1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Venue Venue Transfer Forum non conveniens + +

2. FORUM NON CONVENIENS The Basics What does it mean? Where does the doctrine come from? i.e. source of law Judge-made law

3. FORUM NON CONVENIENS The Basics Typical state court use of doctrine Multi-state defendant subject to personal jurisdiction in more than one place

4. SKILLS: READING CASES Basic Case Reading Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, p. 204 Basic Case Reading Comments Example of procedurally complex case why need tools for organizing thoughts Questions

5. SKILLS: READING CASES Identifying Black Letter Law Gilbert “test” Pl's choice rarely disturbed May dismiss if: alternative forum available oppressiveness, vexation to defendant (private interests) + court's convenience (public interest) far outweigh convenience to pl. (private interest)

6. SKILLS: ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT Identifying the Legally Significant Facts for broad & narrow case holdings p. 209, note 2 What if: Decedents had been U.S. citizens? The plane crashed into the sea? Scotland permitted no recovery for wrongful death?

7. SKILLS: ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT Noticing the “scope of review” What standard of review applies? motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens

8. THE BIG PICTURE Forum non conveniens What does it add to forum choice? Does FNC do anything that PJ can’t? How is it used today in federal system?

9. SKILLS: APPLYING STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) For the convenience of parties & W’s, in the interest of justice a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought

10. SKILLS: APPLYING STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) Why was Piper transferred to Penn.? Could Piper be transferred now? ( Bring in Penn federal court?) Current venue statute? Personal jurisdiction? Piper Hartzell

11. SKILLS: APPLYING STATUTES Alternatives to 1404(a) 28 U.S.C. § 1631 Cure “want of jurisdiction”  “could have been brought” Post-dates Piper 28 U.S.C. § 1406 Cure defect in venue  “could have been brought” 28 U.S.C. § 1407 Multi-district litigation

12. BLACK LETTER LAW Venue Trnsfr & Choice of Law Choice of Law & 28 U.S.C. § 1404 Claim against Piper tx to Pa D.Ct. What law would apply? Why? Fed court applies State substantive law in diversity case (Erie doctrine) Which State’s law? Calif law (Court from which transferred) But California choice of law rules Penn. Law

13. BLACK LETTER LAW Venue Trnsfr & Choice of Law Choice of Law & 28 U.S.C. § 1406, 1631 Claim against Hartzell tx to Pa D.Ct. What law would apply? Why? Fed court applies State substantive law in diversity case (Erie doctrine) If case is transferred, which State’s law applies? Penn. law (Court to which transferred) But Penn. choice of law rules Scottish law

14. TAKEAWAYS:BLACK LETTER LAW Forum Non & Venue Transfer FNC Gilbert test Federal court -> foreign country Venue transfer Move within federal system 1404 Convenience Choice of law rules from original court 1406, 1361 Fix venue, pj problems Choice of law rules from new court

15. TAKEAWAYS Chapters 1-3 Reading Statutes MAP Reading Cases “Gold Standard” briefing, when needed Arguing from Precedent Build conceptual frameworks Synthesize rules Generate broad & narrow case holdings Black letter law