Life of a Law Student » Civil Procedure I

Civil Procedure I #38: Supplemental Jurisdiction Amount in Controversy Requirements

Neil — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 23:30:00 +0000

US Code 1367 codified Owen, which required diversity to be satisfied by supplemental parties in federal court solely on diversity. But what if the supplemental parties are diverse, but fail to meet the amount in controversy requirements? The Supreme Court will answer that question in this, our final Civil Procedure I episode.

Rosario Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc.

Civil Procedure I #37: Impleader

Neil — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 23:27:45 +0000

As we have seen in supplemental jurisdiction and joinder, the courts desire to efficiently decide multiple cases by grouping them together. Impleader will allow a defendant to bring in a party that said defendant claims will be liable for all or part of the amount won by the plaintiff.

Clark v. Associates Commercial Corp.
Augentini v. Cappenllini v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity

Civil Procedure I #36: Joinder

Neil — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:29:39 +0000

There will often be multiple potential plaintiffs, defendants, or causes of actions arising from any given controversy. Joinder allows the courts to adjudicate all of these claims at once, in order to promote efficiency. However, not all claims or parties can be joined.

Rule 18
Rule 20
Kedra v. City of Philadelphia
Insolia v. Phillip Morris, Inc.

Civil Procedure I #35: Counter-Claims

Neil — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:28:36 +0000

Why should the plaintiff have a monopoly on accusations? Our civil system allows a defendant to level their own accusations against the plaintiff as a counter-claim.

Rule 13
Wigglesworth v. Teamsters Local Union No. 592

Civil Procedure I #34: Amending the Pleadings

Neil — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:26:16 +0000

Not every pleading (be it complaint, answer, or otherwise) is perfect. Sometimes a party will want to amend their pleading. As with everything else, we have rules that control these amendments.

Rule 15
David v. Crompton & Knowles Corp.
Swartz v. Gold Dust Casino, Inc.

Civil Procedure I #33: The Defendant Responds

Neil — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:24:20 +0000

The plaintiff is not the only one who gets to send paperwork flying in a civil dispute. A defendant has a chance to file an answer to the complaint. However, there a number of rules that govern the answer, which we will discuss in this episode.

Rule 8
Rule 12
David v. Crompton & Knowles Corp.

Civil Procedure I #32: Rule 11 Sanctions

Neil — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:07:21 +0000

Rule 11 gives us the fun and frolic of sanctions. When can a lawyer or a client get hit with monetary penalties for their conduct? Is unfamiliarity with a legal subject sanctionable? We’ll get answers from a case revolving around one of my favorite subjects: copyright.

Rule 11
Zuk v. Eastern Penn. Psychiatric Institute of the Medical College of Penn.

Civil Procedure I #31: Heightened Pleadings II

Neil — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:05:30 +0000

The Supreme Court weighs in with their opinion of heightened pleadings. Specifically, a dim view is taken, striking many heightened pleading requirements in a pair of cases

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, NA
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics and Coordination Unit

Civil Procedure I #30: Heightened Pleadings I

Neil — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:04:22 +0000

In some cases, the simple notice pleading of Rule 8 is not enough. Rather, a plaintiff must plead with “particularity.” When does this heightened requirement kick in, and what does it mean? We’ll attempt to answer those questions.

Rule 9
Ross v. A.H. Robins Co.
Cash Energy, Inc. V. Weimer

Civil Procedure I #29: Pleadings

Neil — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:03:15 +0000

All good lawsuits start with a great pleading. Or at least, a pleading that won’t get you dismissed out of court. We’ll look at the history of pleadings, and the current requirements for a standard civil pleading.

Rule 8
Rule 12
Conley v. Gibson
Mitchell v. Archibald & Kendall, Inc.

Civil Procedure I #28: Erie Wrap-Up

Neil — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:01:54 +0000

We will finally attempt to bring closure to our introductory survey of Erie. We will also look at one final case under Erie, dealing with the question of sanctions for appealing a decision.

Burlington Northern RR Co. v. Woods

Civil Procedure I #27: Byrd and Hanna

Neil — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:56:00 +0000

York gets more major tweaking with two United States Supreme Court decisions. We’ll see outcome-determinative receive some balancing, as well as a return to the initial policies underlying Erie.

Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Hanna v. Plumer
Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co.
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan

Civil Procedure I #26: Interpreting Erie

Neil — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:25:00 +0000

We will now start, over the course of several episodes, understanding how Erie has been interpreted. The first distinction to be made is between substantive law and procedural law.

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co.
Guaranty Trust of New York v. York
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.

Civil Procedure I #25: The Erie Doctrine

Neil — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:20:00 +0000

What exactly is meant by the “laws of the several states”? Does it include the judge-made common law? Two different cases give us two different decisions. This episode will begin our discussion of what substantive law controls when a federal case is heard under diversity jurisdiction.

Swift v. Tyson
Erie RR Co. v. Tompkins
Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab Co.

Civil Procedure I #24: Removal

Neil — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:15:00 +0000

Just because a suit is filed in state court doesn’t mean it’s going to stay there. A diverse defendant (or one who has an acceptable federal question) can remove to federal court if she so chooses. We’ll get an overview of removal in this episode.

Lovern v. GM

Civil Procedure I #23: Pendant / Supplemental Jurisdiction

Neil — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:26:00 +0000

Now that we’ve determined that the main case belongs in federal court, what do we do with non-federal cases that spring about from the same set of facts? Must we have additional separate (and costly!) trials, or can we consolidate? Additionally, what of additional defendants that are discovered at a later date? When can we attach them to the complaint, even if they would not be normally reachable through federal court?

Mine Workers v. Gibbs
Rice v. Harvard College (no link available)
Aldinger v. Howard
Finley v. United States
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
US Code Title 28, Section 1367

Civil Procedure I #22: Federal Question Wrap-Up

Neil — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:18:00 +0000

We finally wrap-up our introductory definition of a “federal question.” We will look at the general rule for whether a case may be heard in state or federal court (American Well Works: “a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action”), and then an exception to that rule (Smith: “substantial” questions of federal law may go directly to federal court). We will then apply that framework to the just decided Grable.

American Well Works v. Layne & Bowler Co.
Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing

Civil Procedure I #21: More on Federal Questions

Neil — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:10:00 +0000

We continue our discussion of federal questions, by focusing on the Merrel Dow case. We find that having a federal question in the complaint raised by the plaintiff is necessary for federal jurisdiction, but apparently not sufficient.

Osborn v. Bank of U.S.
Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Civil Procedure I #20: Subject Matter Jurisdiction Intro

Neil — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:55:38 +0000

For the next few episodes we will explore federal questions, or as they are alternately known, subject matter jurisdiction. Our first case begins to set up the well pleaded complaint rule, which we will see refined over the years.

Louisville & Nashville RR Co. v. Mottley

Civil Procedure I #19: Diversity Citizenship

Neil — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:52:00 +0000

There are two ways to get into federal court: diversity of citizenship and a federal question. This episode explores and explains the first of these options.

Mas v. Perry (no link available)

Civil Procedure I #18: Forum Non Conveniens

Neil — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:48:00 +0000

Just because a case can be heard within a specific venue doesn’t mean that the court in question has to accept the case. A federal common law doctrine of forum non conveniens allows the discretionary decline of jurisdiction based upon certain factors.

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno

Civil Procedure I #17: Transient Jurisdiction and Venue

Neil — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:40:00 +0000

We largely wrap up personal jurisdiction with a discussion of transient jurisdiction: physically serving someone with process while they are transiently in a state. We then move on to a question of venue. After all, even if we decide that a state is an appropriate forum, we can still bicker over where in that state the trial will be held.

Burnham v. Superior Court
Bates v. C & S Adjusters (no link available)

Civil Procedure I #16: Requiem for Pennoyer

Neil — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:27:00 +0000

Has Pennoyer become unworkable? Does it fail to establish appropriate checks upon state governments? Should we draw a distinction between proceeding against a person and against their property? In a case involving a shareholder suit against Greyhound, the Supreme Court of the United States finally overruled Pennoyer in favor of the general minimum contacts standard.

Shaffer v. Heitner

Civil Procedure I #15: Mullane and Harris

Neil — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 06:44:00 +0000

We look at two more cases that concern the serving of process. The first questions the value of publishing in a newspaper, while the second examines a personal debt in the Pennoyer regime. I also answer some questions I left unaswered in a previous episode.

Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co.
Harris v. Balk

Civil Procedure I #14: Selecting Jurisdiction

Neil — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 06:37:00 +0000

Defendants face a difficult choice in deciding whether to spend the money fighting jurisdiction. We will look at those interests along with three cases that showed different ways of contractually deciding jurisdiction.

York v. Texas (no link available)
Insurance Corporation of Ireland, Ltd. v Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee
M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute

Civil Procedure I #13: The Helicol Case

Neil — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 06:29:00 +0000

In this episode we examine the difference between specific and general jurisdiction, and the different tests for each. The Helicol case will serve as an example for us.

Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. (Helicol) v. Hall

Civil Procedure I #12: The DeCSS Jurisdiction Case

Neil — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:18:31 +0000

What happens to personal jurisdiction when we toss the Internet into the mix? This 2002 California Supreme Court case Pavlovich v. Superior Court attempts to answer that question.

Please note that I am a financial supporter of the organization (the Electronic Frontier Foundation) that funded and coordinated the defense in this case. As such, I do not posit that my persepective is free from bias.

EFF coverage of DVD CCA v. Bunner / Pavlovich

Civil Procedure I #11: The Asahi Case

Neil — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:13:16 +0000

How far does a State’s long-arm statute reach? Does it reach overseas? What if there are no longer any defendants coming from the forum state? A divided Supreme Court attempts to answer that question in Asahi.

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court

Civil Procedure I #10: The Burger King Case

Neil — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 02:55:52 +0000

The minimum contacts standard gets a slight makeover based upon The Burger King case. What used to be simply a question of if minimum contacts existed now becomes whether those minimum contacts are also viewed as a reasonable basis for jurisdiction.

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

Civil Procedure I #9: Creation of the Effects Test

Neil — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 02:47:59 +0000

In 1984 a new test for personal jurisdiction came about: the effects test. Under this test, intentional targeting of activities of a jurisdiction can be enough to create minimum contacts. Two very interesting defamation cases (including one starring Larry Flynt) help us to create and apply this doctrine.

Calder v. Jones
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.

Civil Procedure I #8: Worldwide Volkswagen

Neil — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 07:05:00 +0000

If a single Audi drives through Oklahoma and is involved in an accident, and its retailer or distributer is nowhere within five states to hear it, does it make a noise? Does it make personal jurisdiction? We’ll answer that question, along with looking at forum shopping, in this episode.

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
Wikipedia entry on forum shopping

Civil Procedure I #7: State Long-Arm Statutes

Neil — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 03:18:51 +0000

In this short episode we spend a little time examining state long-arm statutes, and preview World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson.

Civil Procedure I #6: Reduction of Minimum Contacts

Neil — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:20:02 +0000

In this episode we look at a number of cases that show how the minimum contacts doctrine has been interpreted over a period of years. We also look briefly at long-arm statutes.

McGee v. International Life Insurance Company
Gray v. American Radiator (no link available)

Civil Procedure I #5: International Shoe and Minimum Contacts

Neil — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:06:08 +0000

In this episode we examine International Shoe v. Washington, which articulated the “minimum contacts” standard for determining jurisdiction. We also look at the differences between rules and standards.

International Shoe Co. v. Washington

Civil Procedure I #4: Hess v. Pawloski and Corporate Jurisdiction

Neil — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:59:00 +0000

In this episode we examine Hess v. Pawloski, which involved automatic assignment of agency for serving process. We also consider briefly how corporations differ from individuals in jurisdictional requirements.

Hess v. Pawloski

Civil Procedure I #3: Pennoyer v. Neff

Neil — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 02:24:46 +0000

In this episode we examine Pennoyer v. Neff, which explains some of the historical rules of personal jurisdiction.

Pennoyer v. Neff

Civil Procedure I #2: Introduction to Jurisdiction

Neil — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 01:41:21 +0000

In this episode we look briefly at the matter of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction.

Civil Procedure I #1: Introduction to Civil Procedure

Neil — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 01:37:32 +0000

In this, the first episode of Civil Procedure I, I give an overview of what civil procedure is, why it is important, and what can go wrong when trial judges do not follow civil procedure.