Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I. NOTICE
FRCP 4(e) – Serving an Individual Within a Judicial District of the United States.
FRCP 4(f) – procedures for serving individuals in foreign countries
FRCP 4(j) – Service upon foreign governments
FRCP 4(h)(2) – foreign corpations treated as foreign individuals
FRCP 4(f)(1) – International Treaty governing international service of process
FRCP 60 (b) (4) – Grounds from relief of final judgment
Notice
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
• Summary - A US born enemy combatant was held without counsel or
notice about any charges against him
• Rule / Holding – “A citizen detainee seeking to challenge his
classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual
basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the
Government’s factual assertions before a neutral decision maker.”
• Policy Argument - When is it okay to deprive a citizen of his due
process rights?
See Matthews Test
Test can be used by the judge to render the decision he wants
because the factors are too subjective
18 U.S.C. §4001(a)
• No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United
States except pursuant to an Act of Congress
• Passed in response to the illegal detention of nearly 140,000
Americans of Japanese ancestry during World War II
Mathews v. Eldridge
• Holding – No evidentiary hearing was necessary before the government
terminated Social Security disability payments
• TEST – The process due in any given instance is determined by
weighing the “private interest that will be affected by the official
action” against the Government’s asserted interest, “including the
function involved” and the burdens the Government would face in
providing greater process. The Matthew’s calculus then
contemplates a judicious balancing of these concerns, through an
analysis of “the risk of an erroneous deprivation” of private interest
if the process were reduced and the “probable value, if any, of
additional or substitute safeguards.”
• Policy Arguments
Justice Scalia argues that the Matthew’s Test invites the Court
to prescribe what procedural protections it thinks appropriate and
adopt a “Mr. Fix-it Mentality” well beyond the competence and
authority of the judicial branch.
Matthew’s test offers a realistic appraisal of the significance of
procedural costs to procedural rights
Greene v. Lindsey
• Facts – Sherriff’s posted notice door frequently removed by children
• Holding/Rule – notice should be reasonably calculated under all
circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action
and to afford them an opportunity to present their objections.
• Policy Argument – Justice O’Connor dissented stating that there is an
absence of evidence regarding the speed and reliability of mail.
Jones v. Flowers
• Facts – notice given by certified mail for delinquent property taxes and
the tax sale was then published in a local Gazette.
• Holding – While actual notice is not necessary, when the government
learns that its chosen method of notice has failed, Mullane requires that
the government take additional steps.
• Policy Argument – The court observed that the commissioner could
have resenr a letter by regular mail or posted a notice at the house
Ticke v. Barton
• Service was fraudulently effected when the plaintiff lured the defendant
to town by calls about a football banquet honoring his son
Sawyer v. LaFalamme
• An elusive defendant was not only served, but physically held to answer
the complaint after being invited and entreated to come to Vermont to
settle the case.
Lamb v. Schmitt
• An attorney who came into the state to set aside a fraudulent conveyance
was served in a action to recover funds paid as fees in the main suit.
• Many courts have refused to apply the common law immunity-from-
process rule to litigants (who have other incentives for appearing) ot to
witnesses who appear voluntarily rather than under subpeona.
• Holding – Immunity is for the benefit of the trial court’s processes and is
not a right of the person against whom service is sought
Prejudgment Remedy
Fuentes v. Shevin
• Facts – Sheriff carted off plaintiff’s stove and stereo because she fell
behind on payments
• Holding – Prejudgment replevin without notice and opportunity to be
heard violates due process
• Policy Argument -
• Connecticut v. Doehr
• Facts – Lien was placed on Doehr’s house in connection with a tort
action
• Holding – Connecticut’s statute violated due process
• Policy Argument – Prior cases only dealt with physical seizure of
property. Now extended to real property.
Shaumyan v. O’Neill
• Facts – Same statute used in Doehr was used by contractors when the
homeowners refused to pay for painting and repairs
• Holding - The court granted the contractors ex parte prejudgment
attachment of the home without either a prior hearing or a posting of a
bond
• Policy Argument – ex parte prejudgment attachment does not deprive
the owner of any possessory rights in his property. At most it impairs the
market value of the property during the brief interval between the ex
parte attachment and the hearing.
State Action
Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks
• Holding – There was no state action in the sale of a debtor’s goods by a
warehouse that had the goods in its possession and that had a lien on the
goods for unpaid storage charges
• Policy Argument – In general, you may assume that when the
challenged actions are those of the “state” itself, then they satisfy state
action and thereby may implicate constitutional rights
Hearing
Lassiter
Walter
II. Personal Jurisdiction
Pennoyer
In personam
• Burnham
In rem
Schaffer
got rid of quasi in rem
International Shoe
Minimum contacts analysis
Substantial, continous and systematic general jdx
• WWVW
Continuous and systematic specific jdx
Isolated and irrrecular specific jdx
• One contact
McGee
BurgerKing
Zippo
No contacts no jdx
Longarm statute
• International Shoe
• Greyhound
Constitutional analysis
• Keaton fairness
• Jones fairness
• Asahi – reasonableness
Hanson v. Denkla
Waiving rights
Carnival Cruiselines
Szukhent
III. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Complete Diversity
Strawbridge v. Curtis
Mass v. Perry
Belleville v Cetnering
Tanzimore
> $75,000
Federal Question
28. U.S.C. §1331
Franchise tax Board
• Necessary
• Substantial
Mottley – well pleaded complaint
Merrill Dow
• FDCA
• Express Private Right of Action
By Statute
• Implied Private Right of Action
Cort Factors
Grable Factors
IV. Pleading
Rule 8 – “Short and Plain”
Conley
• Any set of facts
Twombly
• Plausibility
Iqbal
• Ignore “conclusory” statements
• Assume remaining allegations as true