Friday audio--Section A, Section B. Essay # 7 due on Wednesday. Essay # 8 will post on Wednesday, due on Wednesday, April 16.
Two quick words on removal with multiple defendants in § 1446(b)(2).
• Section (b)(2)(A) imposes unanimity--all defendants must agree to remove. But note that this is limited to defendants who have been joined. If ∆1 is served on June 1, it can remove without ∆2's consent if ∆2 has not been served.
• Section (b)(2)(B) gives each defendant 30 days from service to remove (to file or join a Notice of Removal). But what happens if the defendants are not served at the same time, often months apart--what if ∆1 is served on June 1 and ∆2 is served on August 15 (past the time that ∆1 could remove)? Congress enacted (b)(2)(C) in 2011 and adopted the "Last-Served Defendant" Rule: The last-served defendant has 30 days to remove; any earlier-served ∆ can consent to that removal, even if his own 30 days to remove have lapsed. So in the example above--∆2 has 30 days from August 15 to remove; ∆2 can consent to that removal, although it no longer can join.
Move to Personal Jurisdiction. Before doing anything, read Preliminaries of Personal Jurisdiction blog post for background. Then prep all of Shift to Minimum Contacts, including Glannon pp. 93-100Read and prep all of World Wide Volkswagen. Review FRCP 12(h)(1).
• How can each party consent or submit to a court's jurisdiction?
• How does Shoe change the standard for personal jurisdiction? When can a court exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant?
• What is general personal jurisdiction, what is specific personal jurisdiction, and how do they differ? Look at Shoe and Daimler on this.
• What is a "Long Arm Statute?" Why call it that?
• How does the PJ analysis in federal court compare with the PJ analysis in state court? See FRCP 4(k).
• Consider two cases. For both, review the removal statutes and piece together the removal process to understand how it will work in the case:
1) A (TX) sues X (NY) for defamation Texas state court; the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000. You are X's attorney. You do not believe X is subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas. Your forum preferences, in order, are: 1) anywhere other than Texas; 2) federal court in Texas (if stuck in Texas); 3) state court in Texas (where he now is). As X's lawyer, what is your procedural strategy to obtain the most preferable forum?
2) World Wide:
Robinson (NY) sued Audi (a German company), Volkswagen of America (the US subsidiary, a NJ corporation with PPB in NJ), World-Wide Volkswagen (the regional distributor, a NY corporation), and Seaway (local dealer, a NY corporation). Robinson sued in Oklahoma state court. Audi and VWA are subject to PJ in Oklahoma, but prefer federal court. How can they make that happen?
Also, Robinson and his family were driving through Oklahoma as part of a permanent move from NY to Arizona; Robinson had a new job and the family planned to stay in Arizona permanently. Why is Robinson a NY citizen?
• How does World Wide adjust the two pieces of the Shoe standard and how do the two connect? How does a defendant establish "certain minimum contacts?" How can a defendant "purposefully avail?" In what way(s) did WW and Seaway, perhaps, purposefully avail?