Req: Yeazell, Civil Procedure, 8th ed., Wolters Kluwer - Aspen Casebook Series, 2012 #9781454807100 or #9781454819622 (Electronic version)Req: Yeazell, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: with Selected Statutes, Cases and Other Materials, 2014, Wolters Kluwer #9781454841777
For Monday, Aug. 25, please read the following material from the Yeazell text:
1. Pages 1-6. Background about Civil Procedure and personal jurisdiction.
2. Pages 59-64. Information about constitutional limits the “jurisdiction” of courts. Pay particular attention to the material on the Due Process Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, since they will guide our understanding of personal jurisdiction (including the material for Monday). Additionally, please read both clauses in the Supplement, which includes relevant constitutional, statutory, and rule provisions.
3. Pages 65-75. This provides the venerable and difficult case, Pennoyer v. Neff. Pennoyer deals with two law suits. Please answer these questions before coming to class and be prepared to discuss your answers.
a. The first was a suit by a lawyer, Mitchell, against his client, Neff. Why and where (in which court) did Mitchell sue Neff? What was the result of the litigation?
b. In the second lawsuit, Neff sues Pennoyer. Who is Pennoyer? Why and where (what court) did Neff sue Pennoyer?
c. The second suit ultimately ends up determining whether there was in personam jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction, or quasi in rem jurisdiction over Neff in the first law suit.
i. What does the court determine with respect to each? Why? For a discussion of in personam, in rem, and quasi in rem jurisdiction, read note 4 on pages 73-74.
ii. The Court ends up deciding the case based on “two well-established principles of public law respecting the jurisdiction of an independent State over persons and property.” (see page 67). What are those two well- established principles? What is the result if a court attempts to issue a judgment without complying with these two principles?
iii. When and why is a judgment that has been entered by a court a “nullity,” instead of valid? Does the Court determine that the judgment against Neff in the first lawsuit was “valid” or “a nullity”?
iv. When is a prior judgment of a court entitled to full faith and credit, that is, required to be honored by other states under the constitutional Full Faith and Credit Clause (Art. IV, §1) or by the federal courts under the statutory Full Faith and Credit statute (28 U.S.C. § 1738)? We can’t after all relitigate over and over in the many American state jurisdictions and the federal courts, can we?
v. Having set up a system of personal jurisdiction, the Court then indicates that there will be exceptions when personal jurisdiction will exist even if there is not in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem jurisdiction. The Court discusses those exceptions on pages 70-71. What are they?
vi. We will also discuss the problems in note 5, on pages 74-75.
For Wednesday, Aug. 27, please read the following:
1. Pages 75-79. “Mechanics of Jurisdiction.” Also, read very carefully Rule 12(b),(g), and (h). This is a difficult Rule to understand, but make every attempt to understand it before class. Be prepared to answer questions 1.a. to 1.e. We will also discuss 1.f, 2, and 3.
2. Pages 79-89. The International Shoe case is the important, “modern” personal jurisdiction cases. It changes some aspects of how we decide if there is personal jurisdiction. What changes does International Shoe make?
Welcome back and welcome to Civil Procedure. In this class, we will study the process of moving a case through the federal court system. Many state court systems, including the Ohio courts, have very similar procedural systems.
The assignment for Monday is as detailed above, is to read the Yeazell text, pages 1-6, 59-64 and 64-75. Also read the Due Process Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the statutory supplement. Please be prepared to discuss the questions set forth above about this assignment.
We will begin class on Monday with a discussion of the structure of the federal and state court systems.
We will then begin our first major topic for the year, personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction explores where it is constitutionally permissible in this country of 50 states to require a defendant to defend a lawsuit. For example, would it be permissible to require a defendant to defend, in Alaska, a lawsuit regarding a car accident in Ohio? The answer, you may have guessed, is no. But you may not have guessed that the Due Process Clause controls much of this subject. We will spend most of our time on much closer cases than the preceding hypothetical.