Jurisdiction Commons^™

What Remains Of Vicarious Jurisdiction For Establishing General Jurisdiction Over Corporate Defendants After Daimler Ag V. Bauman?, Keri Martin

Seton Hall Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

Neutralizing The Stratagem Of “Snap Removal”: A Proposed Amendment To The Judicial Code, Arthur Hellman, Lonny Hoffman, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Joan Steinman, Georgene Vairo

Faculty Scholarship

The “Removal Jurisdiction Clarification Act” is a narrowly tailored legislative proposal designed to resolve a widespread conflict in the federal district courts over the proper interpretation of the statutory “forum-defendant” rule.

The forum-defendant rule prohibits removal of a diversity case “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the [forum state].” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (emphasis added). Some courts, following the “plain language” of the statute, hold that defendants can avoid the constraints of the rule by removing diversity cases to federal court when a citizen of the forum state has …

Paterno V. Laser Spine Institute: Did The New York Court Of Appeals' Misapplication Of Unjustified Policy Fears Lead To A Miscarriage Of Justice And The Creation Of Inadequate Precedent For The Proper Use Of The Empire State’S Long-Arm Statute?, Jay C. Carlisle, Christine M. Murphy, Kiersten M. Schramek, Marley Strauss

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This article discusses CPLR section 302(a)(1) as applied by the New York State Court of Appeals in Paterno v. Laser Spine Institute. The Paterno Court failed to properly apply a statutory jurisdictional analysis by conflating it with a due process inquiry. Also, the Court unnecessarily balanced the interests of the Empire State's citizens in having a forum for access to justice with unjustified policy fears of potential costs to the state from assertions of in personam jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court's policy focus4 on the protection of medical doctors from lawsuits and the prevention of “floodgate” litigation which would adversely affect …

A 21st Century Approach To Personal Jurisdiction, Robert E. Pfeffer

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] "Personal jurisdiction doctrine plays a major role in many civil disputes in the United States. When the defendant resides in, is incorporated or headquartered in (in the case of a corporation or other business), or is otherwise found in the particular state where suit is brought, personal jurisdiction generally is found to exist and is unproblematic. Major personal jurisdiction issues usually arise when a plaintiff sues the defendant in a state other than the one in which the defendant is located.

In many cases involving parties located in different states, where a suit takes place is as extensively litigated …

Summary Of Catholic Diocese Of Green Bay, Inc. V. John Doe 119, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (May 28, 2015), Adam Wynott

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held a plaintiff must prove sufficient contacts with the jurisdiction in order to establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Without proof of sufficient contacts, Nevada courts do not have personal jurisdiction over a foreign Catholic diocese. The Court reversed the district court’s decision.

The Value Of Uncertainty, Cathy Hwang, Benjamin P. Edwards

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Five Questions After Atlantic Marine, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s Atlantic Marine ruling did a lot to clear up the law of forum selection. But it also left a number of live questions in place. This essay briefly discusses five of them. When a party wants to move a case to the selected forum, what procedures can it use, other than venue transfer or forum non conveniens? When is a forum selection clause valid and enforceable, as a matter of state or federal law? If the clause isn’t valid, should a federal court still give it any weight? What if there are multiple parties or claims, and …

Maryland Personal Jurisdiction Law In The Cyberspace Content, Saad Gul

University of Baltimore Law Forum

A century ago, personal jurisdiction largely hinged on a simple litmus test: the defendant’s presence in the forum state. The issue of personal jurisdiction gained prevalence as the nation evolved from its earlier days of detached, semi-sovereign entities, whose citizens rarely interacted, to a nation where interstate commerce had increased, with interstate litigation growing correspondingly. In Pennoyer v. Neff, the Supreme Court of the United States effectively limited a state’s jurisdiction to persons physically present within its territorial borders. However, in today’s increasingly interconnected world, physical presence appears to represent an anachronism set in the post-Civil War, horse-and-buggy America of …

Brief Of Professor Stephen E. Sachs As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

The parties in this case defend two sides of a many-sided circuit split. This brief argues that a third view is correct.

If a contract requires suit in a particular forum, and the plaintiff sues somewhere else, how may the defendant raise the issue? Petitioner Atlantic Marine Construction Company suggests a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406, on the theory that the contract renders venue improper. Respondent J-Crew Management, Inc. contends that venue remains proper, and that the defendant¹s only remedy is a transfer motion under § 1404.

Both sides are wrong. Forum-selection …

Where Corporations Are: Why Casual Visits To New York Are Bad For Business, Jeanne L. Schroeder, David G. Carlson

Articles

In this article, we examine the recent case of Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. Falor (2010), from the New York Court of Appeals. In this case, New York’s highest court held that LLCs are “present” in New York for jurisdictional purposes when the president of the LLC has submitted to New York jurisdiction in an unrelated law suit against him personally, and where the president came to New York for a deposition in that action. This, we claim, was unconstitutional. In addition, the New York Court of Appeals pronounced itself obliged by the United States Constitution to change the …

The Post-Iqbal State Of Pleading: An Argument Opposing A Uniform National Pleading Regime, Mark W. Payne

University of Miami Business Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal placed a squeeze on the once touted liberal Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by requiring judges to consider the veracity of potential plaintiffs' federal claims in light of Iqbal's new heightened pleading standard. This article examines post-Iqbal pleading standards across United States jurisdictions and argues that states should exert caution before choosing to adopt Iqbal's new "plausibility" standard, and if they elect to modify their pleading standards in light of the Iqbal decision, they should also carefully contemplate their method of adoption.

Erie As A Choice Of Enforcement Defaults, Sergio J. Campos

Articles

The Erie doctrine governs, among other things, when a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction may use a federal procedure that differs from the procedure a state court would use. Displacing the state procedure with the federal procedure (or not) may impact the substantive objectives of either state or federal law, but the current Erie doctrine provides little guidance. This Article argues that the Erie doctrine is best understood as governing a choice of enforcement defaults. As argued below, the primary function of civil liability is to protect a substantive entitlement to avoid the legal violation, either directly through specific …

Jurisdictional Discovery In Transnational Litigation: Extraterritorial Effects Of United States Federal Practice, S. I. Strong

Faculty Publications

This article describes the device in detail, distinguishing it both practically and theoretically from methods used in other common law systems to establish jurisdiction, and discusses how recent US Supreme Court precedent provides international actors with the means of limiting or avoiding this potentially burdensome procedure.

Jurisdiction By Cross-Reference, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

State and federal law often cross-reference each other to provide a rule of decision. The difficulties attendant to these cross-referenced schemes are brought to the fore most clearly when a federal court must determine whether such bodies of law create federal question jurisdiction. Indeed, the federal courts have issued scores of seemingly inconsistent opinions on these cross-referential cases. In this article, I offer an ordering principle for these apparently varied, cross-referential, jurisdictional cases. I argue that the federal courts only take federal question jurisdiction over cross-referenced claims when they, from a departmental perspective, maintain declaratory authority over the cross-referenced law. …

Clear Rules - Not Necessarily Simple Or Accessible Ones, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In The Complexity of Jurisdictional Clarity, 97 VA. L. REV. 1 (2011), Professor Dodson argues that the traditional call for clear and simple rules über alles in subject matter jurisdiction is misplaced. In this response essay, I begin by arguing that Dodson, while offering many valuable insights, does not adequately distinguish between the separate notions of simplicity, clarity, and accessibility. Second, I note that crafting a clarity enhancing rule, even if complex and inaccessible, may be a more promising endeavor than the search for a regime that is at once clear, simple and accessible. In the third section, I contend …

Did The Madisonian Compromise Survive Detention At Guantanamo?, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this essay, I take up the Court’s less heralded second holding in Boumediene v. Bush - that a federal habeas court must have the institutional capacity to find facts, which in Boumediene itself meant that a federal district court must be available to the petitioners. Although this has gone largely unnoticed, I contend that this holding is inconsistent with the Madisonian Compromise - the standard view that the Constitution does not require jurisdiction in any federal court, except the Supreme Court. In fact, it appears that the Court adopted Justice Story’s position that the Constitution requires vesting of jurisdiction …

Interlocutory Review By Agreement Of The Parties: A Preliminary Analysis, James Pfander, Dave Pekarek-Krohn

Faculty Working Papers

Although the nineteenth century's final judgment rule no longer represents an absolute barrier to interlocutory appellate review, scholars disagree about what should take its place. Some favor a regime of discretionary interlocutory review, with power conferred on appellate courts to select issues that warrant intervention. Others reject discretionary review as a waste of appellate resources and call upon the rule makers to identify specific categories of non-final orders that always warrant review. While the Supreme Court's collateral order doctrine bears some similarity to this process of categorization, the Court may have called a halt to the judicial recognition of new …

Collateral Review Of Remand Orders: Reasserting The Supervisory Role Of The Supreme Court, James Pfander

Faculty Working Papers

Although some might consider the appellate review of remand orders as something of a jurisdictional backwater, recent developments suggest that the rules need attention. The Supreme Court has decided no fewer than four cases in the past few years and has failed to develop a persuasive framework. Indeed, one member of the Court, Justice Breyer, has invited "experts" to solve the problem.

In this essay, I suggest that the solution lies in the Court's own hands. Rather than proposing legislative or rulemaking solutions, I call on the Court to re-invigorate its supervisory powers and conduct direct review of district court …

A Call For The End Of The Doctrine Of Realignment, Jacob S. Sherkow

Articles & Chapters

In Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 1941, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of realignment, requiring federal courts to examine the issues in dispute and realign each party as plaintiff or defendant if necessary. Due to the complete diversity requirement, realignment gave the federal courts the ability to both create and destroy diversity jurisdiction. Since 1941, the federal courts have struggled to interpret the central holding in Indianapolis, and have created several competing "tests" for realignment. This confusion has made the doctrine of realignment unworkable. Realignment-along with each of the present tests-encourages jurisdictional abuses by forcing the federal courts to …

Jurisdiction's Noble Lie, Frederic M. Bloom

Publications

This Article makes sense of a lie. It shows how legal jurisdiction depends on a falsehood--and then explains why it would.

To make this novel argument, this Article starts where jurisdiction does. It recounts jurisdiction's foundations--its tests and motives, its histories and rules. It then seeks out jurisdictional reality, critically examining a side of jurisdiction we too often overlook. Legal jurisdiction may portray itself as fixed and unyielding, as natural as the force of gravity, and as stable as the firmest ground. But jurisdiction is in fact something different. It is a malleable legal invention that bears a false rigid …

A Unified Theory Of 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

Title 28, section 1331 of the United States Code provides the jurisdictional grounding for the majority of cases heard in the federal courts, yet it is not well understood. The predominant view holds that section 1331 doctrine both lacks a focus upon congressional intent and is internally inconsistent. I seek to counter both these assumptions by re-contextualizing the Court's section 1331 jurisprudence in terms of the contemporary judicial usage of right (i.e., clear, mandatory obligations capable of judicial enforcement) and cause of action (i.e., permission to vindicate a right in court). In conducting this reinterpretation, I argue that section 1331 …

Reinventing Appellate Jurisdiction, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

Appellate jurisdiction in the federal system has been properly criticized for both its doctrinal incoherence and its procedural complexity. Although these critiques are well-founded, this Article reveals that, as applied in practice, federal courts have drawn sensible lines between interlocutory orders that are immediately appealable and those that are not. A limited category of interlocutory orders, primarily those rejecting immunities from suit, are immediately appealable as of right. All other interlocutory orders are potentially eligible for discretionary appellate review. The doctrinal morass of the present framework, however, has obscured this basically sensible structure and has led to inefficient procedures for …

What The Shutts Opt-Out Right Is And What It Ought To Be, Brian Wolfman, Alan B. Morrison

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article discusses the ramifications of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985), regarding the right of an absent class member to opt out of a class action. The article addresses both the current prevailing understanding of Shutts, which is based on the personal jurisdiction strain of due process jurisprudence, and what the authors believe is a more useful understanding, based on the property rights strain of due process jurisprudence. As an addendum to the article, the authors propose a new civil procedure rule governing class actions that would implement …

Jurisdictional Theory "Made In Japan": Convergence Of U.S. And Continental European Approaches, Akihiro Hironaka

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Recent Japanese cases concerning international jurisdiction illustrate a convergence of two distinct legal approaches to the treatment of jurisdictional issue--a rule-based, inflexible approach in Continental European countries and a standard-based, flexible approach in the United States. Japan's unique framework, as explained in this Article, might provide a useful perspective to solve the difficult question currently imposed on the Hague Conference: How is it possible to achieve comprehensive harmonization of the jurisdictional systems of the world?

Treatment Of Multi-Courts Jurisdiction Agreements, Seow Hon Tan

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

An increasingly popular manner of drafting jurisdiction clauses in cross-border contracts involves the selection of the courts of more than one jurisdiction. Traditionally, parties would submit all disputes to the courts of a particular country under an exclusive jurisdiction agreement or agree that the transaction is subject to a particular jurisdiction without intending to create an obligation to proceed there and nowhere else. Of late, the Singapore courts have encountered litigation over multi-courts jurisdiction agreements. A common form involves the naming of a particular court with one of the parties being given the option to proceed anywhere else.

Contracting Access To The Courts: Myth Or Reality? Bane Or Boon?, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Many scholars of the dispute resolution system perceive a sea change in attitudes toward adjudication that took place in the mid-1970s. Among the events of the time included the Pound Conference, which put the Chief Justice of the United States and the national judicial establishment on record in favor of at least some refinement, if not restriction, on access to courts. In addition, Chief Justice Burger, the driving force behind the Pound Conference, also used his bully pulpit as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to promote ADR, particularly court-annexed arbitration. The availability of judicial adjuncts such as court-annexed arbitration …

What's Wrong With This Picture?: Rule Interpleader, The Anti-Injunction Act, In Personam Jurisdiction, And M.C. Escher, Donald L. Doernberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The effectiveness of interpleader depends upon the availability of injunctions against other proceedings. There is no congressional authorization of such injunctions for rule interpleader cases. If interpleader were an in rem action, one of the other exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act might save the day, but the Supreme Court has apparently foreclosed that option. This article examines that three-sided conflict. Part II discusses the problem in greater depth, focusing first on how interpleader functions and why it depends on being “the only game in town.” Part II next addresses the background and interpretation of the Anti-Injunction Act, exploring particularly the …

Judgments From A Choice-Of-Law Perspective, Gene R. Shreve

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Pragmatism Without Politics -- A Half Measure Of Authority For Jurisdictional Common Law, Gene R. Shreve

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Personal Jurisdiction And The Stream Of Commerce, A. Kimberley Dayton

Faculty Scholarship

This article evaluates the stream of commerce theory of personaljurisdiction in light of existing precedent and the constitutionalimperative of due process. Part II briefly describes the factualbackground of Asahi and the various opinions rendered in the case.Part m outlines the development of jurisdictional doctrine since International Shoe, emphasizing the meaning of "purposeful availment" and its fluid role in the due process equation governing statecourt jurisdiction. Part IV then traces the evolution of the stream of commerce theory since International Shoe. Part V examines and rejects criticisms of the stream of commerce theory, and concludes that under any reasonabre interpretation of …