1 / 15

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court. +. +. FORUM NON CONVENIENS The Basics. What does it mean? Where does the doctrine come from? i.e. source of law Judge-made law. FORUM NON CONVENIENS The Basics. Typical state court use of doctrine Multi-state defendant

gamada
Télécharger la présentation

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court + +

  2. FORUM NON CONVENIENSThe Basics • What does it mean? • Where does the doctrine come from? • i.e. source of law • Judge-made law

  3. FORUM NON CONVENIENSThe Basics • Typical state court use of doctrine • Multi-state defendant • subject to personal jurisdiction in more than one place

  4. SKILLS: READING CASESBasic Case Reading • Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, p. 204 • Basic Case Reading • Comments • Example of procedurally complex case • why need tools for organizing thoughts • Questions

  5. SKILLS: READING CASESIdentifying Black Letter Law Gilbert “test” • Pl's choice rarely disturbed • May dismiss if: • alternative forum available • oppressiveness, vexation to defendant • (private interests) + • court's convenience (public interest) • far outweigh • convenience to pl. (private interest)

  6. SKILLS: ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT • Identifying the Legally Significant Facts • for broad & narrow case holdings • p. 209, note 2 • What if: • Decedents had been U.S. citizens? • The plane crashed into the sea? • Scotland permitted no recovery for wrongful death?

  7. SKILLS: ARGUING FROM PRECEDENTNoticing the “scope of review” • What standard of review applies? • motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens

  8. THE BIG PICTUREForum non conveniens • What does it add to forum choice? • Does FNC do anything that PJ can’t? • How is it used today in federal system?

  9. SKILLS: APPLYING STATUTES28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) • For • the convenience of parties & W’s, • in the interest of justice • a district court • may transfer • any civil action • to • any other district • or division • where • it might have been brought

  10. SKILLS: APPLYING STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) • Why was Piper transferred to Penn.? • Could Piper be transferred now? ( Bring in Penn federal court?) • Current venue statute? • Personal jurisdiction? • Piper • Hartzell

  11. SKILLS: APPLYING STATUTESAlternatives to 1404(a) • 28 U.S.C. § 1631 • Cure “want of jurisdiction” •  “could have been brought” • Post-dates Piper • 28 U.S.C. § 1406 • Cure defect in venue •  “could have been brought” • 28 U.S.C. § 1407 • Multi-district litigation

  12. BLACK LETTER LAWVenue Trnsfr & Choice of Law • Choice of Law & 28 U.S.C. § 1404 • Claim against Piper tx to Pa D.Ct. • What law would apply? • Why? • Fed court applies State substantive law in diversity case (Erie doctrine) • Which State’s law? • Calif law (Court from which transferred) • But California choice of law rules • Penn. Law

  13. BLACK LETTER LAWVenue Trnsfr & Choice of Law • Choice of Law & 28 U.S.C. § 1406, 1631 • Claim against Hartzell tx to Pa D.Ct. • What law would apply? • Why? • Fed court applies State substantive law in diversity case (Erie doctrine) • If case is transferred, which State’s law applies? • Penn. law (Court to which transferred) • But Penn. choice of law rules • Scottish law

  14. TAKEAWAYS:BLACK LETTER LAW Forum Non & Venue Transfer • FNC • Gilbert test • Federal court -> foreign country • Venue transfer • Move within federal system • 1404 • Convenience • Choice of law rules from original court • 1406, 1361 • Fix venue, pj problems • Choice of law rules from new court

  15. TAKEAWAYSChapters 1-3 • Reading Statutes • MAP • Reading Cases • “Gold Standard” briefing, when needed • Arguing from Precedent • Build conceptual frameworks • Synthesize rules • Generate broad & narrow case holdings • Black letter law

More Related