(South Carolina) injured in S.C. suing Acme who made shredders from Germany. Suing in federal court in S.C. D files motion to dismiss on the grounds that there is no PJ or venue. Issue: Is there PJ and tell me about venue I. PJ 1. Is there a long arm statute? Rule 4k says we use state long arm statute, first. Every stat has a series of PJ statutes that allow in personam jurisdiction based on the 4 traditional basis Acme sells a lot to military, they know how the product is marketed, 500 flow every year into S.C. so it seems like Acme would have a reasonable expectation that the goods would be used there. Seems to fall under the terms of the long arm statute 2. Is it Constitutional? Ask on the onset if it is specific or general jurisdiction (Relatedness). THEN analyze contacts and fairness; -Sandy Lane Hotel Case, if you looked under the substantive relevance approach you would say this is not an assertion of SJ but GJ will vary depending on the situation -Unless you get a question on whether or not this is specific or general, then do not have to analyze. Just mention what it is and why. -This case is an attempt of specific jurisdiction (A. )Minimum Contacts 1. Purposeful availment directed to the forum state -IF stream of commerce case; a. (AsahiOConnor/Brennan opinion here) -Stream of commerce case b. (McIntyreScalia/Breyer/Ginsberg). The law is uncertain. Analyze all 3 justices) 2. Foreseeability -This is a stream of commerce case **even if you satisfy M.C. you have to look to reasonableness/fairness factors

-Brennan v OConnor (2.) Reasonableness/Fairness Use case law in spectrum to determine if reasonable or not a. inconvenience for D (burden on D) Burger King, Asahi b. forum states interest (McGhee) c. P interest d. efficiency e. substantive state policy **A-C most important to analyze, some factors may outweigh others -Beach Aircraft case II. Venue: Venue tells us which federal court. This is where P goes if she is going to file in federal court -1391(A)(2) -1391(B) -1391(C)- D that is corporation resides in any judicial district where they are subject to PJ -*1391(D) an alien may be sued in any district

II. (Hypo) Company from VA is suing a company from OH in a state court in VA -Company from VA was proving management services for nursing home that is in OH and they end up having some problems and VA sues for breach of k in state court in VA. Issue: Is there Personal Jurisdiction? I. PJ: 1. is there a state statute? 2. does the exercise of the statute fall under the Constitutional limit **If statute allows it, Constitution allows it a.) Are there minimum contacts? (analyze all 3 and write off stream of commerce if does not apply) -purposeful availment -foreseeability -stream of commerce -OConnor and Brennan opinions go here -McIntyre, McGhee, Asahi, Burger King

b.) Fairness/reasonableness D has burden to prove it is so inconvenient that it would be unfair to subject him to PJ. Difficult to prove (Burger King, McGhee)

-inconvenience for D -forum states interest -P interest -efficiency -substantive state policy c.) Relatedness Specific v. General Jurisdiction -**Does the P claim arise from the D contact with the forum state? if yes, then specific jurisdiction (McGhee) if no, then its ok if there is general jurisdiction (Goodyear) -Goodyear says this must be a state where the D is essentially at home. Buying and selling is not enough, continuous and systematic is not enough. Much more narrow elevating the contacts in comparison to Helicopteros and Perkins **increases level of contacts **Contacts are separate here that are connected to the contract. Specific is your only real claim, they have the contacts are they good enough? It adds in that there are unrelated contacts and you cant argue that they would give you specific j because it is unrelated to the original law suit **Not necessary to talk about dispute between specific or general, they are so clear that they are in one category or another. Use discretion for analyzing relatedness

III. (Hypo) P is from Kentucky suing a corp from Kentucky, Law suit is in Kentucky state court and it tell you that the D removes it to federal court. P files a motion to remand all or part of the case. 2 claims: 1. wrongful discharge maybe a FQ 2. breach of contract claim clearly, NOT a FQ, no federal issue tied in at all **both claims are created by Kentucky law Issue: Removal and motion to remand A. 1441A- you can remove a case that is within the original jurisdiction of the federal court. If the P could have filed it in the federal court to begin with then the D is allowed to remove it B. Home state D are not allowed to remove (IN DIVERSITY CASES)

1. Federal Question: 1. Is it a federally created claim? -1331- Holmsian creation test -well pleaded complaint rule -Motley case law

2. is it a state created claim that turns on a federal issue -Merryl Dow case law -is there a private right of action *Look at a number of factors (nature of federal interest), how strong is the federal interest? 3. Impact on federal case law -They dont want to flood the courts, if we call these things FQ it creates the prospects of flooding the state courts -Grabel case law If it is a FQ In order to remove under 1441 it has to be something that could have been filed in federal court to begin with? YES because of SJ. -RULE 1367 2. Supplemental Jurisdiction: are they sufficiently related as to be supplemental. If first case is not a FQ then court has to remand, 1447 says if no SMJ then court has to remand it 1. Constitution Gibbs Test, common nucleus of operative fact 2. Statutes Under 1367(A)-(B) 3. Discretion **1441, 1446, 1447 are all removal statutes THINK for REMOVAL: 1. when can you remove a case (1441) turns on 1441(A) SMJ 2. SMJ 1331, 1332, 1367(Gibbs) 3. if not a FQ then thats it, it ends there! 4. if FQ, is it removable? 5. supplemental jurisdiction 6. remand authority _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Note** ((Hypo 4 is Connecticut v Doehranalyze the same))

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Hypo 5) Diversity case filed in fed court for a state tort claim. D is saying that the court should comply with Mass Law. There is some choice the federal court has to make between applying state substantive law or federal law. Issue: Hanna/ Eerie 1. What is the source of federal law? a. constitution b federal statute c. federal rule d. cases 2. Is there a federal directive on point? Does it apply? 3. Is it valid? when there is NO federal directive on point then analyze under Eerie -does the federal rule apply? I some cases they will apply the rule with state interest involved. (Walker v Arm Co., Gasperini) a. Outcome determitive test b. Balance the interest c. Twin aims of Eerie