Presentation on theme: "CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 27 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 27, 2001."— Presentation transcript:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 27 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 27, 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS Another review class will be held on Wednesday, December 5 at the usual class meeting time (6:20 to 8:10). Exam is completely open book.
WRAP-UP OF LAST CLASS We wrapped up our study of subject matter jurisdiction by learning about when cases can be removed from state court to federal court. Removal is a limit on the ability of a plaintiff to choose the forum. We discussed International Shoe, a landmark case setting out the modern theory of personal jurisdiction. International Shoe’s minimum contacts test significantly expands personal jurisdiction beyond Pennoyer’s power rationale, which had become outmoded.
WHAT WILL WE DO TODAY? Continue our study of personal jurisdiction by discussing a case applying International Shoe’s minimum contacts test, World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson (1980). Learn about the venue requirement and the the federal venue statute Time permitting, discussing a case applying the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens and the change of venue provisions at 28 U.S.C. § 1404, Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981)
A Review Hypo Keanu is a citizen of Hawaii who travels to New York City on business. While here, he steps off the curb into the path of a taxi driven by Moe, a lifetime citizen of New York state. Keanu receives medical treatment in New York, returns to Hawaii and files suit against Moe there. Moe does no business in Hawaii, owns no property there, and has never visited the state. Can a Hawaii state court entertain this case? Can a Hawaii federal court entertain this case?
COLLATERAL ATTACK Can Moe take no part in the Hawaii proceedings and successfully resist enforcement of the Hawaii judgment in New York?
World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson (1980) For the whole story of the lawsuit, see Charles W. Adams, World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson – The Rest of the Story, 72 Neb. L. Rev (1993). The article is a fascinating read.
The Accident (1977) 1976 Audi 100 LS
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN V. WOODSON Who are the plaintiffs? Where are plaintiffs resident at the time of the accident? Where were the plaintiffs citizens for the purposes of diversity at the time of filing the lawsuit?
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN Who are the defendants? Which Ds challenge personal jurisdiction? Where is each D who contests jurisdiction incorporated at the time of filing the action? Where does each such Defendant have its principal place of business at the time of filing the action?
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN: PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS Where do plaintiffs file their action against defendants? What claim(s) do plaintiffs make against defendants? Why do plaintiffs choose this forum?
World-Wide Volkswagen: Flow Chart
Who’s Woodson? A puzzle: Charles S. Woodson is a respondent in the U.S. Supreme Court, but he is not a defendant. Please explain.
Another Puzzle Why didn’t the plaintiffs sue Lloyd Hull, the drunk driver of the vehicle that hit their car?
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN: CLAIMED BASIS FOR JURISDICTION What is the legal basis for plaintiffs’ claimed assertion of jurisdiction over defendants?
Oklahoma Long-Arm Statute, Tit. 12 § (a)(4)(1971) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action or claim for relief arising from the person’s.. causing tortious injury in this state by an act or omission outside this state if he regularly does or solicits business or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in this state... “
BACK TO WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN How does the Oklahoma Supreme Court rule on the writ of prohibition? What is the legal issue for decision by the U.S. Supreme Court? How does the U.S. Supreme Court rule?
REASONING OF U.S. SUPREME COURT MAJORITY OPINION IN WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN The U.S. Supreme Court endorses the “minimum contacts” test set out in International Shoe According to Justice White ( ), who delivers the Court’s opinion, what are the two functions of the minimum contacts test?
Academic Controversy Compare Martin H. Redish, Due Process, Federalism, and Personal Jurisdiction: A Theoretical Evaluation, 75 NW. U. L. Rev (1981) with Allen R. Kamp, Beyond Minimum Contacts: The Supreme Court’s New Jurisdictional Theory, 15 Ga. L. Rev. 19 (1980) Insurance Corp. of Ireland, 456 U.S. 694 (1982)
Justice White’s Majority Opinion in WWVW According to Justice White, which prong of the International Shoe test should be examined first?
APPLYING THE MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST TO THE FACTS OF WWVW How does Justice White apply the International Shoe test to the facts of World-- Wide Volkswagen? Is it relevant that the NY defendants arguably could foresee that the Audi would enter Oklahoma? Is the concept of “purposeful availment” important to Justice White? Why or why not?
WORLD-WIDE: DISSENTS Please explain the basis for Justice Marshall’s ( ) dissent.
World-Wide Dissents Please explain the basis for Justice Brennan’s ( ) dissent.
World-Wide Dissents Please explain the basis for Justice Blackmun’s ( ) dissent Do you agree with the majority or with any of the dissents? Why?
Justice Blackmun’s puzzlement What about this case caused Justice Blackmun to be puzzled? Could you dispel his confusion?
HYPOS ON “STREAM OF COMMERCE” Change the facts of World-Wide. What if the Robinsons were from Oklahoma but were temporarily in New York, where they purchased an Audi from Seaway, informing Seaway that they planned to return to Oklahoma. Should Seaway have foreseen being sued in Oklahoma and thus be subject to suit there? What if the facts were basically the same as the real case except that the Robinsons were from NY and had their accident in NJ?
ANOTHER HYPO Assume the driver of the car that hit the Robinsons’ Audi was from Texas and had no contacts with Oklahoma other than driving into the state and getting into an accident. Could an Oklahoma court have exercised personal jurisdiction over the driver for a claim in negligence brought by the Robinsons?
WWVW Case indicates that to exercise pj over a non-resident D, the court must find purposeful conduct either by direct acts of the D in the forum or by conduct outside the state that the D could have foreseen could result in suit being brought in the state
WWV: The Aftermath Case remanded to Oklahoma state trial court Audi and VWA removed case to federal district court for Northern District of Oklahoma – possible now (case filed 1978)? Case tried to a jury who found for defense Appeal to 10 th Circuit, which reversed and remanded for a new trial VWA is granted summary judgment Grant of summary judgment is affirmed by 10 th Circuit 9 years after accident occurs! Cont’d on next slide
WWV: The Aftermath Continued New AZ lawyer moves for a rehearing; motion is denied New suit filed in AZ, against different defendants – Volkswagen of Germany (parent co.) and previous attorneys. Sep. action filed in which moved to reopen judgment under FRCP 60(b)(3). Audi lawyers respond with 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) motions. Denial of 12(b)(6) motion but order of transfer from AZ to OK. Unsuccessful appeal of denial of 12( b)(6) motion under “death knell doctrine”
WWV: The Aftermath Continued Bench trial of fraud claims, product claims, and Rule 60(b) motion Judge (same judge as in original trial) acknowledged that based on evidence, memo was admissible. But he denies Rule 60(b) motion and fraud claims, as well as products claim. 10 th Circuit affirms in May, 1995 U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari in Jan. 8, 1996, 19 years after the accident took place
On to Venue What is venue and why is it required?
VENUE REQUIREMENTS ARE PURELY STATUTORY What is the general federal venue statute?
VENUE IN FEDERAL DIVERSITY ACTIONS Under 28 U.S.C. §1391, where can venue lie in a federal diversity action where the defendant(s) is/are natural person(s)?
MEANING OF RESIDENCE Should “residence” for venue purposes be equated with domicile or citizenship for diversity purposes? Compare ex parte Shaw, 145 U.S. 444, 447 (892) (dictum) with convenience rationale for venue
VENUE IN FEDERAL QUESTION ACTIONS Under 28 U.S.C. §1391, where can venue lie in a federal question action where the defendant(s)s is/are natural person(s)? How do the venue rules for federal question actions differ from diversity actions?
VENUE FOR CORPORATIONS Where does venue lie if a defendant is a corporation? What if the state, like Virginia or New York, but unlike Maryland, has more than one judicial district?
VENUE FOR ALIENS Where does venue lie for alien defendants?
FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES Parties may select a venue that is not a statutory venue by including a forum selection clause in a contract. In Bremen v. Zapata, 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972), Supreme Court held that federal courts sitting in admiralty should enforce such clauses absent showing that doing so “would be unreasonable or unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching” Non-negotiable forum selection clauses have been enforced by the Supreme Court.
PIPER AIRCRAFT CO. V. REYNO (1981) Landmark decision Who is the plaintiff? Who is plaintiff suing? What is the cause of action? Where does plaintiff bring the action? Why does plaintiff choose that forum?
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS Describe the motions made on behalf of Hartzell and Piper after the action is commenced. What is the outcome of these motions? What is forum non conveniens?
FNC: For transfer to Foreign Forum or between state judicial systems 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) permits court to dismiss if venue has improperly been laid “or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer [the] case to any district or division in which it could have been brought”
IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Describe Justice Marshall’s reasoning.
Scottish Legal System See student webpage on my Spring 2001 Comparative Law site: _law/grant/ _law/grant/ See also Kevin F. Crombie’s useful site: