Tuesday, April 4, 2017

For Wednesday--Section C

Monday audio.

We pick up with the last bit of Removal--what does the plaintiff do (procedurally and in terms of arguments) if the case has been removed, but she wants to be back in state court? Just to clarify a point from class tonight: A case is removable when it is one "of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction"--that is, the plaintiff could have filed the case in federal court in the first instance. So figuring out whether the case is removable (e.g., under § 1331) requires the same analysis as with the plaintiff filing there in the first place.

We then move to our second forum-selection issue, Personal Jurisdiction. Read the first two sections--Introduction and History and Shift to Minimum Contacts. Please note that 15 USC § 78aa (the Securities Act), listed on the syllabus, must be downloaded from the blog.

Note that Pennoyer is a rite of law-school passage, one of the historically significant cases that gets read during 1L year. Try to get a grasp on the concepts of in personam and in rem jurisdiction (there is a nice summary in Glannon), which is at the core of Pennoyer.

Consider how personal jurisdiction interacts with subject matter jurisdiction in federal court in the following cases:
   1) In World Wide, how does WW and Seaway not being subject to jurisdiction in Oklahoma affect federal subject matter jurisdiction?
   2) A (TX) sues X (NY) for defamation in Texas state court. Consider both personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction and decide what X's forum preferences are and what he should do procedurally.

We then turn to Modern Approach, where we build out the two-step P/J framework (it ultimately will become a four-step). For Monday, prepare all World Wide and Nicastro. How did the WW Court turn the "certain minimum contacts" standard of Shoe into a constitutional test and what are the pieces of that constitutional test? What is purposeful availment and how does it relate to minimum contacts?  Review the facts of Hess and be ready to discuss how that case would be resolved under the modern Shoe framework (as opposed to the legal fiction the Court relied on under Pennoyer).