Operating Court System - Civil Procedure - Past Exam, Exams of Civil procedure

Download Operating Court System - Civil Procedure - Past Exam and more Exams Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!

ID: Exam Name: CivPro_LS2_Lund_Finalj012FLl................................................. ~~entIAU11:33/3S

Grade:

Short Answer

1. A rule is a bright line that a definite answer can be determined whereas a standard is more flexible and can be weighed in light of circumstances. An example of a rule is that diversity is determined at the time a claim is filed or that a motion for removal must be made within 30 days of receiving notice. The benefit to having a rule is that rules are clear and efficient. An example of a standard would be determining minimum contacts for purposes of establishing specific personal jurisdiction. Contacts can be as few as one (McGee) but must be of quality it can't be a mere contract or a unilateral act of a party (W\NVW). Standards allow for greater flexibility and promote a greater sense of justice than rules. This is why a standard may be better to use when determining substantive legal issues versus procedural issues because it allows for a weighing of factors and possibilities and hopefully a more fair or just outcome. Procedurally rules would be better because rules are uniform and efficient which is good in terms of operating a court system.
2. An example of how corporations are treated differently than individuals is seen with state citizenship. State citizenship is determined using the domicile test. For the purposes of diversity corporations have state citizenship, but they have two domiciles, their place of incorporation and their principal place of business (Hertz v. Friend). Individuals on the other hand only have only one state of citizenship determined by their domicile. The reason for this is because a company may be incorporated in a place, such as Delaware for tax reasons, but not have any actual connections to that state, there real presence is where they have their nerve center generally their headquarters called the principle place of business. THis is one example of why individuals and corporations are treated differently, corporations have vast resources and can be in so many places at one time, whereas an individual is just that and can only be in one place. Another example would be in purposeful availment a company can purposefully avail itself to the benefits of a state through merely introducing a product into the stream of commerce because as Brennan would argue it is reasonably foreseeable that a product could end up anywhere and a company should foresee being haled into court anywhere.
3. Civil procedure sets forth standards and regulations that are meant to create a uniform system by which claims are brought. This process is meant to ensure that people are protected by due process (5th and 14th amendments) before they are stripped of life, liberty or property. This is important as seen with Dreyfus affair. In this case due process was disregarded due to hate and bias at a time of national criSiS, civil procedure is meant to safe guard against this. Safe guards

contacted bank .. This would arguably be purposeful availment which is voluntary contact with a state from which a benefit is received for because of which bank should reasonably foresee being haled into court in that state. The counter to this would be that the bank had no intent of targeting customers in any state and it was not the bank's website either. Furthermore the bank would argue that the website was passive and merely informational. This would not thus be purposeful availment. Furthermore the home the bank is looking to make a loan for is in La so this would most likely be sj because there must be knowledge and intent. The bank has had conversations with L regarding the loan and must know the home is in La. There is also an application process which more than likely identifies the location of the home. Based on these facts there is almost certainly purposeful availment because bank is getting a monetary benefit from its contact with La, it has knowledge plus intent to do business in La and the cause of action arises out of the breach of contract for the loan for this property. It reasonable that the bank foresee that it would be haled into court in La. Here it is likely the La would have pj over bank because of its minimum contacts with the state of La based on its information being posted to the website which every state had access to and could gain direct contact to the bank which L did here and the business regarding the home which was in La. L could even argue that there is general jx over the bank because as the facts state it does business in every state. GJ however, unlike sj which has been expanded by courts, has been very narrowly interpreted. It has held that mere sales are not enough (Helicopteros). For gj there must be a phYSical presence, Ginsburg states it should be the company's "home." Here the facts state that it does business in every state but the name itself, Kansas National Bank suggests that its home is i Kansas. If it did have offices however, which is not apparent from the facts there would however be gj here. The last hurdle for L will be filing in a proper ~enu~.

Venue

Venue is the place in which a claim can be brought, there are often multiple places in which venue is proper (Uffner). 1391 provides that venue is proper for companies is any district in which the company resides in, provided all defendants reside in the same place, where a substantial amount of the events giving rise to the claim took place or any place where the company would be found to have the minimum contacts necessary to establish pj. Residence is generally determined using the domicile test. The last one is a default and only available when there is no other place for the claim to be filed. Under the last provision La would be a proper venue because bank would be found to have pj in La (see above analysis), however there are other places where venue would be proper. Thus it is likely that under 1404 venue would be transferred. Before transferring a case, however, the court would consider public and private interests. For example ease of access to witnesses, evidence, convenience to parties and a courts familiarity with the case, imposition of jury duty and the

l Comment(AU41:9/

was deemed improper the court under 1406 could also dismiss or transfer the venue in the interests of justice. If the court was transferred the substantive state law that would be applied is the one in which the case is being transferred from if the original venue was proper.

What law should the federal court apply?

If L's case is filed in Kansas' court, then its state substantive law would apply. The issue of the complaint L has filed as being detailed enough however is arguably procedural. Invoking the Rules of Enabling Act Analysis the first question is if there is a federal rule on point. here there is FRCP 8, the next question is if there is a conflict between this rule and the state rule. Here the state law of Kansas and the federal rule of civil procedure are conflict and thus both can't be harmoniously applied.The next question is whether or not the federal rule is valid, which asks whether or not it abridges, modifies or enlarges state substantive laws or violates any substantive rights. Historically no frcp has been deemed invalid so its safe that this one is valid. If this is the case then federal law will apply. On the chance however that the rule is determine invalid we would look to the rules of decision act analysis. This requires to look at how the application of federal versus state law would affect the outcome of the case. There are three tests, Hana's twin aims of Erie which is meant to deter forum shopping and avoid inequitable administration of law; the Bryd balancing test which looks at the balance of state and federal courts; and lastly York's outcome determinative test which sees whether there would be a different outcome if federal law as opposed to state law were applied. Here this would encourage forum shopping because the bank would want the state law to apply because L essentially wouldn't have a case, this would also mean that there would be inequitable administration of law. State and federal balance would not be upset because the state law here is based on recent congestion and there isn't a major state interest in having this (the counter to this would be the current crisis and being overwhelmed with these cases making this very important) rule followed versus the federal rule. These facts would also violate the outcome determinative test because the outcome would be different if the federal law is applied L would have a case and if the state law is applied L's case will likely be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Based on the rules of decision act analysis the state's substantive law would be applied. Based on the above analysis it is likely that the federal law will apply with the application of the rules of decision ~cC .. .. .. .. ..

END OF EXAM

. (Comment lAU1]: 819