CP Checklist.docx

CP Checklist.docx

《CP Checklist.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《CP Checklist.docx（28页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

CPChecklist

CivilProcedureChecklist

Catalog

ChapterIPersonalJurisdiction

Threetypesofjurisdiction

TraditionalApproach

ModernApproach

SpecificJurisdiction

GeneralJurisdiction

TechnologicalContacts

JurisdictionoverProperty

TransientPresenceintheForum

Consent

ChallengingaCourt’sJurisdiction

LimitedAppearance`

ChapterIINotice&Opportunitytobeheard

TheRequirementofReasonableNotice

MechanicsofGivingNotice

OpportunitytobeHeard

ChapterIIIAppeal&Finality

SectionATheApplicationofFinality

A.Defining“Finality”

1.CasesInvolvingMultipleClaims

2.DecisionsInvolving“CollateralOrders”

3.DecisionsBasedon“PragmaticFinality”

B.AvoidanceorEvasionoftheBasicConcept–Mandamus

C.DisplacementoftheBasicConcept–DiscoveryAppealsandAppealsofOrdersRegardingInjunctions

SectionBTheTimetoAppeal

SectionCTheAmbitofAppellateReview

A.IssuesSubjecttoReview

B.ScopeofReviewofFacts

1.ThePowertoOrderaNewTrialinaCaseDecidedbyaJury

2.ThePowertoSetAsideaTrialJudge’sFindingsinaNon-JuryCase–Rule52（a）

ChapterIPersonalJurisdiction

Personaljurisdictionandvenuemaybewaived.

Subjectmatterjurisdictioncannotbewaived.

àCapronv.VanNoorden（SubjectMatterJurisdiction:

FailuretoAllegeDiversity）

Keyfacts:

Parguedthathisfailuretoallegehisresidencedeprivedthefederalcourtofdiversityjurisdiction.

Rule:

Evenwherethepartiestoasuitbroughtinfederalcourtappearandconsenttothecourt’sdiversityjurisdiction,ifnoactualdiversityofcitizenshipexistsbetweentheparties,thecourthasnopowertohearthecase.

àTicklev.Barton（ServiceProcuredbyTrickery,DeceitandSubterfuge）

Keyfacts:

AttorneyforTickle（P）luredBarton（D）intoproperjurisdictionforservicebyinvitinghimtoafootballbanquetwithoutdisclosinghisrealpurpose（serviceofsummons）.

Rule:

Whereserviceofprocessisprocuredbyfraud,thecourtwillrefusetoexercisejurisdictionandsuchprocesswillbedeemedinvalid.

●Threetypesofjurisdictioninaproceeding

A.Inpersonamjurisdiction:

thecourtexercisesitspowertorenderajudgmentfororagainstapersonbyvirtueofhispresencewithinthestate’sterritoryorhiscitizenshipthere.E.g.侵权之诉Mitchellv.Neff

B.Inremjurisdiction:

thecourtexercisesitspowertodeterminethestatusofpropertylocatedwithinitsterritory,andthedeterminationofthecourtisbindingwithrespecttoallpossibleinterestholdersinthatproperty.

E.g.诉争所有权之诉

C.Quasiinremjurisdiction:

thecourtrendersajudgmentfororagainstaperson,butrecoveryislimitedtothevalueofpropertythatiswithinthejurisdictionandthussubjecttothecourt’sauthority.

-MinimumcontactrequiredinShaffer

Type1:

Thepropertyisrelatedtothecauseofaction.

Type2:

ThepropertyisNOTrelatedtothecauseofaction.

●TraditionalApproach

àPennoyerv.Neff（InappropriateserviceàNOPJ）

Keyfacts:

Suit1:

MitchellsuedNeffforlegalfeesinOregon.Neffwasservedbypublication.ThecourtenteredadefaultjudgmentagainstNeff.ThesheriffsoldthelandthatbelongedtoNefftoPennoyerinordertopaythelegalfeestoMitchell.Suit2:

NeffsuedPennoyertoquitetitleoverthelandindispute.

Rule:

Wheretheobjectoftheactionistodeterminethepersonalrightsandobligationsoftheparties,servicebypublicationagainstnonresidentisineffectivetoconferjurisdictiononthecourt.

àGracev.MacArthur（transientpresenceàPJ）

Keyfacts:

ThecourtupheldtheexerciseofjurisdictionoveradefendantwhowasservedwhilehewasapassengeronacommercialflightfromTennesseetoTexaswhentheplanewasoverArkansas.

Rule:

Aslongasthedefendantwas（voluntarily）presentontheforumstate,thereisnoneedtoconsiderhowlongandwhyhestaythere.（Cf.Ticklev.Barton,inwhichDwasservedbytrickeryandfraud）

àTicklev.Barton（deceitfulserviceànoPJ）

Keyfacts:

Theplaintiff’sattorneymadeaphonecalltodefendant,cheatingthedefendanttocometotheforumstate.Thedefendantwasservedpersonally.

Rule:

Whereserviceofprocessisprocuredbyfraud,thecourtwillrefusetoexerciseitsjurisdictionandturntheplaintiffoutofcourt.

àMillikenv.Meyer（domicileàPJ）

Keyfacts:

Theplaintiffsueddefendant,aWyomingresident,inaWyomingstatecourt.Thecourtenteredadefaultjudgmentagainstthedefendant.Thedefendantchallengedagainstthejudgment（collateralattack）.

Rule:

Domicileinthestateisalonesufficienttobringanabsentdefendantwithinthereachofthestate’sjurisdictionforpurposesofapersonaljudgmentbymeansofappropriatesubstitutedservice.

àAdamv.Saenger（acounterclaimsuitagainstplaintiffàPJoverplaintiff）

Rule:

Thecourtcanadoptaprocedurebywhichajudgmentinpersonammayberenderedinacross-actionagainstaplaintiffinitscourt,uponserviceofprocessorofappropriatepleadinguponhisattorneyofrecord.

●ModernApproach

àInternationalShoeCo.v.Washington（MinimumContact;FairPlayandSubstantialJusticeàGPJ）

Keyfacts:

Anon-WashingtoncorporationhiredemployeestosolicitordersandexhibittheirsamplesinWashington.AWashingtonstatuesetupaschemeofunemploymentcompensation,requiringemployerstodefraycontributionstothefund.Thecorporationfailedtodefray.

Rule:

Forastatetosubjectanonresidentdefendanttoinpersonamjurisdiction,dueprocessrequiresthathehavecertainminimumcontactswithitsuchthatthemaintenanceofthesuitdoesnotoffendtraditionalnotionsoffairplayandsubstantialjustice;ContinuousandSystematicactivitiesintheforumstateàGPJ.

●SpecificJurisdictionandStateLong-ArmLaws

LimitationsonPJ:

1）StateStatuteConstraint（Long-ArmStatute）

A.EnumeratedActsStatute:

e.g.FloridaLongArmStatute

B.ConstitutionalMaxStatute:

e.g.CaliforniaLongArmStatute

2）ConstitutionalConstraint（DueProcessClause）

A.MinimumContact:

theQuantityandNatureoftheActivitieswithintheForumState

B.PurposefullyAvailment

C.StreamofCommerce&SOCPlus

D.Foreseeability

E.ChoiceofLawClause

F.FairPlayandSubstantialJustice

a.Thedefendant’sburden;

b.Theforumstate’sinterests;

c.Theplaintiff’sinterests;

d.Thejudicialsystem’sinterest;and

e.Thestate’ssharedinterest.

àGrayv.AmericanRadiator&StandardSanitaryCorp.（Long-ArmStatuteOnly!

）

Keyfacts:

Awaterheaterhadexplodedandinjuredtheplaintiff.

Rule:

Thelong-armstatute“Undersection17

（1）（b）anonresidentwho,eitherinpersonorthroughanagent,commitsatortiousactwithinthisStatesubmitstojurisdiction.”

àMcGeev.InternationalLifeInsuranceCo.（contractofsubstantialconnectionàSPJ）

Keyfacts:

transactionandpremiumsbymail,substantialconnectionbetweenPandD.

Rule:

AcontractwhichhadsubstantialconnectionwiththatStateconferredjurisdictionoverthedefendant.

àHansonv.Denckla（trustcase:

NoMinimumContactàNoSPJ）

Keyfacts:

APennsylvaniaresidentestablishedatrustinDelaware,namingaDelawarebankastrustee.ShethenmovedtoFloridaandexecutedherlastwillandtestament.HertwodaughtersfiledalawsuitinFlorida.AnotherdaughterfiledalawsuitinDelaware.TheCourtheldthatFloridahadnojurisdictionoverthedefendant,trustee.

Rule:

Adefendantmaynotbesubjecttoaforumstatecourt’sjurisdictionunlesshehashadtheminimumcontactswiththatStatethatareaprerequisitetoitsexerciseofpoweroverhim.

DissentingOpinion:

àWorld-WideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson（NoMinimumcontact;NoPurposefulAvailmentàNOSPJ）

Keyfacts:

PlaintiffsbroughtanewcarfromdefendantinNewYork.TheydrovethecarintoOklahomaandgotinvolvedintoanaccident.

Rule:

Jurisdictionmaynotbeestablishedonthegroundthatthedefendants’onlyconnectionwiththeforumstateisthefactthataproductsoldinanotherstatebecameinvolvedinanaccidentintheforumstate.

àKeetonv.HustlerMagazine,INC.（MinimumContactàSPJ）

Keyfacts:

ANewYorkresidentbroughtasuitagainstanOhioCorporationinNewHampshire.TheCorporationsold10,000to15,000magazineamonthinthestate.

Rule:

Theactivities（selling10,000to15,000magazines）couldordinarilysatisfytherequirementoftheDueProcessClausethataState’sassertionofpersonaljurisdictionoveranonresidentdefendantbepredicatedon“minimumcontacts”betweenthedefendantandtheState.

àCalderv.Jones（LibelousstoryonamagazineàSPJ）

Keyfacts:

PsuedDbecauseofanarticlepublishedintheDmagazinehavingitslargestcirculationintheforumstate.

Rule:

GivenDhadactedintentionallytoproduceanarticlefordisseminationintheforumstate,Dcouldforeseebeinghaledintocourtthere.

àKulkov.SuperiorCourt（NoPurposefulavailmentàNOSPJ）

Keyfacts:

PsuedDformodificationofachildsupportagreement.Theforumstate’scourtestablishedpersonaljurisdictionbasedonthegroundthatDpurchasedhisdaughter’sairlineticket,committinga“purposefulact”outsidethestatethatcausedaneffectwithinthestate.

Rule:

Merepurchasinghisdaughter’sairlineticketcannotbesaidtohave“purposefullyavailedhimself”ofthebenefitsandprotectionsoftheforumstate’slaws.

àBurgerKingCorp.v.Rudzewicz（Purposefulavailment;Minimumcontact;Fairplay&SubstantialJusticeàSPJ）

Keyfacts:

PsuedDforbreachofthefranchiseagreement.PandDenteredintoafranchiseagreement,providingthatthefranchiserelationshipisestablishedinMiamiandgovernedbyFloridalaw.

Rule:

Priornegotiationsandcontemplatedtrueconsequences,alongwiththetermofthecontractandtheparties’actualcourseofdealingshouldbeevaluatedindeterminingwhe