Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley (1908) (well pleaded complaint rule)

a.       Facts- Δ is a railroad company that hurt Π. Because of this hurt, Δ agreed to give free rail passes to Π for life, so long as a suit is not brought against Δ. Π agreed. Some years later, Δ stopped giving the passes. Π brought suit in federal Ct to resolve the dispute. Δ claims that an act of Congress prohibits that giving of free passes or free transportation.

                                                              i.       

b.      Procedural History- Circuit Ct found for Π, Δ appealed, US Sup Ct remanded to lower Ct ordering lower Ct to dismiss for want of subject matter Jx

c.       Issue- Whether Π can sue in federal Ct over a breach of contract when the only relation the suit has to the Const is the Δ’s anticipated defense (Congress forbids free passes)

d.      Holding- No, Π CANNOT sue in federal Ct when the only relation to Π’s claim is the anticipated defense of the Δ

                                                              i.      Congress is the one who allegedly violated due process

e.       Rule- A federal question is one way to establish federal subject matter Jx. However, the federal question MUST be stated in the Π’s complaint…NOT in the Δ’s anticipated defense

f.       Rationale-

                                                              i.      To allege a Δ’s defense then make an answer to it before the Δ has the opportunity to itself plead or prove its own defense is inconsistent with any known rule of pleading and improper

g.      Notes-

                                                              i.      Any Federal entity is subject to Federal Jx

1.      EXCEPTION to “well pleaded complaint” rule: Even if a Federal entity is sued for strictly State laws…the complaint still must be filed in Federal court

Mas v. Perry (1974)

a.       Facts- Π couple lived in Louisiana where they were graduate assistants at LSU. After marriage, they stayed in Louisiana for about 2 years. They then moved to IL, but moved back to Louisiana so husband could finish his PhD. While in Louisiana, Π’s landlord was spying on them, and they filed suit in federal Ct on diversity Jx basis.

b.      Procedural History- Trial Ct found for Π, Δ challenged diversity Jx, Ct of appeals held for Π

c.       Issue- Whether the Π fulfilled the basis for diversity Jx

d.      Holding- Yes, Π’s fulfilled the requirements for diversity Jx

e.       Rule- Diversity Jx exists where parties are “diverse” such that all are residents of different states AND where the amount in claim is over (exceeds) a certain amount (now $75k)

f.       Rationale-

                                                              i.      Even though Ms. Mas was living in Louisiana, her last place of domicile was with her parents in Mississippi. Therefore, her domicile is Miss.

                                                            ii.      Mr. Mas was a citizen of France with no intentions of living in Louisiana after school, although he didn’t know where he would live after. For the purposes of domicile, Mr. Mas resided in Louisiana, but held domicile in France

                                                          iii.      Amount of claim

1.      For purpose of diversity Jx, amount of claim is considered whatever the Π claims…the Δ CANNOT use a defense to lower the amount

2.      While Δ’s total amount cannot be combined to reach minimum amount, if one Δ has reached minimum then other Δs can join in suit

g.      Notes-

                                                              i.      Domicile:

1.      Physical presence- you have to actually be in the state

2.      Intention- you have to have the intention to live there forever

                                                            ii.      Diversity cases are concerned with State laws

                                                          iii.      Parties CANNOT concede subject matter Jx…unlike PJx (where litigants can “accept” PJx in a State)

1.      A Ct can sua sponte dismiss the case based on no subject matter Jx

                                                          iv.      Class action: at least one Δ must be diverse than the Π

                                                            v.      Diversity is established at the time of filing the complaint…NOT at the time of incident

                                                          vi.      Domicile of Corporation:

1.      Nerve Center test, OR           

a.       Focus on the place the activities of the corp are controlled and directed

b.      Location of direction, control and coordination

c.       Nerve center test is the majority

2.      Locus of operation

a.       Location of the corp’s actual physical operations

                                                        vii.      Punitive Damages:

1.      Punishment; conduct is egregious

2.      MUST be made in “good faith” for purpose of reaching amount in controversy

3.      4:1 ratio “should” be followed. Punitive:compensatory

                                                      viii.      Unincorporated associations:

1.      Don’t look to place of business, look to the domicile of the partners

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981)

a.       Facts-

                                                              i.      Plane manufacturer in PA, propeller manufacturer in OH

                                                            ii.      Rest of Δs are overseas…and got sued in the UK

                                                          iii.      CA is

1.      where the cause of action is filed

2.      location of probate Ct

                                                          iv.       

b.      Notes-

                                                              i.      Forum Non Conveniens

1.      Not a Rule, but a judicial doctrine

2.      S 1404 (a): The Ct can sua sponte (on its own) to produce a forum non conveniens (transfer)

3.      Venue: The case has already been filed, and can continue in a different venue

a.       The statute of limitation is tolled (stopped) during the transfer

4.      Case must be started anew if case dismissed for forum non conveniens

a.       During forum non conveniens, the statute of limitation is not tolled…further, the Ct will usually stipulate that Δ cannot bring a statute of limitation defense during a dismissal

5.      Even though the laws in one place might be “better” than another, this CANNOT be the basis for a forum non conveniens

a.       It’s not that the laws are not good enough, but that there is NO laws to bring an action (inadequate or unsatisfactory remedy)

6.      Ct balanced private and public interest- Balancing Test

a.       Private: NO interest in CA, nobody was from CA

b.      Public:

                                                                                                                                      i.      only 1 party from PA, since Scottish law would apply to some Δs while American laws would apply to others…it would make no sense to combine the 2 and confuse the jury and even judges.

                                                                                                                                    ii.      Cts don’t want Δs to “shop” for venues with favorable laws.

                                                                                                                                  iii.      Most of evidence would be overseas. The Scottish interest outweighs the American

7.      S 1406 (a): the Ct can discretionarily dismiss a case from a Ct that has NO Jx, to a case that has Jx

                                                            ii.      Private interest factors:

1.      Relative ease of access to sources of proof

2.      Availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses

3.      Possibility to view premises

4.      All other practical problems that make trial of a case easy

                                                          iii.      Public interest factors:

1.      Court case congestion

2.      Local interest in having localized controversies decided at home

3.      Applying the “home” law

4.      Unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950)

a.       Facts- Bank was trying to conduct an “accounting”, which would extinguish any claim against the bank for mishandling funds. They gave notice by way of newspaper ad

b.      When they previously conducted an accounting, they notified everyone by mail, not by newspaper

c.       Ct said that “chance alone” is NOT enough…maybe some people moved away from the newspaper’s reach, or maybe somebody won’t read the paper

d.      What is adequate notice?

                                                              i.      Actually trying to inform the party to litigation

                                                            ii.      “Reasonably calculated to apprise a party as to the pendency of an action”

                                                          iii.      Everyone who has an interest in the litigation should be notified

e.       Summons- directs the Δ to file an answer

f.       Complaint- states complaint and prayer for relief (what the Π wants)

g.      Due Process only requires that you send the notice, and the presumption that the post office sent it

Bates v. C&S Adjusters, Inc. (1992)

a.       Facts- Π lived in Penn and Δ is a debt collection agency. Π moved to NY. When trying to collect debt from Π, Δ sent a collection letter to Π’s old, Penn address. The post office then forwarded the collection letter to Π’s new address. Π then filed a complaint against Δ in NY under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). However, the Ct dismissed Π’s complaint because Δ claimed improper venue.

b.      Procedural History- Π files complaint, Δ claims improper venue, Trial Ct dismisses Π’s complaint, Ct of appeals reverses and remands.

c.       Issue- Whether venue in NY was proper because the Π received the collection letter while he was there, even though the Δ did NOT intentionally send it there.

d.      Holding- Yes, venue was proper in NY because mailing the collection letter was a “substantial part of events” under the FDCPA. Further, Δ could have chosen to mark the collection letter “do not forward”, preventing the forwarding into NY.

                                                              i.      Also, Δ did not otherwise object to Jx

e.       Rule- Venue is proper wherever a “substantial part of the events” that gave way to the claim occur, regardless of whether the Δ actually entered that venue.

f.       Rationale-

g.      Notes-

                                                              i.      Why was PJx proper in NY?

1.      Under the FDCPA, the injury occurs at the time of receipt (receiving the collection papers)

2.      Where the injury occurs, the cause of action arises 

Insurance Corporation of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee (1982)

a.       Facts- Π is a mining company (Penn.), and Δ is an insurance company (Europe). Π bought a policy from Δ for “business interruption” insurance. When mechanical problems prevented Π from doing business, they filed an insurance claim with Δ, at which time Δ did NOT pay. Π then sued Δ for non-payment in a Penn. Ct. Δ raised a defense for lack of Jx and sought summary judgment. In responding to Δ’s defense, Π asked for all of Δ’s insurance policies in Penn. Δ only made these documents available in London, but the Ct said that the documents must be in Penn. When Δ refused, the Ct sanctioned Δ under FRCP 37. On appeal, Δ argued that the Ct had no Jx over them, and therefore cannot sanction them.

b.      Procedural History- Δ appeals injunction, Sup Ct affirms

c.       Issue- Whether it was proper to sanction Δ under FRCP 37

d.      Holding- Yes, it was proper for the Ct to sanction Δ under FRCP 37. The Ct did NOT abuse its discretion by sanctioning Δ. The sanction (punishment) is that the Δ was subject to PJx

e.       Rule-

                                                              i.      Sanction of taking certain facts as established may be applied to support a finding of personal jurisdiction over the defendant without violating the due process clause.

                                                            ii.      If not timely raised, a defense of “lack of Jx” is waived

f.       Rationale-

                                                              i.      By allowing the Ct to address the issue of “personal Jx”, the Δ agrees to abide by the determination of the Ct regarding personal Jx.

                                                            ii.      If you waive your right to contest PJx, you can NEVER contest it again

g.      Notes-

                                                              i.      If a Δ does NOT contest Jx, they have waived their right to contest Jx:

1.      To contest Jx, Δ can file a motion to dismiss for lack of PJx (Rule 12(b)(2))

2.       Or, contest PJx in the Answer (pleading)

                                                            ii.      Adhesion contracts: take it or leave it

                                                          iii.      A “forum selection” clause in a contract, is valid, even in an adhesion contract

Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall (1984) (helicopter crash in Peru)

a.       Facts- Δ is a Colombian corporation that owns and operates helicopters and contracts these services. Π are relatives of 4 American decedents, who were employed by another corp, who died in a helicopter crash which was owned and operated by Δ. In negotiating the contract with Π’s employer, Δ’s president was in Tex. Further, Δ bought helicopters from Tex-based corp, and sent their employees to train in Tex. Π brought suit against Δ for wrongful death in a Tex Ct. Δ argues that Jx is NOT proper b/c International Shoe contacts are not present.

b.      Procedural History- Trial Ct found for Π, Tex Sup Ct affirmed Jx, U.S. Sup Ct reversed

c.       Issue- Whether purchasing from the forum State and training employees in the forum State, even if regularly, constitute the “continuous and systematic” (Perkins) requirements for exercising Jx over a claim that did NOT arise from these purchases or training (contacts)

d.      Holding- No, purchases and training, even if regularly, are NOT enough to subject a corporation to Jx

                                                              i.      Dissent: Brennan, J. – While the claim did not “arise” from Δ’s contacts, they were “related” to it. Majority has “arise” and “related” confused. Πs claim negligence of the pilot, who was trained in Tex. This “related” contact is sufficient to subject Δ.

e.       Rule- A Δ MUST have “continuous and systematic” contacts with the forum State for that State to exercise in personam Jx over that Δ, unless Δ’s contacts are the related to the cause of action

f.       Rationale-

                                                              i.      Perkins: Δ is a Philippine corporation with an office in Ohio. Company files are in that office, director’s meetings are in that office, checks were drawn on active Ohio bank accounts. Ct held that “general Jx” over the Δ was proper b/c Δ’s acts were considered “continuous and systematic”

                                                            ii.      Rosenberg: Mere purchases are NOT considered “continuous and systematic”

                                                          iii.      MAIN POINT: The deaths did NOT arise from the contacts Δ had w/ Tex, therefore, general Jx is improper. If the acts DID arise from Δ’s contacts, specific Jx may be found

                                                          iv.      The training was NOT an isolated act…it was part of the purchase

g.      Notes-

                                                              i.      The trip to Tex by the Δ’s CEO is NOT enough

                                                            ii.      To exercise specific Jx, Π must show that the deaths arose from Δ’s contacts

                                                          iii.      QUESTION for Gen Jx is whether the contacts are “continuous and systematic”