1. 1 Agenda for 25th Class Name plates out Venue Mock mediation. Friday Nov 2, 11-12:30 Court visit either Monday October 29 or Nov 5. 9:30-12:30 –LLV conflict Assignment for next class –US Constitution Article III; 28 USC 1331, 1338, 1441(a)-(b) –FRCP 8(a)(1), 12(b)(1), 12(h)(3) –Yeazell pp. 191-206 –Questions to think about / Writing Assignment Summarize Louisville. –Your summary should include the answer to Yeazell. P. 199 Q1 Questions on the next slide

2. 2 Next Class – Federal Q Jurisdiction Under the FRCP as it exists today –If plaintiff had drafted a “well pleaded complaint,” what would have been the key allegations of that complaint? –If plaintiff had drafted a well-pleaded complaint, what paper would defendant have filed in response? What would have been the key elements of that paper? –How would plaintiff have raised the unconstitutionality the Act of Congress which the defendant alleges prohibited giving the passes that the railroad gave the Mottleys? –If defendant’s answer had admitted that it had given passes to the Mottleys, but argued that they were invalid, what motion would the plaintiff have had to make in order to get the Court to grant the Mottleys the relief they requested without discovery or trial? Yeazell pp. 199ff Qs 2, 3, 4b, Under 28 USC 1441(a) & (b), if plaintiff had brought the two cases at issue in Yeazell p. 199 Q2 in state court, which of the two cases could defendant remove to federal district court? Optional -- Glannon Chapter 4 (Federal question subject matter jurisdiction), Chapter 1 (Personal Jurisdiction), 2(statutes and the constitution), 8 (Venue)

3. 3 Burger King Suppose A is from AL and C is from CA and suppose A and C enter into a contract with each other Broad interpretation of Burger King: –If A sues C or C sues A, then both AL and CA always have jurisdiction over the case Narrow interpretation of Burger King –If A sues C, then AL has jurisdiction over the case only if: the contract was part of a continuing commercial relationship between A and C, and/or the defendant was sophisticated, and/or defendant knew that she was dealing with someone from AL, and/or Defendant traveled at least once to AL as part of the commercial relationship, and/or The contract had a choice of law clause stating the AL law governs all disputes relating to the contract –Similar analysis if C sues A in CA

4. 4 Internet and Consent Internet –Handout Problems 2-19 & 2-20 Consent –Consent was basis for jurisdiction before International Shoe and remains a valid basis –2 kinds of consent Ex post. Consent at time of litigation. Not controversial Ex ante. Choice of forum clause. –Carnival Cruise (1991). Yeazell p. 149 »Clause will almost always be valid »Possible exceptions for “fundamental fairness” »E.g. clause which had purpose of discouraging litigation or which was procured by fraud or overreaching.

5. 5 Venue Venue means what court within a state –Federal court: CD of Cal (LA) or SD of Cal (San Diego) –State court: LA Superior Court of San Diego Superior Court Purely statutory matter. Not constitutional Each state has its own statute Federal statute is 28 USC 1391 Map of federal districts –http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/images/CircuitMap.pdf

6. 6 28 USC 1391 (b)(1). If all defendants reside in the same state, venue is proper in any judicial district in which at least one defendant resides –Individuals. Residence is lower threshold than domicile. Does not require intent to remain. –Corporations are resident in any district in which they would be subject to personal jurisdiction, if district were considered a state. (c) Implicit that corporation is resident of any state in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction (b)(2). Venue is proper in judicial district where event or omission giving rise to claim occurred (b)(3). If no district satisfies (b)(1) or (b)(2), then venue is proper in any district in which in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. NOTE. Even if venue is proper, still need court with personal jurisdiction over ALL defendants.

7. 7 Moving Cases Around From one federal court to another –28 USC 1404 says cases may be transferred “to any other district.. Where it might have been brought” “for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” Even if venue was proper in the first place –28 USC 1406 says that court can transfer case if venue was improper in the first place. Without statute, one might think that the court didn’t have power to do anything No comparable ability to transfer case between judicial systems –E.g. from one state court to a court in a different state or foreign country –E.g. from federal court to state court or to court in foreign country –E.g. from from state court to federal court Removal is different from transfer, because transfer is ordered by judge in original venue, whereas removal does not require consent of state court judge If judge thinks that her court has jurisdiction, but that a court in a different state or country would be better, the judge must dismiss the case –Forum non conveniens

8. 8 Venue Questions Pp. 175ff. Qs 1,2,4a,b,d (ignore the reference to 28 USC 1392) Briefly Summarize Dee-K Enterprises P. 176 Q5; pp. 178ff Q1a, 2 Briefly summarize Piper Aircraft –In your summary, please incorporate answers to pp. 186ff Qs1, 4, Suppose a chemical plant in India owned by an American company leaks gas into the surrounding neighborhood and kills 16,000 people and injures half a million. The victims sue in US court. Defendants move for dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens. The plaintiffs argue that dismissal is inappropriate, because Indian courts require a filing fee equal to 5% of damages claimed, which in this case could be billions of dollars. There are long delays in Indian courts. Indian courts have very few tort precedents and none relevant to mass torts. Discovery is usually very narrow, if allowed at all. Should the court grant the forum non conveniens motion? If it does, are there any conditions it should attach?