Personal Jurisdiction
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Removal Jurisdiction
Service of Process
Venue
Erie Doctrine
Pleadings
Joinder
Class Action
Discovery
Injunctions
Pre-Answer/Post-Answer Motions
Default
Voluntary Dismissal
Summary Judgment
Conferences
Motions at Trial
Motions after ...
Where a civil case is brought to the courts by a plaintiff in a particular forum state, the court must
have personal jurisdiction over the defendant or the property concerned. There are three types of
personal jurisdiction; In personam; In rem, and; Quasi in rem.
In personam jurisdiction refers to power over the defendant. This requires satisfaction of both; (1)
The forum state’s long-arm statute; and (2) The Due Process Clause of the US Constitution.
Regarding the latter, this specifically requires that the defendant have sufficient nexus with two
jurisdictions. 5th Amendment recognises personal jurisdiction through the Defendant’s contact
anywhere in the US, whereas 14th Amendment deals with the Defendant’s contact with the forum
state. The latter requires either general or specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction requires that the
forum state is the domicile of the defendant. For individuals, his domicile is determined by the
defendant’s last present residence where he permanently chose to live. For corporations, its domicile
is determined by the place of incorporation or where its principal place of business is based, such as
its headquarters. Specific jurisdiction requires that the defendant have made sufficient contact with
the forum state. In a commercial context, the defendant must have purposefully availed himself to the
economic benefits of doing commerce in that forum state, and that he could have foresaw that he
would be ‘haled into court’ where he would face litigation for any wrongdoing in that forum state.
For example, the defendant intended to sell his products in that forum and the plaintiff who purchased
the product may intend to sue him for wrongfully serving that product in that state, which the
defendant should have reasonably foresaw at the time of sale. In a litigation context, the defendant
may have been voluntarily served in the state and was physically present because he was served with
process. This excludes the defendant testifying in the state, as this does not necessarily mean he was
being served with process, thus he had no sufficient contact with the state. In terms of internet, the
defendant may have established a passive website, in which he targeted specific readers in that forum
state which would establish specific jurisdiction. Otherwise, an active website would establish general
jurisdiction where he simply uploaded a website from his headquarters in that state. However, specific
jurisdiction must also be fair and not offend the traditional notions of justice. This may be determined
by the location of the witnesses or the defendant, in which the state should not be too far
geographically from their domiciles otherwise it would be too inconvenient for them to attend the
courts in that forum state. Also, the public policies of that forum state should not be too harsh on the
defendant based on their circumstances. The state should also provide enough redress/compensation
to the plaintiff.
In rem jurisdiction refers to power over the defendant’s property.
Quasi-in rem jurisdiction requires that the forum state does not have in personam jurisdiction over
the defendant. However, the forum state has in rem jurisdiction over the defendant’s property (which
is located in the forum state). Thus the forum state can use its in rem jurisdiction to indirectly force
the defendant to attend its court by attaching his property to prevent him from losing title over his
property. This requires the following. First, the plaintiff must have exercised reasonable efforts to
serve process to create in personam jurisdiction. Second, the defendant’s property must have value.
Third, the defendant must have ownership and control over the property. Fourth, the defendant’s
property must be located in the forum state. Fifth, the forum state must provide notice to the defendant
and an opportunity to be heard, under Procedural Due Process.
,2) Subject Matter Jurisdiction (DPC)
Where a party brings a civil case to the court, the court must have power over the case. This is known
as subject matter jurisdiction, which is recognised under the Due Process Clause under the US
Constitution. Unlike personal jurisdiction, SMJ requires authority over the subject matter of the case.
State courts have unlimited power over any case. However, federal courts’ power is limited to either
diversity of citizenship jurisdiction (s. 1332) or federal question jurisdiction (s. 1331).
Under 28 USC Section 1332, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction requires three elements. Firstly, all
plaintiffs must have state citizenships diverse to all defendants at the time of filing the lawsuit. If any
party changes his citizenship after the lawsuit is filed, this will not be relevant. Aliens residing outside
the US will consist of having diverse citizenship to residents in the US. However, aliens residing in
the same state as the opponent party in the US will not have diversity. If a party tries to change his
citizenship intentionally to create diversity by assigning his right to another party, this will not count
as he would be seen as collusively performing an act. Citizenship of individuals is determined by
where they are domiciled (their physical presence and intent to remain there permanently).
Citizenship of corporations is determined by the single state where they are incorporated and the
multiple states where their principal place of business are located. The principal place of business is
generally where the corporation’s high-level officers direct, control and coordinate the cooperation’s
activities, which is typically the corporate headquarters. Citizenship of limited liability corporations,
however, is determined by the citizenship of each member. Citizenship of partnerships is determined
by the citizenship of all partners, limited and general, not where it is incorporated. Citizenship of
representatives of either decedents, incapacitated or minor parties is never relevant. It is the
represented party’s citizenship that counts. For class actions, only the representative’s citizenship is
relevant. Where there is no diversity, the federal courts allow what is known as supplemental
jurisdiction, whereby an existing case that has diversity shares the same common nucleus of operative
fact as a case that does not have diversity, i.e. they arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
This will allow parties to join their case without jurisdiction with an existing case with jurisdiction,
but this only applies to cross-claims where a co-defendant sues his other co-defendant in the same
case or impleaders where a defendant sues a third party from whom the third party derived its actual
liability to the plaintiff. Secondly, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. This excludes
attorney’s costs or interest. Such amount must recoverable by law, not the estimated sum by the jury
nor the actual recoverable amount as determined by the courts. Such amount must be based in good
faith by the plaintiff. If the amount does not exceed this figure, again, the case can be joined with
another case. However, this depends on whether there are multiple claims by the same plaintiff or
different plaintiffs. If a single plaintiff wishes to file multiple claims against a single defendant, the
plaintiff may join all claims (by supplemental pleadings) in aggregate to meet the $75,000 threshold,
even if they are not related, by supplemental jurisdiction if the other case’s amount does exceed
$75,000. Whereas if multiple plaintiffs wish to file multiple claims against a single defendant, or a
single plaintiff wishes to file claims against multiple defendants, their claims must be related (arise
out of the same t/o) and at least one of their claims must exceed $75,000 so that they may be
aggregated to meet the $75,000 threshold. However, this excludes multiple claims that assert rights
over title to the exact same property (interpleader), rather than asserting the same legal rights. In the
former case, a single claim should be filed rather than multiple claims over the same property, which
would be equitably unfair on the defendant. Lastly, the case must exclude claims concerning child
custody, child support, alimony, or will probate. Otherwise, the case must be dismissed entirely.
If diversity is not present, the plaintiff can always claim federal question jurisdiction under 28 USC
Section 1331. The federal question in dispute must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.
This requires the plaintiff asserts his right arising out of an existing federal statute, treaty or
, constitution. This excludes the anticipation or expectation of a defendant asserting his federal rights
as a defence to a plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff himself must assert his own right. However, federal
question jurisdiction does not apply to cases involving contract, property or torts. Such cases must be
diverted to diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, because they are substantive laws that are dealt with
by state law, not federal law. However, they can always be joined to cases that have federal
jurisdiction by supplemental jurisdiction, so long as they arise out of the same transaction of
occurrence. Ultimately though, it is up to the court as they have discretion to decide whether such
claims should be heard in one single proceeding, even if one of the claims with SMJ was dismissed.
3) Removal Jurisdiction
A case may be removed from the state court to federal court if it has removal jurisdiction. This
requires: (1) The defendant, not the plaintiff, applies to remove the case; (2) The plaintiff’s claim (not
defendant’s counterclaim) has subject matter jurisdiction to be removed to federal court, whether
diversity or federal question jurisdiction; (3) The defendant is not the citizen of the same forum state,
if diversity is applied (not federal question); and (4) The case is being removed within the same
district in the same state as the state court. The case must be removed within 30 days after it is realised
to have jurisdiction in the federal court, unless the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent its removal
in which the deadline is extended to one year but from the time the lawsuit was commenced, only in
diversity cases. But if the case does go to federal court and some of the federal claims are resolved,
the case can be remanded back to the state court at the federal court’s discretion. Alternatively, if the
case does not have jurisdiction, the plaintiff must remand back to state court within 30 days after
defendant received notice of its availability for removal, and certainly before any judgment is made
by the court.
4) Service of Process (DPC)
A plaintiff must always serve process on the defendant in order to commence a lawsuit in court, as
required under the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. Service of process requires: (1)
Serving party is not a party to the lawsuit, such as an agent; (2) Serving party has capacity to serve,
in which he is 18 years or older; (3) Complaint is served with the court first; and (4) Complaint and
summons is served on the defendant within 90 days of the service of complaint to the court. The key
issue is how service of process may be made on the defendant, depending on the type of defendant
concerned. For example, an individual defendant may only be served by the methods determined by
federal or state law. Federal law requires service may be made on individuals by personal hand
delivery only. This can be done either on the defendant personally at his residence, served on the
defendant’s usual abode where he may not be present but someone of suitable age and discretion like
his butler may accept it, or an agent authorised to accept on his behalf. Alternatively, state law may
allow other methods depending on the state where the court sits or where service is being made on
the defendant. For corporations, the federal law again requires personal delivery on an officer, or a
managing/general/authorised agent, or based on the relevant state laws. For parties outside the US,
such delivery methods will be determined by any foreign treaties between the US and the parties’
domiciled jurisdiction. For third parties impleaded into a case, service of process must be made on
the third party by hand delivery, so long as that party is domiciled within 100 miles from where the
federal action is pending.
Service of process can always be waived if the plaintiff serves the summons with two copies of the
waiver form to the defendant, requesting that he sign and return the waiver form. Note that the
defendant does not have to waive service because it is a voluntary act. Waiver of service must be
made within 30 days after he receives the waiver form, unless he resides outside the US in which a
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ajwho. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $48.69. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
