2. Inconvenience and burden on D 3. State interest in adjudicating-relationship of activity or parties to state 4. Liberty interests of the parties 5. Sovereignty interests of states 6. Shared states interests in furthering substantive policies McIntyre v. Nicastro (2011) Facts: D is a foreign Corp. that produced a large metal sheering machine that was sold in the US through a distributor that was completely owned by D D attended conventions in other states but never in NJ, where the plaintiff was injured by the machine (NO more than four machines ended up in NJ) Holding: majority held that even though D had purposefully availed itself of the US, it did NOT purposefully avail itself of NJ and could NOT be subject to PJ there One machine is NOT sufficient to support minimum contacts Strong dissent believes D wanted its products to go anywhere they could, purposefully tried to reach as many customers as possible, and the machine ending up in NJ was neither fortuitous nor random NO GJ, but why not SJ based on accident arising with that one contact with the state? Subjection to jurisdiction may be the price to pay for doing international business If subject to US law, why not NJ law? If the issue is fairness, HOW is it unfair to sue in state court but NOT in federal court? What is the result of Asahi and McIntyre? Manufacturers of component parts who do NOT direct the product to the forum state and sell the product elsewhere are NOT subject to jurisdiction If manufacturer sells product through a distributor, it will ONLY be subject to jurisdiction for claims arising in the states where it directed the goods Factors to consider in asserting personal jurisdiction under minimum contacts test: Burden on State’s interest in adjudicating ’s interest in convenient relief Interstate judicial efficiency Shared interests of states in furthering substantive policies Burger King v. Rudzewicz (1985) D was in a 20 year contract agreement with a FL corporation which he broke Holding: (5) criteria may show reasonableness of jurisdiction when there are less minimum contacts than are normally required Parties had a continuous contractual relationship which was purposefully directed activity with the forum state D should have known that he could be haled to court in FL
Once the case has been removed, the state claim will be filed with the notice of removal (§ 1446(a)) The court may order the parties to file discovery or other filings in the state court for use in this action (§ 1447(b)) If the state court had entered orders, such as attachment, the orders remain in effect in the federal court unless modified by the federal judge (§ 1450) Davis v. City of Shreveport Police Dept. (2012) P filed a libel and slander complaint in state court against a radio station KSLA (LA resident) and against the police dept. Police dept. removed to federal court for federal question jurisdiction KSLA claimed it consented to removal Under § 1446(b), if all parties are properly joined and served, removal is proper unless one of the defendants contests removal within 30 days Since KSLA objected within a reasonable time, removal was improper Pleadings ► Pleading rules serve 4 functions: (1) providing notice of the nature of the claim to the defense, (2) identifying baseless claims, (3) setting each party’s view of the facts and, (4) narrowing the issues Complaints The Process P’s lawyer first files the complaint in the court of choice and serves D with notice The complaint must have a clear and concise statement of the facts and must include all that material facts for P’s complaint It must give D reasonable notice of the basis of the complaint and does NOT need to be more detailed than that Under Rule 8, a complaint may NOT be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it is clear that the facts will NOT support a claim that will grant P relief D has 21 days to answer the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 D may file a motion for dismissal on the merits or for lack of jurisdiction also (Rule 12) Rule 9 (Pleading Special Matters) Denny v. Carey (1976) Ps allege that First Penn was fraudulently conspired to conceal the financial situation of the company by inflating their equity and net income First Penn argued that the complaint was NOT sufficiently specific to comply with Rule 9(b), which requires “particularity” when alleging fraud or mistake