Civil Procedure - PJ, SMJ, Venue

- In which state(s) can P sue D?
- Two Step Analysis:
1) Satisfy a statute (state long arm) or
2) Satisfy the Constitution (due process)

CA may exercise jurisdiction over any person or property over which the state can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction.
[The statute reaches the constitutional limit]

Does D have such minimum contacts w/ the forum so that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play & substantial justice?

1) D is domiciled in forum [domicile = presence in state (physical) & intends to stay there (mental)].
2) D's presence in state when served.
3) D consents.

"My Parents Frequently Forgot to Read Childrens Stories"
- Minimum contact
- Purposeful availment
- Foreseeable (that D sued in forum)
- Fairness
- Relatedness (betw contact & claim)
- Convenience
- State's interest

We know what state we are in, but now we need to figure out what court (state or fed) will have the authority over the subject matter.
- 2 types: diversity actions & federal questions

1) Citizens of different states (or foreign citizen) at the time action is filed; &
2) Amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (in GF) (may aggregate claims if 1 P vs 1 D)

- PEOPLE: State of domicile: Presence in state & subjective intent to make it one's personal home.
- CORPORATIONS: located in 2 states: state of incorporation & state where PPB
[PPB= location of HQ (nerve ctr) or where there is more production or service activity than anywhere else (muscle ctr)]

Claim arises under federal law, Constitution, or treaties - if P is enforcing a FEDERAL RIGHT.

Test: Claim must share a COMMON NUCLEUS OF OPERATIVE FACT w/ claim that invoked fed SMJ.
- Always met by claims that arise from the same T/O.

In a diversity of citizenship case, P cannot use supplemental jurisdiction to overcome a lack of diversity.
- But, P can overcome a lack of diversity in a FQ claim.
- And P can overcome failure to meet amt in controversy req in a diversity case against second D.
- AND will overcome lack of diversity or amt in cont. by anyone other than initial P.

Only Ds can remove (transfer) case filed in state ct to fed ct if:
1) case could be heard in fed ct (fed SMJ) &
2) w/i 30 days after service of the first removable document.
- Except for diversity cases, no removal if any D is a citizen of the forum.

1) A district where any D resides if all Ds reside in the same state;
2) Where a substantial part of the claim arose; or
3) If no district meets 1) or 2), then:
- in diversity cases, district where any D is subject to PJ or
- in other cases, where any D may be found

People: place of domicile
Corporations: in all districts where it is subject to PJ.

If improper or inappropriate venue, then can only transfer to district where could have filed.

Fed cts may, for convenience of parties & Ws, in interests of justice, transfer any civil action to any other district where it might have been brought, or if transfer not possible, then to dismiss entire case.
- Since fed cts cannot transfer cases to foreign courts, dismissal may be proper
- Ct must evaluate public & private factors in making its decision

1) Fed cts required to apply state substantive law to non-federal causes of action.
2) Necessary & Proper Clause allows fed cts to apply fed procedural rules.
- Fed cts will also apply some state "procedural" rules when those rules have no bearing on the mechanics of the fed ct system.