CIVIL PROCEDURE ESSAY EXAMINATION #5

I. Spouses v. BB
1. Choice of Law – jurisdictional statute
Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P 4(e), in the absence of an applicable federal jurisdictional statute, we look go the long arm statute of the forum state to determine whether there is a statutory basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
2. Statutory basis for personal jurisdiction
Did BB commit a tortious act within Louisiana? If the statute is construed to require that the negligent act occurred in Louisiana, the answer is no since the creation of the record occurred in Pennsylvania or wherever the record was produced and/or written, which certainly was not Louisiana. On the other hand, if the statute is construed to require only that the injury was suffered in Louisiana, then the defendant did “commit a tortious act” within Louisiana.
Did BB “transact business” within Louisiana. Yes. BB was in New Orleans for one concert, even though he was only there for less than one full day. So he did transact business in the state. The statute also covers the acts of agents transacting business. If MCI is viewed as his agent, it distributed and probably promoted his record in Louisiana.
Having concluded that the long arm statute applies, we now must determine whether the exercise of that jurisdiction is consistent with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. Constitutionality of personal jurisdiction
The first portion of this test is the International Shoe contacts inquiry. This is a twofold inquiry. First, to what extent, if at all, did the defendant create and maintain a purposeful relationship with the forum state? Second, is the court seeking to exert general or specific jurisdiction?
BB clearly has a purposeful relationship with Louisiana through his attendance at a concert in Louisiana. But since he was there for only one day, this is an isolated occurrence. But if you also consider the distribution of his albums nationwide by MCI, then he is a part of a chain of commerce and we need to invoke the “stream of commerce” standard set out by the Court in Asahi. The O’Connor plurality opinion provides that the defendant must not only put the product in the stream of commerce but unilaterally do something to direct it to the forum state. While BB put his song in the stream, he did nothing to market or otherwise direct it to Louisiana. That conduct was undertaken by MCI. Thus, under the O’Connor analysis, the stream of commerce test would not be satisfied. Under the analysis offered by the Brennan group of four Justices in Asahi, it is sufficient if the defendant put the product in the stream and it was taken into the forum by a third party and caused injury there. That test would be satisfied here. And under that standard, the stream of products into Louisiana through MCI’s distribution chain could be significantly more than isolated.
In either instance, there is some contact. The question then becomes whether the court is being asked to exercise specific or general jurisdiction. Since the plaintiffs’ claims arise directly out of BB’s contacts with Louisiana in the form of the distribution of his music, the court is being asked to exercise specific jurisdiction. This requires a low threshold of contacts and the test is met here.
Having found that the “contacts” portion of the constitutional test has been met, we must examine the second portion of the constitutional test . the application of the “fairness factors” outlined in VW. The plaintiffs are forum citizens so they have an interest in having the suit heard in Louisiana. For that reason, the forum state has an interest in providing a forum in which its citizens can receive compensation for their injuries. With respect to the interstate judicial system’s efficiency interests, lots of the evidence and witnesses are located in Louisiana. So the VW fairness factors support the exercise of jurisdiction over BB in Louisiana.
4. Subject Matter Jurisdiction – diversity of citizenship
The plaintiffs assert a $1 million tort claim against BB. The plaintiffs are Louisiana citizens because it is the state of their permanent domicile as they are lifelong residents. The defendant is a citizen of Pennsylvania because it is the state of his permanent domicile, since he was born and raised there. Thus, the parties are diverse and the claim meets the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement and so there is subject matter jurisdiction over this claim under Section:1332(a).
5. Venue
Venue over this diversity claim is governed by Section:1391(a). Venue would not lie under 1391(a)(1) because the noncorporate defendant does not reside in Louisiana. Venue would lie under 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim . the murder of their husbands . occurred in the chosen district.
6. Joinder of Parties Plaintiff
Under F.R.Civ.P 20, multiple plaintiffs can join in one action if they meet two requirements: (1) if they assert claims that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence; and (2) there is a single question of law or fact common to their claims. The claims of both wives arise out of the same action by the defendant and the question of whether the defendant’s music proximately caused the death of their husbands is common to both suits.
II. Spouses v. MCI
1. Statutory basis for personal jurisdiction
Does the long-arm statute apply? MCI clearly conducts business in Louisiana. It sponsored the promotional tour which took BB into Louisiana. It markets his music and that of its other artists on an interactive web page which results in sales in Louisiana.
MCI also can be said to have committed a tortious act in Louisiana. The plaintiffs allege that its distribution and sale of the album caused the death of their husbands in Louisiana. If the long arm statute is construed to require that the negligent act occurred in Louisiana, it could be argued that the distribution into Louisiana through the highly interactive web site meets that requirement. Alternatively, if the statute is construed to require only that the injury was suffered in Louisiana, then the defendant also did “commit a tortious act” within Louisiana since the injury was sustained in Louisiana.
2. Constitutionality of personal jurisdiction
Having concluded that the long arm statute applies, we now must determine whether the exercise of that jurisdiction is consistent with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. The first portion of this test is the International Shoe contacts inquiry. This is a twofold inquiry. First, to what extent, if at all, did the defendant create and maintain a purposeful relationship with the forum state? Second, is the court seeking to exert general or specific jurisdiction?
The cases involving a defendant’s use of the Internet for ecommerce conclude that the defendant will be deemed to have created a relationship with the forum state for International Shoe “contact” purposes if it has a highly interactive web page. This one is highly interactive since it permits individuals to consummate transactions over the web through purchases with credit cards.
The facts do not indicate the extent of this relationship with Louisiana customers. But whether these sales were isolated or systematic, the court is being asked to exercise specific jurisdiction since the cause of action arises out of those contacts. Thus, the “contacts” portion of the constitutional test is satisfied.
Having found that the “contacts” portion of the constitutional test has been met, we must examine the second portion of the constitutional test . the application of the “fairness factors” outlined in VW. The plaintiffs are forum citizens so they have an interest in having the suit heard in Louisiana. For that reason, the forum state has an interest in providing a forum in which its citizens can receive compensation for their injuries. With respect to the interstate judicial system’s efficiency interests, lots of the evidence and witnesses are located in Louisiana. So the VW fairness factors support the exercise of jurisdiction over BB in Louisiana.
3. Definition of corporate citizenship
Under the definition of corporate citizenship in Section:1332(c), MCI is a citizen of Delaware, the state of its incorporation, and California, the state of its principal place of business based on the presence of its offices and recording studies there.
4. Subject Matter jurisdiction – diversity of citizenship
The plaintiffs’ claims against MCI are state law tort claims The plaintiffs are citizens of Louisiana because of their permanent domicile there. Under the definition of corporate citizenship in Section:1332(c), MCI is a citizen of Delaware, the state of its incorporation, and California, the state of its principal place of business based on the presence of its offices and recording studies there. Thus, all of the adverse parties are of diverse citizenship. The $1 million claim meets the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement. Thus, there is subject matter jurisdiction over this claim under Section:1332(a).
5. Venue
Venue over this diversity claim is governed by Section:1391(a). Venue would lie under 1391(a)(1) because the corporate defendant resides in Louisiana. Section:1391(c) states that a corporation resides for venue purposes in a State if that state can exercise personal jurisdiction over it. Personal jurisdiction can be exercised over MCI in Louisiana. Thus, there is venue under 1391(a)(1). Since Louisiana is a multi-district state, we look to see whether there would be personal jurisdiction over MCI in the area of the Eastern District, i.e., New Orleans. The facts clearly indicate that it would.
Venue also would lie under 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim . the murder of their husbands . occurred in the chosen district.
6. Joinder of Parties Defendant
Multiple defendants can be joined in a single lawsuit if there is asserted against all of them claims that (1) arise out of a common series of occurrences or transactions; and (2) contain one single common question of law or fact. The claims against both BB and MCI arise out of the creation and distribution of BB’s music and so the first requirement is met. The second requirement is also met since both claims require an assessment of the extent of damage suffered by the plaintiffs.
III. Spouses v. Bob’s Records
1. Statutory basis of personal jurisdiction
Bob’s is a citizen of Louisiana and so the state would have personal jurisdiction over it as it always has personal jurisdiction over a citizen.
2. Subject Matter Jurisdiction – diversity of citizenship
This is a state law tort claim. The plaintiffs are citizens of Louisiana and so is the defendant. Thus, there is no diversity of citizenship.
3. Subject Matter jurisdiction – federal question
The fact that the complaint includes a reference to the First Amendment does not matter since, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the federal question must appear in the plaintiff’s prima facie case. This federal issue appears as a response to an anticipated defense by the defendant. Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction.
4. Subject Matter jurisdiction – supplemental jurisdiction
In the absence of diversity and federal question jurisdiction, can the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this nondiverse state law claim? Since there is no federal question claim in the case, we must look to Section:1367(b) as the source for supplemental jurisdiction. But 1367(b) says that even if the purportedly supplemental claim is part of the same case as another claim that falls within its diversity jurisdiction, it cannot exercise jurisdiction over the “supplemental” claim if doing so would destroy diversity. And since Bob’s is nondiverse from the plaintiffs, this would destroy diversity and so the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.
5. Venue
Since there is no subject matter jurisdiction over this claim, it is unnecessary to examine venue.
6. Joinder of Parties Defendant
Multiple defendants can be joined in a single lawsuit if there is asserted against all of them claims that (1) arise out of a common series of occurrences or transactions; and (2) contain one single common question of law or fact. The claims against both BB, MCI and Bob’s arise out of the creation, distribution and sale of BB’s music and so the first requirement is met. The second requirement is also met since both claims require an assessment of the extent of damage suffered by the plaintiffs.
IV. MCI v. Joe Brown
1. Statutory basis for personal jurisdiction
Does the long arm statute apply? Brown has committed a tortious act in Louisiana if the statute is construed to apply when the injury occurs in the forum state. The facts do not suggest that Brown has transacted business in the state.
2. Constitutionality of personal jurisdiction
Is the application of the statute constitutional? If Brown has purposefully created contacts with Louisiana, it could only be through the stream of commerce analysis propounded by Justice Brennan. Brown did nothing to push the product (the song he wrote) into the Louisiana market. But the injury did occur there and that would be sufficient for the Brennan quartet in Asahi.
If we conclude that Brown has contacts, then this is an attempt to exercise specific jurisdiction and even his limited contacts would be sufficient.
Having found that the “contacts” portion of the constitutional test has been met, we must examine the second portion of the constitutional test . the application of the “fairness factors” outlined in VW. The plaintiff is not a forum citizen and so it would not have an interest in having the suit heard in Louisiana. For that reason, the forum state would not have a strong interest in providing a forum in which its citizens can receive compensation for their injuries. With respect to the interstate judicial system’s efficiency interests, since MCI is seeking indemnity against Brown, there is a lot of commonality between the issues in this claim and the issues in the claims asserted by the plaintiffs against MCI. So the VW fairness factors are equivocal in this context
3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction – diversity of citizenship
The indemnity claim is a state law claim. The parties appear to be diverse since the plaintiffs are Louisiana citizens and Brown is a citizen of California. The amount in controversy requirement is met since the indemnity claim could result in indemnity to the tune of $1 million.
The breach of contract claim seeks only $25,000 and so the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement of Section:1332(a) is not satisfied. Thus, there can be no subject matter jurisdiction under Section:1332(a).
4. Subject matter jurisdiction – supplemental jurisdiction
Can the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this diverse state law claim that does not meet the statutory amount on controversy requirement? Yes. The indemnity claim meets the “same case” requirement of Section:1367(a) and Section:1367(b) is inapplicable since this is not a claim by a plaintiff. This is a third party complaint and while MCI is the third party plaintiff, it is the defendant to the original complaint and, therefore, not a “plaintiff” within the meaning of Section:1367(b). So supplemental jurisdiction could be exercised under Section:1367(a). Under 1367(c), the federal court would have the discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state indemnity claim if it raised novel issues of state law, predominated over the federal question, or created the potential for jury confusion. None of these factors appear present in this case. Therefore, the court would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this nondiverse state law indemnity claim.
5. Venue
There is no independent requirement for venue over a claim that falls within the federal court’s supplemental jurisdiction.
6. Joinder of Claims
The indemnity claim against Brown can be joined under F.R.Civ.P 14(a) since it is a claim for indemnity. The breach of contract claim does not fall within Rule 14(a) but it can be joined under the terms of Rule 18, which permits a party to join an infinite number of additional claims to a properly joined claim.
V. MCI v. Bob’s Records
1. Statutory basis for personal jurisdiction
Bob’s is a citizen of the forum state and so there is personal jurisdiction over it.
2. Constitutionality of personal jurisdiction
No constitutional problem with exercising jurisdiction over a forum citizen.
3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction- diversity of citizenship
MCI is a citizen of Delaware and California. Bob’s is a citizen of Louisiana. The parties are diverse. The claim for $50,000 does not meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement of Section:1332(a) so no diversity jurisdiction.
4. Subject matter jurisdiction – supplemental jurisdiction
Can the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this otherwise diverse state law claim that does not meet the amount in controversy requirement? Is it part of the same “case” as the claims brought by the plaintiff? The answer to this is no because this is a breach of contract claim for failure to pay for the records and it does not arise out of the nucleus of operative facts that gave rise to the spouse’s tort claims. Thus, no supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.
5. Venue
Since there is no jurisdiction over the claim, no need to examine venue.
6. Joinder of Cross-Claim
Rule 13(g) permits joinder of cross-claims only when they are transactionally related to the plaintiffs’ claims. This claim for failure to pay for merchandise is not transactionally related to the plaintiffs’ tort claims, even though it is failure to pay for BB’s CDs. So the claim is not joinable.