Civil Procedure II

12 September

• Where can the suit be brought:
  • Subject matter jurisdiction
  • Personal jurisdiction
  • Venue
  • Service of process
• Some courts are limited jurisdiction (small claims, e.g., or federal courts). Art. III § 2 limits the kinds of cases that federal courts will hear. Then there are 28 USC §§ 1331 & 1332 (arising under and diversity, respectively)
• Hawkins v. Masters Farms
  A template for how we read cases:
  • Who sued whom, where, and on what claim? Hawkins sues Masters Farms for wrongful death (so this is a tort claim (negligence) and we therefore don't have a federal question) in the federal district court for Kansas
  • What question is the court deciding here? See § 1332(c)(2): "the legal representative of the estate of a decendent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same state as the decedent. So what state does the decedent live in? Because that's how we'll know if we have jurisdiction to hear the case.
  • What outcome of that question?
  • Depending on what body of law and what facts?
  • Who picked this fight and why? The defendant, trying to get out of federal court. § 1332(c)(1): a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any state by which it has been incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business [plus exceptions]. So they're from Kansas. And the driver is from Kansas also. Why do this? Maybe for delay in judgment, because the state courts were backed up so interest wouldn't start accruing so soon. Or maybe they like the judge in that county, or maybe the jury pool will be sympathetic (or stingy with a verdict). Or maybe just logistics work out better for defendant's counsel.
  • Facts
  • Procedural posture: motion under 12(b)(1)- you can attack subject matter jurisdiction at any time (even after trial, even on appeal, and the court can raise it sua sponte).
  • Key issue: citizenship of Mr. Creal. There's a standard for domicile from caselaw, and that decides citizenship.
  • What is the fight really about? Where and by whom the case is heard.

  Tip: have an atlas in your office so you can see county lines. That can be very helpful.

  28 USC § 96 defines the Kansas judicial district (§§ 81-131 are the state-by-state definitions of districts), and where the courts are.

  Who will decide the case is often an important tactical consideration:

  • Which judge?
  • What jury?
  • What system (including appellate courts? (e.g., 7th Cir. is somewhat hostile to the WI Fair Dealership laws)

  When will it be decided? You can know about the timelines of various courts: do you want it to go swiftly or slowly?

  What law will they apply (esp. procedural rules)?

  How will we pay for the litigation?

  This case is an example of procedure used as a litigation tactic.

  Anyway, the court finds that Creal was domiciled in Kansas, so that makes him a citizen of Kansas, so there's no diversity (a primary domicile in Kansas, and an intent to remain there).

  Start with just "thank you, your Honor." And get right into it: have a good topic sentence that lays out what you want and why. Talk to the court (don't recite).

  This was a subject matter jurisdiction matter: diversity.

• Next we talk about personal jurisdiction:
  • General jurisdiction: if you've got sufficient contact to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction, you can probably be sued for anything there.
  • Specific jurisdiction: you can be sued for specific things if they bring you under the jurisdiction of a particular court.
• 29 USC § 1391: definition of venue.
• Joinder:
  • Permissive: you can join someone
  • Compulsory: you must join someone
• Intervention: you want in on someone else's case.

14 September

• Larson v. American Family
  Rules:
  • Rule 20: Joinder 20(a) is permissive joinder
  • Rule 14: Amending the complaint
  • 28 USC § 1447 removal to federal court; 1447(e) deals with joinder that destroys subject matter jurisdiction (diversity)
• Former adjudiction
  • Res judicata could just mean something that has been adjudicated, but it could also be claim preclusion
  • Collateral estoppel is issue preclusion
• Rush v. City of Maple Heights
  When you see damages, by the way, it's a good idea to try and convert them into today's dollars. $100 in property damage may not seem like much, but this was 1958.

  The trial court applies issue preclusion: we've already litigated the negligence issue, so the personal injury claim is just about damages.

  And also, note that Ohio seemed to allow separate suits for injury and property damage prior to Rush. So stare decisis would make Rush's lawyer counsel her to proceed this way.

  Was the first suit in municipal court because they liked the judge, or because they had to sue there because of the small amount of damages. Even so, it could have been a trap: the city might not fight hard over a $100 suit, but then blammo the result comes back to them in personal injury.

  If you're the city's lawyer, you want to distinguish Vasu, so the court doesn't have to feel like it's changing the law.

• Procedure is a field for lawyering strategy (subject to ethical constraints).
• Appellate review is limited (this is not necessarily the case abroad). Only some subjects get reviewed (i.e., standards of review), and there's discretionary review at the top level.
• WI county courts had (more limited jurisdiction) than the circuit courts we have today (1970-something).
• F.Supp. is US district courts. So those are just trial court decisions.
• WI Ct. App. : Wis./Wis 2d. Federal court of Appeals (e.g., 7th Cir): F., F.2d, F.3d.
• WI Supreme Court: Wis., Wis.2d; US Supreme Court: U.S., S.Ct.
• Personal Jurisdiction is our first real major topic. Our questions:
  • Does any court in a given state (i.e., either Federal or State) have the power to hear this case involving a given defendant?
  • If so, is it only the state court or only the federal court, or both?
  • What law will be applied?
• Constitutional sources: Art. III. Art. IV § 1 (full faith and credit). Art. VI (supremacy clause), 14A (due process applied to states)
• Pennoyer v. Neff
  When Mitchell sues Neff, he uses "constructive notice" (i.e., publication in the Oregon paper) Neff never shows, so Mitchell gets default judgment. Then Neff buys some property, and Mitchell executes that judgment against it.

  So there's a claim preclusion case here (collateral attack on the judgment for contract damages). And, of course, it's also a jurisdiction argument.