Civ Pro Cases

1. Pennoyer v. Neff
2. International Shoe Co. v. Washington
3. World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson
4. Asahi Metal Ind. v. Superior Court
5. Perkins v. Benquet
6. Helicopteros v. Hall
7. Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute
8. McGee v. International Life Ins. Co.
9. Hanson v. Deckla
10. Schaeffer v. Heitner
11. Burnham v. Superior Court
12. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust
13. Hawkins v. Masters Farms
14. Redner v. Sanders
15. Saadeh v. Farouki
16. Kelly v. U.S. Steel Corp.
17. Tobie v. Don Pepe Corp., Inc.
18. Louisville Nashville Railroad v. Mottley
19. Caterpillar v. Lewis
20. Gibbons v. Brown
21. Dee-K Enterprises v. Heveafil
22. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
23. Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
24. Klaxon v. Stentor Mfg. Co.
25. Semtek v. Lockheed
26. State Farm Mutual v. Campbell
27. Sigma v. Harris
28. Bell v. Novick Transfer Co.
29. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly
30. Peters v. Dodge
31. Walker v. Norwest
32. Christian v. Mattel
33. Bridges v. Diesel
34. Zeilinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc.
35. Beeck v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp.
36. Davis v. Precoat Metals
37. Steffan v. Cheney
38. Silvestri v. General Motors
39. Hickman v. Taylor
40. Thomson v. Haskell
41. Chiquita v. M/V Bolero
42. Stalnacker v. Kmart Corp.
43. Zubulake v. UBS
44. Matsushita v. Epstein
45. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
46. Bias v. Advantage
47. Plant v. Blazer Financial Services
48. Szendrey-Ramos v. First Bancorp
49. Kroger v. Omaha
50. Owen v. Kroger
51. Mosley v. Gen. Motors Corp.
52. Price v. CTB
53. Temple v. Synthes
54. Helzberg's Diamond Shop v. Valley West
55. Martin v. Wilks
56. Cohen v. Republic of the Phillipines
57. Communities v. Michigan
58. Heaven v. Trust
59. Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts
60. Amchem v. Windsor
61. Reid v. San Pedro
62. Chauffeurs v. Terry
63. Amoco v. Torcomian
64. Pennsylvania RR v. Chamberlain
65. Norton v. Snapper
66. Lind v. Schendley
67. Frier v. City of Vandalia
68. Searle Bros. v. Searle
69. Gargallo v. Merrill Lynch
70. Illinois Central Gulf RR v. Parks
71. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
72. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wetzel
73. Anderson v. Bersemer City

Guaranty Trust Co. v. York

Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
326 U.S. 99 (1945)

Justice Frankfurter delivered opinion

Facts:

• Plaintiffs sued bond trustee in federal diversity action alleging misrepresentation and breach of trust
  
• New York substantive law governed
• Defendant invoked statute of limitations
• Plaintiffs argued statute of limitations didn't bar suit because it was on the "equity side" of federal court
  
• Courts of equity considered length of time between maturing of claim and bringing of suit but didn't find themselves traditionally bound by statute of limitations (why not? what's different about courts of equity?)
  
• Second Circuit ruled plaintiffs' suit was not barred but Supreme Court disagreed
  

Issue:
Under what circumstances are the federal courts bound by state law in a diversity action?

Holding: Where it would significantly affect the result of litigation for a federal court to disregard a state law that would be controlling in state court

Reasoning:

• Erie overruled judicial process of federal courts disregarding state laws where it would lead to different results in the state vs. federal court in a diversity action
• Fed ct. is acting as just another state ct.
• It cannot afford recovery for a state-given right if the state itself would not afford recovery
• Difference between "substance" and "procedure" is not the place to determine when to apply state law.
• Does state law concern the "manner and means by which a right to recover is enforced" or would it "substantially affect the result"?
• State bars the action so the fed. ct. should be the action for the same reason

Judgment: Reversed

Opinions:
Justice Rutledge dissented (omitted in text)

Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss Standard

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction generally take one of two forms: (1) a facial attack on the sufficiency of the complaint's allegations as to subject matter jurisdiction; or (2) a challenge to the actual facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction is based.

• court reviewing facial challenge must accept plaintiff's factual allegations regarding jurisdiction as true
• court reviewing factual challenge may not presume plaintiff's allegations are true; court has discretion to consider affidavits, other docs, and limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts
• plaintiffs bear burden of proving that jurisdiction is proper
• because fed courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the presumption is against fed jurisdiction
• for purposes of determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists, a person is a "citizen" of the state in which he or she is "domiciled"
• for adults, domicile is established by physical presence in a place in connection with a certain state of mind concerning one's intent to remain there
  

Where can a suit be brought?

Civil Procedure, Seventh Edition by Stephen Yeazell

Rules determining where a suit can be brought come under the headings of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue.

Personal jurisdiction:

• U.S. courts can't exercise power over a defendant if it would "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
• personal jurisdiction focuses on the defendant who is being haled into court against his will

Subject matter jurisdiction:

• courts of general jurisdiction can hear any kind of claim between any persons unless a legal authority says they cannot hear a specific type of case
• courts of limited jurisdiction can only hear cases that are specifically authorized by the statutes that set up the particular court
• all federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction
• subject matter jurisdiction of the fed courts is based on two kinds of consideration
  1. certain claims can be brought in fed court because of the nature of the claim, claims that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the U.S.
  2. other claims can be brought in fed court because of the citizenship of the parties of the suit

Venue:

• "venue" means "place of trial"
• venue rules are an attempt to allocate business among those courts that have subject matter and personal jurisdiction
• defendant can challenge suit unless court has personal jurisdiction, subject jurisdiction, and venue
  

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. (a.k.a. suicide son)

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.
355 U.S. 220 (1957)

Chief Justice Black delivered opinion, announced by Justice Douglas

Facts:

• In 1944, Franklin, resident of CA, purchased life ins. from (insurer bought by def.)
• Ins. co. mailed a reinsurance certificate to Franklin in CA, offering to cont. to insure him
• Franklin accepted offer and paid premiums until death in 1950
• pd from CA to TX
• Plaintiff (the beneficiary) notifies ins. co. of Franklin's death
• Ins. co. refused to pay
• claimed Franklin committed suicide
• Neither original insurer or respondent had any office/agent in CA

Issue:
Did the Due Process Clause preclude the CA court from entering a judgment binding on respondent?

Holding: No.

Reasoning:

• Suit was based on contract which had substantive contact w/ state
• Contract delivered in forum state
• premiums mailed there
• insured resident there when died
• Forum state had interest in providing redress to citizens of state when insurer refused to pay claim
• Resident would be at disadvantage if forced to follow ins. co. to distant state in order to hold it legally accountable
• No contention respondent did not have adequate notice of suit or sufficient time to prepare its defenses and appear

Judgment: Reversed

Opinions: N/A

Thoughts: Thinnest contacts upon which U.S. Sup. Ct. has allowed personal jurisdiction

Hanson v. Denckla (a.k.a. Mrs. D's fighting daughters)

Hanson v. Denckla
357 U.S. 235 (1958)

Chief Justice Warren delivered opinion

Facts:

• Case arose from family fight over trust established by Mrs. Donner
• funded primarily from publicly traded stocks
• Mrs. D lived in PA but trust was created in Delaware w/ Del. bank and trustee
• Mrs. D moves to FL and later dies
• Will probated in FL
• Three daughters involved in fight
• if settled in FL, two daughters get everything to exclusion of third
• if not, all three daughters share inheritance

Issue:
Can Florida acquire jurisdiction over Delaware trustee?

Holding: No.

Reasoning:
Requirements for pers. juris. expanded since Pennoyer v. Neff but this doesn't mean because rule is more flexible that minimum contacts test isn't still valid for determining jurisdiction

Court says:

• Fail to find such contacts here
• def. (trustee) has no office in FL
• conducts no bus. in FL
• doesn't solicit bus. from FL by mail or in person
• coa did not arise out of any bus. done by trustee in FL
• FL's contact was when Mrs. Donner moved there and trust followed her
• Mrs. D conducted some trust administrative bus. but no record of trustee performing acts in FL
• Unilateral activity of Mrs. D w/ nonresident def. (Del. trustee) doesn't satisfy min. con. rqrmnts
• essential that def. purposefully avails him/self of privilege of conducting activities w/ forum state (thereby getting protections and benefits from state)
• Unilateral activity of Mrs. D w/ nonresident def. (Del. trustee) doesn't satisfy min. con.

Judgment: Affirmed

Opinions:
Justices Black, Burton, Brennan, and Douglas dissented

Thoughts:
When arguing over jurisdiction, the substantive law of one state may be better for you than another.

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute
499 U.S. 585 (1991)

Justice Blackman delivered opinion

Facts:

• Shutes, through Arlington, WA travel agent, purchased 7-day cruise on Carnival (ship named Tropicale)
• Shutes paid agent for tickets, agent forwarded pymt to C.C. headquarters in Miami, FL
• Carnival sent tickets to Shutes in WA
• On face of ticket was info re: contract contained w/in paperwork
• #8 reads that "all disputes and matters whatsoever arising under, in connection with or incident to this contract shall be litigated, if at all, in and before a court located in the state of FL, U.S.A., to the exclusion of the courts of any other state or country"
• Shutes board ship (in CA), while in intl water off coast of Mexico, Eulala Shute slips and falls injuring herself
• Shutes file suit in U.S. District Court for Western District of WA, claiming defendant was negligent
• Carnival moves for summary judgment
• arguing clause on ticket requires Shutes to bring suit in FL court

Issue:
Was the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit correct in refusing to enforce a forum selection clause contained in tickets issued by petitioner Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. to the Shutes?

Holding: No. U.S. Sup Ct. held that the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to enforce the forum selection clause

Reasoning:
Note: This is an admiralty case, Fed. cts have jurisdiction over these matters

• Court does not review if Shutes had sufficient notice of forum clause
• Shutes (plaintiffs) say forum clause should not be enforced because clause was not a product of negotiation and enforcement would deprive them of their day in court

Court says:

• Unreasonable to assume in this type of contract that plaintiff would negotiate contract w/ defendant
• it is a form contract, terms are not subject to negotiation
• individual buying ticket has not "bargaining parity" w/ cruise line
  
• Reasonable to include forum clause
• cruise line has special interest in limiting the fora in which it could be subject to suit
• dispels any confusion about where suits arising from contract must be brought
• sparing litigants time & expense of pretrial motions to determine correct forum
• benefits consumers by reduced fares because company is able to limit where it can be sued
• there is judicial scrutiny of forum selection clauses for "fundamental fairness"
• no indication Carnival included forum clause to discourage legitimate suits
• defendant has principal place of bus. in FL and many cruises depart/return there
• no evidence plaintiff agreed to clause because of fraud or the state overreaching
• plaintiff had option of rejecting contract
  

Judgment: Reversed

Opinions:
Justice Stevens and Justice Marshall dissent

• Contracts of adhesion, offered on take-or-leave basis by stronger party
• Adhering party enters into contract without knowing and voluntary consent to all terms
• Contractual provisions which seek to limit court where suit can be brought are invalid as contrary to public policy
• Prevailing rule is still that forum selection clauses are not enforceable if they

1. were not freely bargained for
2. create addtl expenses for one party
3. deny one party a remedy