Download Understanding Personal Jurisdiction and Subject Matter Jurisdiction in U.S. Courts and more Study notes Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!
INTRO
CIV V. CRIM
CIV
● Goals:
- Compensate &
- Resolve ● Remedies:
- $ &/or
- Injunction ● Stdrd of proof: a. “Preponderance of evid” or b. “Clear & convincing evid”
CRIM
● Goals:
- Punish &
- Deter ● Remedies:
- Fines;
- Prison; &/or
- Death ● Stdrd of proof: ○ “Beyond reasonable doubt”
2 COURT SYSTEMS
STATE
● 10 th^ Am- all other pub auth (not given to fed) = vested in states Trial Courts ● States have diff names ● Charleston County’s = “Circuit Court” Intermediate Appellate ● DO NOT exist in ALL states ● SC’s = “SC Court of Appeals” Highest Court ● Court of last resort ● Majority states call it “Supreme Court” ○ 2 states call it “Court of Appeals” ● SC’s = SC Supreme Court
FED
● “Supremacy clause” (Const Art 6) - states must give way to fed gov ● Const Art 3 - gives judicial power to U.S. Supreme Court ● Judiciary Act of 1789 - created lower fed courts Trial Courts ● “U.S. District Courts” ● Congress divides states into district determined by pop ● Every “district” (except 1) lies w/in its state ● Larger, more populous states have several districts ● D.C. = separate district
● Also have territorial districts Intermediate Appellate Courts ● “U.S. Court of Appeals” ● “Circuits” encompass ALL districts w/in certain set of diff states ● 11 geographic circuits PLUS D.C. Highest Court (Court of Last Resort) ● “U.S. Supreme Court” ● ONLY fed court EXPRESSLY created by U.S. Const ● 9 justices ● Active in sessions from Oct-July ● NO “right” of appeal - INSTEAD “writ of certiorari” to resolve:
- Splits among fed courts;
- Nationally important issue; &
- SOMETIMES - trial court case w/ dispute btwn diff states ● “Chief Justice”: ○ “1st among equals” ○ Sets tone for Court TRIAL VS. APPELLATE COURTS
TRIAL
● Factual disputes litigated ● Determined by fact-finders who:
- Consider/evaluate evid to determine facts of case & THEN
- App law to those facts ● Fact finders = EITHER : a. 1 single judge or b. Jury ● Hold in favor for particular parties depending on:
- Evid &
- Docs
APPELLATE
● ≠ fact-finders ○ DO NOT consider/evaluate evid ● Hear/review case ONLY to examine/determine errors that occurred at trial court level ● Judges sit in “panels” (of 3, 5, 7, or 9) STEPS OF CIV PRO
- Dispute
- Consultation
- Research & evid
- Forum
- Filing
- Notice
- Pleadings
1. DISPUTE
● P has to = DIRECTLY adversely affected ○ i.e. P needs to = harmed THEMSELVES in some way ■ OTHERWISE suit = dismissed
4 FACTORS FOR CASE TO = “JUSTICIABLE”
● ALL 4 MUST = SATISFIED
Actual (Real & Substantial) Controversy ● NOT seeking MERE advisory opinion ○ Hypo, abstract, or academic ≠ enough - must = real, concrete, definite dispute ● EX: mayor thinking about River dogs ordinance where you can’t wear opposing team's merch in stadium ○ MERELY thinking about it - has not put ordinance into motion yet P W/ “Standing” ● P has ACTUAL stake in outcome of case (court’s judgment) ● P ALREADY suffered OR SOON WILL suffer ACTUAL injury that = fairly traceable to D’s conduct which = capable of being redressed by court ● EX: 98 yr old CA res arguing against ordinance (in above EX) ○ NOT w/in juris - has NOT suffered & WILL NOT suffer from mayor’s ordinance Dispute = “Ripe” ● Must rest upon live, pending circumstances/events - NOT speculative future 1s ● EX: friend says they MIGHT buy you river dogs tickets ○ You DO NOT have tickets yet - HAVE NOT = affected by ordinance (in above EX) Dispute ≠ “Moot” ● Ensuing events HAVE NOT rendered what once WAS live dispute into MERELY academic or hypo Q ● EX: give away your tickets ○ Ordinance (in above EX) NO LONGER affects you - dispute = resolved CASES ● Sloan v. Friends of the Hunley, Inc. ● TransUnion LLC Does suit seek ONLY advice opinio n? Is dispute ripe for adjudic ation? Has dispute becom e moot? Does P have standi ng to assert claim? Do other constit utional or prudent ial concer ns apply? NO (i.e. justici able) N O Y E SN O NO (i.e. non- ripe) Must be live at time of lawsuit Whether it will become live in future ≠ enough THINK TIMING Live controversy throughout ALL litigation? When parties come to lack of legally recognizable interest in outcome = moot To have right to litigate - P must: Suffered injury Which = fairly traceable to D’s conduct Which is likely to be redressed by relief sought Other constitutional/pr udential concerns can raise justiciability concerns THINK POLITICAL QS Y E S Y E S (i.e . oth ers ap ply ) YES (i.e. non- justicia ble) CASE ≠ JUSTI CIABL E - WILL NOT BE HEAR D N O (i.e. no stan din g) MUST BE JUSTICIABLE Non-justiciable Definite
- Academic Concrete
- Advisory Legal interest
- Hypo, abstract Court can supply resolution Y E S (i.e . mo ot) Dispute = justiciabl e BUT ONLY IF action being litigated in name of (for benefit of) real party interest IF N OT
2. CONSULTATION
SOLICITATION OF NEW CLIENTS
● Atts ≠ allowed to solicit - will get barred for doing so ● Atts can respond IF perspective CLIENT begins convo - CANNOT begin convo themselves ● Atts can send emails/letters AS LONG AS client = able to deny W/OUT pressure
FACT GATHERING
● Atts must provide COMPETENT rep to client ● Req analysis of factual & legal elements of issue
CREATING ATT-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
● Scope of rep & fees must = notified (pref in writing) EITHER : a. Before commencing rep or b. W/in REASONABLE time after commencing rep
ATT-CLIENT PRIV
● Atts ≠ allowed to reveal ANY info:
- About client or
- What client tells them
SC SPEC
● Contingent fees = forbidden in:
- Divorce law &
- Crim law
RULES OF PRO CONDUCT
- Proper origination; ● NO improper solicitation or advertising
- Proper fee arrangement; ● Fee must = reasonable & ALL terms must = in writing
- Confidentiality; ● Att-client priv
- Competence & diligence; ● Must ALWAYS exercise professionalism
- Officer of court; ● Hold duty of candor to tribunals
- Lawful advice; & ● NO assistance in commision of crime or fraud
- Communication ● Client: 1. Must be informed & 2. = decision maker
3. RESEARCH & INVESTIGATION
DUTY TO DISCLOSE
● 4 elements of att’s duty to disclose adverse auth - law must =:
1. In controlling juris;
2. Known to att;
3. Directly contrary to att’s position; &
4. NOT disclosed by other side
FRCP 11
a. Sig: ● EVERY legal doc must = signed by AT LEAST 1 att ○ Or party if ≠ rep by counsel (i.e. rep themselves) b. Rep to court: ● ACT of sig, filing, submitting, or advocating ANY paper in court = CERT by advocating att who = INFORMED to best of his:
- Knowledge;
- Info; &
- Belief ● Formed AFTER inquiry ( REASONABLE under circumstance) that:
- = NO improper purpose;
- Legal contentions = warranted;
- Factual contentions = supported; &
- ALL defs = warranted by facts c. Violations (sanctions for failure to disclose): ● Att & entire firm = JOINTLY responsible ● Sanctions enacted to deter repetition by firm & others ● May = EITHER $ OR non-$ sanctions CASES ● Bridges v. Diesel ○ Sued for violation of Americans w/ Disabilities Act ○ Violated Equal Opportunities Act ○ Violated Rule 11 ○ Rule 11(b)(2) ● View Engineering, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. ○ Wanted to sue rival company for patent infringement ○ Did not conduct research & took employees “word for it” ○ Did not have a legitimate case after conducting research ○ Rule 11(b) (3) ● Lyne Brunt v. Service Employees Int’l Union ○ Brought case on behalf of fired employees ○ Fired & union membership also terminated ○ Issue had already been decided by U.S. Supreme Court ○ Precedent decided ruling, but no Rule 11 violation ● Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka ○ U.S. Supreme Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson ○ Separate is not always equal
SC RULES
CIV PRO RULE 11
● Att’s sig = cert that:
- Att read doc;
- Good grounds exist to support it; &
- Not interposed for delay
RULE OF ETHICS 3.
● Atts MAY NOT bring or defend case UNLESS there = basis in law & fact for doing so ○ Basis MAY ≠ frivolous ● Includes good faith arguments for changing existing law CASES ● In re Anonymous Member of South Carolina Bar
● App to D EVEN WHEN suit DOES NOT arise from/relate to D’s contacts w/ forum state ○ Court can hear ANY case involving D REGARDLESS IF claim arose from D’s actions in state or not Spec ● App ONLY WHEN COA (of claims) arises SPEC from D’s contacts w/ forum state IN PERSONAM ● Forum has power over PERSON of particular D (type of D) ● Court has right to act on PERSON ( NOT prop) w/in territory of forum o That court’s ruling follows person WHEREVER they go - ALL other states have to abide by ruling ( FFAC APPLIES ) ● Exercised by: a. Being served personally w/ process while in state or b. Voluntarily appearing in state to defend claim (consent) ● DO NOT have to reside there - JUST have to have your foot there ● Temporary presence ≠ enough - judge has to exert auth over person WHILE they are there o i.e. WHILE you are in state - court has to deliver papers for case to you (summons/complaint) IN REM ● Over “ THING ” ( PROP ) - NOT person ○ Power to decide who = entitled to “thing” ● Court has right to act on prop located W/IN territory of forum ○ Notice MUST be given by “stick in ground” ● Judgment may be exercised ONLY against THING seized ○ If person ≠ in state, BUT their prop IS - all court can act on is prop - NOT person ■ i.e. can find person’s prop & sell it - BUT that's end of court’s power ( CANNOT rule on actual person/owner of prop) 3 TYPES
TRUE IN REM
● Decides disputed title (who = lawful owner of prop) AGAINST WHOLE WORLD ● Everybody everywhere = bound by court’s decision ● Claims of everybody else on planet earth = distinguished ○ Nothing left to litigate ● PROP & COA = RELATED ● Incredibly difficult & expensive to do - have to notify WHOLE WORLD
QUASI IN REM
● Decides disputed title AGAINST THESE LITIGANTS ONLY ○ i.e. parties named in suit ONLY ● ONLY people bound by outcome of orig lawsuit = parties involved in it ● PROP & COA = RELATED
QUASI IN REM
● Same as 1 EXCEPT purpose ≠ determine ownership (title NOT at issue here) ● PROP & COA ≠ RELATED ● Prop = “attached” SOLELY to vest court w/ juris ● ONLY works if we know for certain who = true owner - can convince court to take it away from them to pay debt ○ Pennoyer v. Neff - everyone knew Neff owned prop ● NO FFAC FOR ANY ● MUST SATISFY MIN CONTACTS FOR ALL 3 TYPES ○ True & #1 - suit arises out of issue w/ prop so automatically passes “its only fair test” (i.e. = min contacts) ○ #2 - Shaffer changes - prop still unrelated to COA (not at issue) BUT NOW court can ONLY attach prop w/in forum to exert PJ over non-res D when they also have min contacts w/ forum ■ Essentially just same as reg min contacts analysis/reqs - diff = prop seized here & not not for PJ solely based on min contacts (i.e. w/out prop in forum) CASES ● Pennoyer v. Neff (1878) ○ Court says that owner needs to stay aware of the state of his prop ○ Court placed a stake in the ground notifying Neff that his prop had been seized ○ Supposed to prompt Neff to return to OR & defend his side of the story DP (14TH AM) ● Course of legal proceedings according to rules & principles established in system of jurisprudence for enforcement & protection of private rights:
- Competent tribunal
- D brought w/in tribunal’s juris (by in-state service or volition)
PJ’S 2 DP INQUIRIES
● When determining PJ ( BOTH PERSONAM & REM ) - DP req analysis of 2 goals (inquiries):
- Territorial inquiry (Pennoyer options or min contacts) &
- Convenience inquiry (Whizzer 5) ● *****MUST FULFILL BOTH GOALS FOR PJ = IN LINE W/ DP***** ○ THUS - IF NO PENNOYER OPTIONS OR MIN CONTACTS (TERRITORIAL) - DO NOT NEED TO DO CONVENIENCE (& VISE VERSA) ■ Judge ≠ power to adjudicate dispute - inconvenience = irrelevant TERRITORIAL ● Ensures states DO NOT overreach their sovereignty ● Can be met by EITHER : a. Pennoyer options OR b. Min contacts (“it’s only fair” test) - INCLUDES IN REMS (IN REMS MUST MEET MIN CONTACTS)
PENNOYER OPTIONS
CONSENT
● Mostly every state provides in personam PJ through D’s consent VOLUNTARY ● D may consent to voluntary appearance through contesting case W/OUT challenging PJ ○ i.e. answering/arguing/challenging claims & NOT arguing against PJ
○ EVEN WHEN D ≠ physically w/in state when served process CASES ● Milliken v. Mayer GEN JURIS “All purpose” Daimler v. AG Goodyear
MIN CONTACTS - “IT’S ONLY FAIR TEST”
- If corp PURPOSEFULLY AVAILS ITSELF of priv of conducting activities w/in state
- i.e. chooses to do biz w/in state
- Thereby enjoying benefits & protections of state’s laws
- & while doing so - corp causes loss, injury or obligation in state
- Then IT’S ONLY FAIR to req corp come back to scene of act (forum state) to defend itself there ● Determines if min contacts exist gen ● Have to meet ALL elements ● Do “it’s only fair test” to determine if min contacts exist BUT after Pennoyer - purposeful avail component = added (to Int’l Shoe ’s test) ● If passes test - min contacts = established ● About quality of what happens (non-resid D’s actions) - NOT about how much ● 2 reqs to establish min contacts req by test:
- Purposeful avail
- Intentional act by 1 party directed towards/into particular state
- Permits state to assert PJ
- Foreseeability
- D must know or reasonably anticipate his action in forum state = it foreseeable to be haled into court there ● Req foreseeability (right type of) that D could be haled into court in forum state ● “ FAIR WARNING ” (i.e. foreseeability) BC OF purposeful avail:
- Send human beings into state to do things there or
- K w/ people in state ● P has burden of proof to show D has min contacts CONVENIENCE ● ONLY DO THIS INQUIRY IF PASSES PENNOYER OPTION OR “IT’S ONLY FAIR” TEST ● Determines if req D to defend itself in forum (whether by Pennoyer option or min contacts) = inconvenience (to either D or state) to bring suit in forum ○ i.e. maintenance of suit MUST NOT OFFEND TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY & SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE
WHIZZER 5
- Burden on D, CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF :
- Would inconvenience to D: a. = constitutionally burdensome? b. Impact D’s ability to defend itself?
- Forum’s interest in dispute;
- State’s interest = greater when its: a. Laws or policies = at stake or b. Citizens or state based corp.s = involved as Ps
- P’s interest in convenient & effective relief;
- Is P from forum state (res)?
- Is forum state where P = able to obtain relief it seeks?
- Judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of disputes; &
- Would case = more effectively tried in forum state bc witness or evid = located there?
- Shared state-wide interest in furthering fundamental substantive social policy ● ****FAIR PLAY & SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE***** ● ONLY factors to consider - DO NOT have to satisfy ALL - just guideline ● NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST - JUST MAIN FACTORS MOST COMMONLY CONSIDERED ● EVEN IF WHIZZER 5 ≠ SATISFIED - MIN CONTACTS STILL MUST BE PROVEN CASES: ● Hess v. Pawloski ● International Shoe Co. v. Washington ● Pennoyer v. Neff ● World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson ● Gray v. American Radiator & Stdrd Sanitary Corp. ○ Gray injured when water heater exploded (in Illinois) due to bad valves (manufactured in PA) ■ Company is based in OH ■ Liable for defects of products manufactured in other states bc it is foreseeable that their products will be sold in other states. ■ The valves were specifically manufactured to be used in water heaters/etc. ● McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. (1957) ○ Individual bought life insurance policy from company in California that is later bought by company in TX. insurance argued that they were not able to collect on the policy bc holder committed suicide & breached contract. Mcgee (beneficiary) sued ins. Co. In California bc Insurance company met min contacts test in CA. D moves to TX. ● Hanson v. Denckla (1958) ○ Res of PA established a trust in DE, later died in Florida. Beneficiaries (Hanson & Denckla) argued over trust & estate. Hanson sued in DE & Denckla sued in Fl. DE said FL lacked juris over the trust in DE. P moves to FL. ● Keeton v. Hustler Magazine ● Calder v. Jones ● Walden v. Fiore MIN CONTACTS FURTHER 2 REQS TO = MIN CONTACTS
PURPOSEFUL AVAIL
● Intentional act by 1 party directed towards or into particular state ● Permits state to assert PJ ● Volkswagen v. Woodson
- D must reach out to forum in someway &
- D’s conduct w/ forum must result from purposeful avail in that forum
- NO ACCIDENTS CASES ● Volkswagen v. Woodson
FORESEEABILITY
● D must know or reasonably anticipate that his actions in forum state render it FORESEEABLE he be haled into court there ● Keeton v. Hustler & Calder v. Jones ○ D must KNOW/REASONABLY ANTICIPATE? ○ Foreseeability ≠ enough ON ITS OWN??
CASES
● Aashi ● J. McIntyre ● Nicastro CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS & ENGAGING ACTIVITIES ● Cases in this § touch on foreseeability (convenience goal of min contacts) ● D’s liberty interest ≠ violated IF THERE = FAIR WARNING ● “Fair warning” - D CANNOT be haled into juris SOLELY bc of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts or of unilateral activity of 3rd person ● BK v. Rudzewicz ○ How should courts asses D’s contacts w/ forum state when many of contacts arise from contractual relationships? ○ Non-consenting non-res D = considered to have FAIR WARNING of being subj to PJ in forum when they = DELIBERATELY : a. Engaging in significant in-state activities or b. Creating continuing obligations w/ in-state res ● HAS TO BE 1 OR THE OTHER - NO FAIR WARNING IF NOT CASES ● BK v. Rudzewicz INTERNET ACTIVITIES ● D may purposefully avail himself to a forum if D’s conduct falls btwn (i.e. middle ground/hybrid type which = combo of both these):
- Passive site ( NO juris) &
- DOES NOT direct business activities to particular forum
- Iterative site ( YES juris) ● Zippo case = sliding scale ● Toys R Us case - mere operation of interactive site that = accessible from forum ≠ sufficient enough ● MUST = INTENTIONALITY - showing non-res D is DIRECTING/TARGETING actions to residents in forum CASES ● Zippo ● To assert PJ over nonresident D - court must apply 3-prong test to establish:
- D has minimum contacts w/ forum state;
- COA of claim arose from those contacts; &
- Exercise of juris = reasonable ● D DOES NOT have to PHYSICALLY enter state to = minimum contacts there ● Businesses providing services over internet may = requisite minimum contacts w/in forum state ● Passive site = ONLY provides info to visitors - DOES NOT provide service ○ ≠ grounds for PJ ● Site actively reaching out to & maintaining relationships w/ visitors - likely = minimum- contacts req ○ Fact that i can view your website from here - NOT ENOUGH to = juris here ○ EVERY U.S. court follows ○ Sliding scale: ■ “Passive” website never ≠ enough
● Passive = only providing info on it ● No interactions w/ people & site ■ Completely interactive website that we are doing business over - always enough (purposeful availment wise for it's only fair test) ■ Issue (uncertainty) = in middle (i.e. interactive) ● Has some interactions but not as much as complete ● Toys R Us ○ Fed. court may NOT exercise PJ over foreign co. on basis of interactive commercial site UNLESS co. has other Internet or non-Internet contacts w/ forum ○ Maintenance of interactive site that can be accessed in forum state ALONE DOES NOT = specific PJ ■ Must be some purposeful availment of privilege of doing business in state ● May be satisfied if site owner: a. Purposefully targets state or b. Knowingly engages in transactions w/ state residents through site ○ D’s non-Internet contacts may also be considered ■ Specifically - nature & quality of contacts ■ Fully interactive site needs INTENTIONALITY showing something more that out of forum international D is targeting/aiming/directing at NJ ■ Test = intentionality ■ Purposefully UNAVAILING themselves from U.S. by not allowing shipping to U.S. address - explicitly through ■ Unilateral act of 3rd party is behavior NOT attributed to D (P employee buying toy from D site & having shipped to colleague in spain who then shipped it to nj - only reason it got to nj was bc of unilateral act of independent party - NOT bc of D - does not count ● Fidrych v. Marriott ● Unspam v. Chernuk ● Minimum contacts req for PJ = when D purposely avails itself of privilege of conducting activities w/in forum state - thus = invoking benefits & protections of its law ○ D outside forum state must have AT LEAST “aimed” its challenged conduct at forum state ● 3-part inquiry to = PJ in cases involving electronic transmissions:
- Extent to which D purposely availed itself of conducting activities in state
- If P’s claims arose from those activities directed at state
- If exercise of PJ = constitutionally reasonable PJ IN FED COURT - FRCP 4(K) ● FED LONG-ARM STATUTE - FED COURT’S TERRITORIAL REACH OF PJ ● ONLY APPLIES TO FED COURTS (1) Serving summons or filing waiver of service = PJ over D IF : (A) D can be sued in state court (subj to juris) where fed court = located;
- i.e. if subj to gen juris of state where fed court = located - also subj to juris of that fed court (B) D = party to suit & served in U.S. w/in 100 miles of where summons was issued (100 mil “Bulge” rule); or
- i.e. if D = added to suit (by certain legal paths) & served w/in 100 miles - subj to juris (C) Fed statute allows it
- i.e. congress always has right to add to FRCP 4(k) (2) For cases involving fed law where D CANNOT be served by ANY state’s courts (all 50) - can still be served (= PJ) IF juris = consistent w/ U.S. const & laws ● 3 parts:
- If suit = based in fed law (fed violation of civil rights) &
- Derives substantial revenue from goods used/consumed or services rendered w/in SC e. Having interest in, using, or possessing real prop in SC; f. Contracting to insure any person, prop, or risk located w/in SC at time of contracting; g. Entering into K to be perform in whole or in party by either party in SC; or h. Produces/manufactures/distributes goods w/ reasonable expect that those goods will be used/consumed in SC & are actually used/consumed in SC ● When juris over person = based SOLELY on this § - ONLY COA arising from act enumerated in this § may be asserted against him SERVICE OUTSIDE OF STATE (36-02-805) ● When exercise of PJ = auth by this § - service may be made OUTSIDE of SC FOREIGN CORP DS (15-5-150) ● Action arising against corp. created by or under laws of ANY OTHER state gov. or county may be brought in SC circuit court by: a. ANY SC-res for ANY COA or b. Non-SC P when COA arose or subj of action = situated w/in SC
SUMATRA 4
● PJ min contacts considers:
- D’s activity in state;
- Character of D’s acts;
- Inconvenience of D being haled to court in state; &
- State's interest in exercising juris CASES ● Cockrell v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co. d/b/a Louisville Slugger ● Coggeshall v. Reproductive Endocrine Associates of Charlotte ● State v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company ● Sullivan v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. ○ Issue 1 - Juris Claim ■ Prima facie showing of PJ can be made through factual allegations in complaint or affidavits establishing basis for juris over out-of-state D ■ P = burden of proof ○ Issue 2 - Juris Discovery Request
■ Court may resort to affidavits or other evidence to determine juris when
MTD challenges juris allegations
■ Court should allow juris discovery when necessary UNLESS P’s claim =:
1. Frivolous or
2. Speculative
● Court may deny juris discovery when P’s juris claims:
a. = based on bare allegations &
b. Face specific denials by D
○ (As required by SC’s long-arm statute) P DID NOT :
1. Submit any affidavits nor
2. Allege any direct contact between Ds & SC (sufficient minimum contacts)
PJ IN OTHER NATIONS ● How do judgments = enforce over Ds in other nations? ○ Since FFAC ONLY app to U.S. - ≠ applic/stretch to other countries
HAGUE CONVENTION
● Convention re foreign judgments in civ & commercial matters ● ONLY 5 countries signed on - US DID NOT
- Terms we DID NOT agree to &
- Nations make judgments we DO NOT agree w/
U.S. CODE - UNIFORM FOREIGN $JUDGMENTS RECOGNITION ACT
● “Comity” - look at other nations’ judgments against U.S. Ds ○ IF determined to = reasonable & fair - U.S. will enforce ● Permits recognition of foreign proceedings to extent such proceedings = determined to =:
- Orderly;
- Fair; &
- NOT detrimental to another nation’s interests ● U.S. court reviews case by examining foreign judicial system to look at factors such as:
- Fairness & impartiality;
- Court’s PJ over D; &
- Presence of fraud;
EUROPEAN UNION
● Creates PJ rules for new legal community ● PJ over EU domiciliaries place where: a. D = domiciled; b. K = perform; c. Former spouse or child resides; or d. “Harmful event” occurred SMJ ● Re which court W/IN state (state or fed) has auth to hear & resolve dispute
STATE VS. FED
State
● Courts of GEN SMJ - “catch-all for” disputes that DO NOT fall w/in realm of fed courts ● ALWAYS have authority (SMJ) UNLESS proven otherwise ● Judges = ELECTED to LIMITED TERMS
Fed
● Courts of LIMITED SMJ ● NEVER have authority (SMJ) UNLESS proven ● Judges = APPOINTED for LIFE ○ Appointed by Pres & confirmed by Senate ○ Glittering credentials ○ Experts in fed law ● Fed jury pools = broader FED ● MAJORITY filed in U.S. District Court
