Chapter 3
CIVIL DISPUTE RESOLUTION
I. The Court System III. Civil Dispute Resolution
A. The Federal Courts A. Civil Procedure
1. District Courts 1. The Pleadings
2. Courts of Appeals a. Complaint and Summons
3. The Supreme Court b. Responses to Complaint
4. Special Courts 2. Pretrial Procedure
B. State Courts a. Judgment on Pleadings
1. Inferior Trial Courts b. Discovery
2. Trial Courts c. Pretrial Conference
3. Special Courts d. Summary Judgment
4. Appellate Courts 3. Trial
II. Jurisdiction a. Jury Selection
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction b. Conduct of Trial
1. Federal Jurisdiction c. Jury Instructions
a. Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction d. Verdict
Cases in This Chapter
Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.
Nitro-Lift Technologies, LLC v. Howard
Chapter Outcomes
After reading and studying this chapter, the student should be able to:
List and describe the courts in the federal court system and in a typical state court system.
Distinguish among exclusive federal jurisdiction, concurrent federal jurisdiction, and exclusive state
jurisdiction.
Distinguish among (a) subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the parties and (b) the three
types of jurisdiction over the parties.
List and explain the various stages of a civil proceeding.
Compare and contrast litigation, arbitration, conciliation, and mediation.
TEACHING NOTES
I. THE COURT SYSTEM
Courts are established by governmental bodies; a court may render a binding
decision only when it has jurisdiction over the dispute and the parties to that
dispute.
The United States has a dual court system: (1) a federal court system and (2) a
system within each of the #fty states and District of Columbia.
*** Chapter Outcome ***
List and describe the courts in the federal court system and in a typical state court system.
A. THE FEDERAL COURTS
The judicial power of the United States is placed in one Supreme Court and the
lower courts established by Congress, including special courts, district courts and
appeals courts.
Judges in the federal courts are appointed for life by the president, subject to
Senate con#rmation.
NOTE: Figure 3-1 in the textbook shows the structure of the Federal court system.
District Courts
The general trial level in the federal court system, where issues of fact are
decided, serve districts each located entirely in a particular state. Each district
court is presided over by one judge, except in certain cases, when three judges
preside.
Courts of Appeals
Twelve Circuit Courts of Appeals are the next level in the federal system. They
primarily hear appeals from the district courts and review decisions of
administrative agencies, the Tax Court, and the Bankruptcy Courts. They
generally hear cases in panels of three judges, although in some instances all
judges of the circuit will sit en banc (all together in a session) to decide a case.
NOTE: See Figure 3-2 in the textbook for a map showing the district and circuit courts.
Appellate courts do not hear evidence or conduct a trial — they examine the
record of a case to determine if the trial court committed prejudicial error (error
substantially a/ecting the appellant’s rights and duties). If so, the appellate
court will reverse or modify the judgment and, if necessary, remand or send the
case back to the lower court for further proceeding. If there is no prejudicial
error, the appellate court will a1rm the decision of the lower court.
The Supreme Court
The nation’s highest tribunal — consisting of a Chief Justice and eight Associate
Justices — principally reviews cases of the Federal Courts of Appeals, and in
some instances, decisions involving Federal law made by the highest State
courts.
Appellate cases reach the Supreme Court by: 1. appeal by right where review
by the court is mandatory (very few cases), or 2. the discretionary writ of
certiorari (sir’•sho•rare’•ee) (most cases). If four Justices vote to hear the
case, a writ is granted.
Special Courts
• The U.S. Court of Federal Claims hears claims against the United States.
• The U.S. Bankruptcy Courts hear and decide certain matters under the Federal
Bankruptcy Code, subject to review by the U.S. District Court.
• The U.S. Tax Court hears certain cases involving federal taxes.
• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviews decisions of the Court
B. STATE COURTS
Each state and the District of Columbia has its own independent court system
with elected judges.
NOTE: See Fig. 3-3 for the structure of a typical state court system.
Inferior Trial Courts
Lowest level of the state court system: decide the least serious criminal and civil
matters and conduct preliminary hearings in more serious criminal cases.
Usually do not keep complete written records.
Small claims court — a type of inferior court — hears civil cases involving a
limited amount of money with no juries, informal procedure, no attorneys.
Appeals go to the trial court of general jurisdiction with no weight given to the
small claims court decision.
Trial Courts
Each state has trial courts of general jurisdiction, which may be called county,
district, superior, circuit, or common pleas courts. They have no dollar limitation
on civil cases, hear all criminal cases except minor o/enses, and do maintain
formal records of their proceedings.
Special Courts
Some states have specialized courts, such as family courts, with jurisdiction over
divorce and child custody cases or probate courts with jurisdiction over the
administration of wills and estates.
Appellate Courts
II. JURISDICTION
To resolve a lawsuit, a court must have jurisdiction: the authority to hear and
decide a given case. There are two kinds: jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the lawsuit and jurisdiction over the parties to a lawsuit.
*** Chapter Outcome ***
Distinguish among (a) subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the parties and (b) the
three types of jurisdiction over the parties.
A. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Refers to the authority of a particular court to judge a controversy of a particular
kind.
Federal Jurisdiction
The federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over some areas, if Congress so
provides. Otherwise, they share jurisdiction with the state courts, known as
concurrent federal jurisdiction.
*** Chapter Outcome ***
Distinguish among exclusive federal jurisdiction, concurrent federal jurisdiction and
exclusive state jurisdiction..
Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction — over federal criminal prosecutions, maritime
or seagoing law) bankruptcy, antitrust, patent, trademark and copyright cases,
suits against the United States, and cases arising under certain federal statutes
expressly providing for exclusive jurisdiction.
Concurrent Federal Jurisdiction — Two types: (1) federal question jurisdiction
over any case (no minimum dollar requirement) arising under the Constitution,
statutes, or treaties of the United States, if there is not exclusive federal
jurisdiction (2) civil suits where there is diversity of citizenship and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.
Diversity of citizenship exists:
• when the plainti/s are citizens of a state or states di/erent from the state
or states of which the defendants are citizens; or
• when a foreign country brings an action against citizens of the United
States; or
CASE 3-1
Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 2012
565 US ___, 132 S.CT. 740, 181 L.ED.2d 881
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15936914266018909724&q=132+S.Ct.+740&hl=en&as_sdt=2,34
Ginsburg, J.
This case concerns enforcement * * * of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991 (TCPA or Act), [citation]. Voluminous consumer complaints about
abuses of telephone technology—for example, computerized calls dispatched
to private homes—prompted Congress to pass the TCPA. Congress
determined that federal legislation was needed because telemarketers, by
operating interstate, were escaping state-law prohibitions on intrusive
nuisance calls. The Act bans certain practices invasive of privacy and directs
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) to prescribe
implementing regulations. It authorizes States to bring civil actions to enjoin
prohibited practices and to recover damages on their residents’ behalf. The
Petitioner Marcus D. Mims, complaining of multiple violations of the Act by
respondent Arrow Financial Services, LLC (Arrow), a debt-collection agency,
commenced an action for damages against Arrow in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. Mims invoked the court’s “federal
question” jurisdiction, i.e., its authority to adjudicate claims “arising under
the … laws … of the United States,” [citation]. The District Court, a1rmed by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, dismissed Mims’s
complaint for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. Both courts relied on
Congress’ specification, in the TCPA, that a private person may seek redress
for violations of the Act (or of the Commission’s regulations thereunder) “in
an appropriate court of [a] State,” “if [such an action is] otherwise permitted
by the laws or rules of court of [that] State.” [Citation.]
Federal courts, though “courts of limited jurisdiction,” [citation], in the
main “have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is
given, then to usurp that which is not given.” [Citation.] Congress granted
federal courts general federal-question jurisdiction in 1875. [Citation.] * * *
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U. S. C.
§1331. * * *
Arrow agrees that this action arises under federal law, [citation], but
urges that Congress vested exclusive adjudicatory authority over private
TCPA actions in state courts. In cases “arising under” federal law, we note,
there is a “deeply rooted presumption in favor of concurrent state court
jurisdiction,” rebuttable if “Congress a1rmatively ousts the state courts of
jurisdiction over a particular federal claim.” [Citation.] * * *
* * *
Arrow’s arguments do not persuade us that Congress has eliminated
§1331 jurisdiction over private actions under the TCPA.
The language of the TCPA—“A person or entity may, if otherwise
permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring [an action] in an
appropriate court of that State,” 47 U. S. C. §227(b)(3)—Arrow asserts, is
uniquely state-court oriented. [Citation.] That may be, but “[i]t is a general
rule that the grant of jurisdiction to one court does not, of itself, imply that
the jurisdiction is to be exclusive. [Citation.]
* * *
Nothing in the text, structure, purpose, or legislative history of the TCPA
calls for displacement of the federal-question jurisdiction U. S. district courts
ordinarily have under 28 U. S. C. §1331. In the absence of direction from
Congress stronger than any Arrow has advanced, we apply the familiar
default rule: Federal courts have §1331 jurisdiction over claims that arise
under federal law. Because federal law gives rise to the claim for relief Mims
has stated and speci#es the substantive rules of decision, the Eleventh
Circuit erred in dismissing Mims’s case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
* * *
State Jurisdiction
Exclusive State Jurisdiction — The state courts have exclusive jurisdiction
over all matters not involving exclusive Federal jurisdiction or concurrent
jurisdiction, including but not limited to property, torts, contracts, agency,
commercial transaction and most crimes.
Choice of Law in State Courts — A state may choose to apply the law of
another state to a case that has connections to both states. This conflict of
laws rule may vary from state to state.
NOTE: See Figure 3-4 for an illustration of the jurisdiction of the federal and state courts.
Stare Decisis in the Dual Court System
The doctrine of stare decisis — Latin for “Let the decision stand” — generally
requires that lower courts abide by decisions of higher courts and all courts
abide by their own previous decisions. This presents problems when there are
two parallel court systems.
B. JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES
Jurisdiction over the parties is the power of a court to bind the parties involved in
the dispute. The court must give reasonable noti#cation and a reasonable
CASE 3-2
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN CORP. v. WOODSON
Supreme Court of the United States, 1980
444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=100+S.CT.
+559&hl=en&as_sdt=2,34&case=2649456870546423871&scilh=0
White, J.
The issue before us is whether, consistently with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, an Oklahoma court may exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident
automobile retailer and its wholesale distributor in a products-liability action, when the
defendants’ only connection with Oklahoma is the fact that an automobile sold in New York to
New York residents became involved in an accident in Oklahoma.
Respondents Harry and Kay Robinson purchased a new Audi automobile from petitioner
Seaway Volkswagen, Inc. (Seaway), in Massena, N.Y., in 1976. The following year the Robinson
family, who resided in New York, left that State for a new home in Arizona. As they passed
through the State of Oklahoma, another car struck their Audi in the rear, causing a fire which
severely burned Kay Robinson and her two children.
claiming that Oklahoma’s exercise of jurisdiction over them would offend the limitations on the
State’s jurisdiction imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The facts presented to the District Court showed that World-Wide is incorporated and has its
business office in New York. It distributes vehicles, parts, and accessories, under contract with
Volkswagen, to retail dealers in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Seaway, one of these
retail dealers, is incorporated and has its place of business in New York. Insofar as the record
reveals, Seaway and World-Wide are fully independent corporations whose relations with each
other and with Volkswagen and Audi are contractual only. Respondents adduced no evidence that
* * *
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma [held] that personal jurisdiction over petitioners was
authorized by Oklahoma’s “long-arm” statute, [citation]. * * *
* * *
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of a state court to
render a valid personal judgment against a nonresident defendant. [Citation.] A judgment
rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith
and credit elsewhere. [Citation.] Due process requires that the defendant be given adequate
notice of the suit, [citation], and be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court, [citation]. In
the present case, it is not contended that notice was inadequate; the only question is whether
these particular petitioners were subject to the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma courts.
As has long been settled, and as we reaffirm today, a state court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist “minimum contacts”
between the defendant and the forum State. [Citation.] The concept of minimum contacts, in
turn, can be seen to perform two related, but distinguishable, functions. It protects the defendant
against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure that the
States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status
as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.
choose the forum, [citation]; the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most
efficient resolution of controversies; and the shared interest of the several States in furthering
fundamental substantive social policies, [citation].
* * *
Thus, the Due Process Clause “does not contemplate that a state may make binding a
judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no
contacts, ties, or relations.” [Citation.]
* * *
Applying these principles to the case at hand, we find in the record before us a total absence
of those affiliating circumstances that are a necessary predicate to any exercise of state-court
jurisdiction. Petitioners carry on no activity whatsoever in Oklahoma. They close no sales and
perform no services there. They avail themselves of none of the privileges and benefits of
Oklahoma law. They solicit no business there either through salespersons or through advertising
reasonably calculated to reach the State. Nor does the record show that they regularly sell cars at
In Personam Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of a court over the parties to a lawsuit in contrast to its jurisdiction
over their property — applies to persons domiciled in that state or those who are
temporarily present in the state and are personally served process within the
state.
Most states have adopted long-arm statutes to allow courts to obtain jurisdiction
over a nonresident defendant who:
• has committed a tort (civil wrong) within the state,
In Rem Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over claims to property situated within the state if the plainti/ gives
those persons who have an interest in the property reasonable notice and an
opportunity to be heard.
Attachment Jurisdiction
Applies to property, like in rem jurisdiction, but is invoked by seizing the
defendant’s property within the state to obtain payment of a claim against the
defendant that is unrelated to the property seized.
NOTE: Figure 3—6 summarizes the types of jurisdiction.
Venue