ELON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

Similar documents
CIVIL PROCEDURE A SPRING 2008 SYLLABUS Professor Chon

Civil Procedure I Fall 2015, Professor Sample

Civil Procedure Fall 2017, Professor Sample

CIVIL PROCEDURE PROFESSOR ANGA

Civil Procedure: Course Requirements and Syllabus Professor Lonny Hoffman (Fall 2012)

Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday at 3:00 in Classroom B

Civil Procedure Fall 2018, Professor Sample Office: Law School Room 215

UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW. Spring 2019

CIVIL PROCEDURE II SEC. 1 SYLLABUS

Table of Contents. I. Introduction

CIVIL PROCEDURE CRN 95665/LAW 1700-C Fall 2018 Professor Matthew A. Shapiro

UNDERSTANDING CIVIL PROCEDURE. Fifth Edition

LLM Civil Procedure Angelos Law Room 403 Fall 2013

When an action is commenced in U.S. district court, the court must determine the substantive law and rules of procedure that will govern the action.

CIVIL PROCEDURE PROFESSOR ANGA

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

I. How do you gain personal jurisdiction? A. Territoriality (Tag jurisdiction) a. Pennoyer: power over people & property 1. Served with process while

CIVIL PROCEDURE CASES, MATERIALS, AND QUESTIONS. Sixth Edition

PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN TOXIC TORT CASES. Personal Jurisdiction is frequently an issue in mass toxic tort litigation.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

CIVIL PROCEDURE I. Introductory Material Due process requires an opportunity for hearing before a deprivation of property can take place

Civil Procedure II. Spring 2011

New Law minimum contacts does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

Civil Procedure Fall 2018 University of Georgia School of Law

Civ Pro Outline. 1. Historical development of the minimum contacts test. 2. Modern elaboration of the minimum contacts test

Civil Procedure Fall 2016 University of Georgia School of Law

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LITIGATION

In Personam Jurisdiction - General Appearance

Civil Procedure Dean Thomas M. Mengler

CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE FALL 2007 GREINER

Choice of Law Provisions

Case 1:07-cv REB-PAC Document 14 Filed 04/16/2007 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Attorney General Opinion 00-41

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. (D.C. No. 97-CV-1620-M)

Eugene Wolstenholme v. Joseph Bartels

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

FEDERAL COURTS COURSE INFORMATION Fall, 2012 Professor Beyler

The Short Arm Of The Law: Simplifying Personal Jurisdiction Over Virtually Present Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WRIGHT COUNTY. Honorable Lynette Veenstra, Associate Circuit Judge

2000 LaMar Jost Page 1 of 1 CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 31, 2013 Session

ESSAY APPROACH. Bar Exam Doctor BAREXAMDOCTOR.COM. CIVIL PROCEDURE FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE

Application of Personal Jurisdiction Principles to Electronic Commerce: A User's Guide

CIVIL PROCEDURE I WAGGONER FALL , Office 418 SYLLABUS OVERVIEW OF THE COURSE

U.S. Class Actions Go Global: Transnational Class Actions and Personal Jurisdiction

i. Pennoyer v. Neff Hess v. Pawloski International Shoe Co. V. Washington specific general McGhee v. International Life Insurance Co

Procedure 2, Fall Professor Neil Franklin. I. Civil Procedure A. Jurisdiction 2. Constitutional limitations (1) (2) (1)

2. In considering whether specific jurisdiction exists, the courts consider: a. Whether the defendant gained benefits and privileges by the contract;

From Article at GetOutOfDebt.org

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-08CV0163-P

Constitutional provisions

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, Petitioner, v.

Pennoyer Strikes Back: Personal Jurisdiction in a Global Age

Vetrotex Certainteed Corp. v. Consolidated Fiber Glass Prod. Co.

University of Houston Law Center Civil Procedure 2011 Prof. Gidi

United States Bankruptcy Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division. Debtor. Chapter 7. v. Adv. No

JONES V. FLOWERS: AN ESSAY ON A UNIFIED THEORY OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

CIVIL PROCEDURE II SECTIONS 1, 3 and 4 Professor Swank Spring Semester 2012

Civil Procedure: Pleadings

Personal Jurisdiction: Are the Federal Rules Keeping Up with (Internet) Traffic?

Indiana Law Review. Volume Number 2 NOTES MICHAEL E. ALLEN *

The Left-For-Dead Fiction of Corporate "Presence": Is It Revived by Burnham?

COMMERCIAL LITIGATION

Related Contacts and Personal Jurisdiction: The But for Test

4/10/2017 1:02 PM COMMENTS WHEN IS IT NECESSARY FOR CORPORATIONS TO BE ESSENTIALLY AT HOME?: AN EXPLORATION OF EXCEPTIONAL CASES INTRODUCTION

Expanding the Jurisdictional Reach for Intentional Torts: Implications for Cyber Contacts

Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction for our Federal Courts

Personal Jurisdiction and the Beetle in the Box

"Defendant Veto" or "Totality of the Circumstances"? It's Time for the Supreme Court to Straighten out the Personal Jurisdiction Standard Once Again

Beneficially Held Corporations and Personal Jurisdiction Over Individuals

Personal Jurisdiction Issues and the Internet

Supreme Court of the United States

Review of the Rules on Korean Courts International Jurisdiction over a Civil Case* Table of Contents

Case5:14-cv EJD Document30 Filed09/15/15 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court: Reproaching the Sliding Scale Approach for the Fixable Fault of Sliding Too Far

8:09-mn JFA Date Filed 10/19/09 Entry Number 54 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON DIVISION

The Expanding State Judicial Power over Non- Residents

00 teply 2e final 6/17/08 4:39 PM Page i Civil Procedure

Case 1:12-cv WJM-KMT Document 64 Filed 09/05/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11

Current Status of Personal and General Jurisdiction in Minnesota

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. The Development and Structure of the Federal Judicial System... 1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY AT INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI

PLG Legal Research, Writing and Civil Litigation. Syllabus and Course Guide. There will be TWO alternative lecture times for this course:

Keeton, Calder, Helicopteros and Burger King - International Shoe'sMost Recent Progeny

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-1978-L v.

Personal Jurisdiction

Civil Procedure - Personal Jurisdiction: Evolution and Current Interpretation of the Stream of Commerce Test in the Third Circuit

Civil Procedure Outline

The Problem with General Jurisdiction

NOTE SECTION 12 OF THE CLAYTON ACT: WHEN CAN WORLDWIDE SERVICE OF PROCESS ALLOW SUIT IN ANY DISTRICT? Jordan G. Lee * **

Case 4:18-cv ALM Document 1 Filed 11/15/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1

Locke as the Key: A Unifying and Coherent Theory of In Personam Jurisdiction

Case 2:08-cv LPZ-VMM Document 6 Filed 06/10/2008 Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Team # 1128 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. Civil Action No: A-11-CA-2536 CHR. Sammy Adams, Plaintiff,

Personal Jurisdiction After Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California

LEGAL UPDATE TOYS R US, THE THIRD CIRCUIT, AND A STANDARD FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY INVOLVING INTERNET ACTIVITIES.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

Transcription:

ELON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Civil Procedure Fall 2008 PROFESSOR Eric M. Fink Telephone: 279-9334 Email: efink@elon.edu Office: A213 Office Hours: Monday and Wednesday, 3:30-4:30 pm or by appointment COURSE DESCRIPTION This course will introduce you to the procedures for civil lawsuits, with a focus on the federal courts. Topics to be covered include personal jurisdiction, federal subject-matter jurisdiction, venue, state law in federal courts (the Erie doctrine), pleading, joinder of parties and claims, disposition without trial, and the preclusive effect of judgments in future proceedings. REQUIRED MATERIAL Casebook A. Benjamin Spencer, Civil Procedure: A Contemporary Approach (2d ed., Thomson West 2008) The online interactive component of the casebook contains the complete text and links to supplemental material, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and pertinent statutory provisions. Accordingly, you will not need a separate statutory/rule supplement for this course. Course Website (Westlaw/TWEN) The course website contains supplemental readings and other material pertinent to the course. You should check the website regularly for posted material and notices.

Fall 2008 Civil Procedure (Fink) Page 2 COURSE POLICIES Class Attendance, Preparation, and Participation I expect you to attend class regularly, complete all reading as assigned, and contribute to class discussion. Excessive absences or persistent lack of preparation may result in a reduction of your final grade. Computers and Other Electronic Devices I encourage you to bring a computer to class, particularly as we will be making use of the interactive features of the casebook and other online resources. You may use your computer in class to access course materials, take notes, or other courserelated purposes. I expect you to refrain from using computers or other electronic devices during class for non-course-related purposes (including, but not limited to, email, instant messages, or other communication; web browsing; and games). Noncourse-related use of computers or other electronic devices during class may result in a reduction of your final grade. Examinations and Grading Your final grade will be based on a series of in-class quizzes (40%) and a final examination (60%). You may earn a bonus of up to.25 grade points for outstanding in-class performance. There will be eight (8) quizzes, one for each course unit. The quizzes will be multiple-choice format, designed to test your knowledge of the rules and concepts of civil procedure. The quizzes will be closed materials (i.e. you may not access any other materials). The final exam will be essay format, requiring you to analyze factual scenarios according to the rules and concepts introduced in the course. The exam will be limited open material (i.e. you may use your casebook, your class notes, and an outline you prepared on your own or with a study group).

Fall 2008 Civil Procedure (Fink) Page 3 COURSE OUTLINE AND ASSIGNMENTS Introduction Civil Procedure Overview 1-20 Unit I: Personal Historical Roots 21-36 Pennoyer v. Neff Hess v. Pawloski 2.1 37-49 International Shoe v. Washington N.C. Stat. 1-75.4 N.Y.C.P.L.R. 302 2.2 2.3 Applying 49-80 McGee v. International Life Hanson v. Denckla World Wide VW v. Woodson Keeton v. Hustler Magazine Calder v. Jones 2.4 Applying 80-99 Burger King v. Rudzewicz Asahi Metal Indus. v. Superior Court 2.5 Applying 99-117 Inset Syst. v. Instruction Set Zippo Mfg. v. Zippo Dot Com Young v. New Haven Advocate

Fall 2008 Civil Procedure (Fink) Page 4 General ; In Rem 118-142 Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall Shaffer v. Heitner 2.7 2.8 2.9 Transient ; Consent; Service 135-165 Burnham v. Superior Court Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute FRCP 4(k) Notice 165-185 Mullane v. Central Hanover B&T Dunsenbery v. U.S Jones v. Flowers 2.10 2.11 Unit II: Federal Subject-Matter Introduction 187-189 Const. Art. III, 2 Diversity 189-211 Mas v. Perry Hart v. FedEx Ground Del Vecchio v. Conseco 3.1 3.3 3.4 Federal Question 211-228 Osborn v. Bank of the United States Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley Grable & Sons v. Darue Eng. & Mfg. Const. Art. III, 2 28 U.S.C. 1331 Supplemental 229-260 United Mine Workers v. Gibbs Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Svcs. Const. Art. III, 2 28 U.S.C. 1331 3.9

Fall 2008 Civil Procedure (Fink) Page 5 Removal 261-278 Hays v. Cave Fullin v. Martin 28 U.S.C. 1441 28 U.S.C. 1442, 1443, 1445, 1446, 1447, 1453 Unit III: Venue Establishing & Changing Venue 281-295, 303-318 Bates v. C&S Adjusters Dee-K Enterprises v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. Hoffman v. Blaski Smith v. Colonial Penn Bolivia v. Philip Morris Companies; 28 U.S.C. 1391, 1404, 1406 4.1 4.2 4.3 Forum Non Conveniens 318-330 Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno Unit IV: State Law in Federal Courts (The Erie Doctrine) Origins of the Erie Doctrine 333-351 Swift v. Tyson Erie R.R. v. Tompkins 28 U.S.C. 1652 Development of the Erie Doctrine 352-370 Guaranty Trust v. York Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Co-op. The Rules Enabling Act and Modern Erie Doctrine 370-401 Hanna v. Plumer Gasperini v. Center for Humanities 28 U.S.C. 2072 5.1

Fall 2008 Civil Procedure (Fink) Page 6 Unit V: Pleading Introduction to Pleading; The Complaint 403-430 Swierkiewicz v. Sorema Bell Atlantic v. Twombly Rio Properties v. Rio Int l Interlink FRCP 9(b), 8(e)(2); FRCP 4(d), (e), (f) Responding to the Complaint 441-466 American Nurses Ass n v. Illinois Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers FRCP 12 6.4-6.8 Amendments to Pleadings 466-484 Beeck v. Aquaslide N Dive Worthington v. Wilson FRCP 15(a), (b), (c), (d) 6.9 Ensuring Truthful Allegations 484-504 Hadges v. Yonkers Raceway FRCP 11 Unit VI: Joinder of Claims & Parties Joinder of Claims 507-520 U.S. v. Heyward- Robinson FRCP 18(a); FRCP 13(a), (b), (g) 7.1 7.2 Joinder of Parties 521-561 Mosley v. GM Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio Temple v. Synthes Wilbur v. Locke NRDC v. Nuclear Reg. Comm. FRCP 20(a); FRCP 14(a); FRCP 19(a), (b); FRCP 24 7.3 7.4

Fall 2008 Civil Procedure (Fink) Page 7 Unit VII: Disposition Without Trial Default Judgment & Dismissal 703-711 FRCP 55 Summary Judgment 745-767 Celotex v. Cartrett FRCP 56 9.1 Unit VIII: Effect of Judgments on Future Proceedings Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata) 897-927 Nestor v. Pratt & Whitney Neson and Ford., Inc. v. Wanda Petroleum Semtek Int l v. Lockheed Martin 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel) 927-949 Cromwell v. County of Sac Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore 11.6 11.7 11.8