1 / 23

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 33

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 33. Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 7, 2005. WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN V. WOODSON. PLAINTIFFS citizenship for the purposes of diversity. WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN. DEFENDANTSho are the defendants?

quemby-joyce
Télécharger la présentation

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 33

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. CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 33 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 7, 2005

  2. WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN V. WOODSON • PLAINTIFFS citizenship for the purposes of diversity

  3. WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN • DEFENDANTSho are the defendants? • Which Ds challenge personal jurisdiction? • Citizenship for the purposes of diversity

  4. World-Wide Volkswagen: Flow Chart WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN: PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS • Choice of forum

  5. Another Puzzle • Why didn’t the plaintiffs sue Lloyd Hull, the drunk driver of the vehicle that hit their car?

  6. Who’s Woodson? • A puzzle: Charles S. Woodson is a respondent in the U.S. Supreme Court, but he is not a defendant. Please explain.

  7. WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN: CLAIMED BASIS FOR JURISDICTION • What is the legal basis for plaintiffs’ claimed assertion of jurisdiction over defendants?

  8. Oklahoma Long-Arm Statute, Tit. 12 §1701.03(a)(4)(1971) • A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action or claim for relief arising from the person’s . . causing tortious injury in this state by an act or omission outside this state if he regularly does or solicits business or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in this state . . . “

  9. BACK TO WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN • How does the Oklahoma Supreme Court rule on the writ of prohibition? • What is the legal issue for decision by the U.S. Supreme Court? • How does the U.S. Supreme Court rule?

  10. REASONING OF U.S. SUPREME COURT MAJORITY OPINION IN WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN • The U.S. Supreme Court endorses the “minimum contacts” test set out in International Shoe • According to Justice White (1962-93), who delivers the Court’s opinion, what are the two functions of the minimum contacts test?

  11. Justice White’s Majority Opinion in WWVW • According to Justice White, which prong of the International Shoe test should be examined first?

  12. APPLYING THE MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST TO THE FACTS OF WWVW • How does Justice White apply the International Shoe test to the facts of World--Wide Volkswagen? • Is it relevant that the NY defendants arguably could foresee that the Audi would enter Oklahoma? • Is the concept of “purposeful availment” important to Justice White? Why or why not?

  13. WORLD-WIDE: DISSENTS • Please explain the basis for Justice Marshall’s (1967-91) dissent.

  14. World-Wide Dissents • Please explain the basis for Justice Brennan’s (1957-90) dissent.

  15. World-Wide Dissents • Please explain the basis for Justice Blackmun’s (1970-94) dissent • Do you agree with the majority or with any of the dissents? Why?

  16. Justice Blackmun’s puzzlement • What about this case caused Justice Blackmun to be puzzled? • Could you dispel his confusion? • Case indicates that to exercise pj over a non-resident D, the court must find purposeful conduct either by direct acts of the D in the forum or by conduct outside the state that the D could have foreseen could result in suit being brought in the state

  17. WWV: The Aftermath • Audi and VWA removed case to federal district court for Northern District of Oklahoma – is this possible now (case filed 1978)? • Case tried to a jury who found for defense • Appeal to 10th Circuit, which reversed and remanded for a new trial against VWA • VWA is granted summary judgment • Grant of summary judgment is affirmed by 10th Circuit 9 years after accident occurs! • Cont’d on next slide

  18. WWV: The Aftermath Continued • New AZ lawyer moves for a rehearing in 10th Circuit; motion is denied • New suit filed in AZ, against different defendants – Volkswagen of Germany (parent co.) and previous attorneys. Sep. action filed in which moved to reopen judgment under FRCP 60(b)(3). • Audi lawyers respond with 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) motions. Denial of 12(b)(6) motion but order of transfer from AZ to OK. • Unsuccessful appeal of denial of 12( b)(6) motion under “death knell doctrine”

  19. WWV: The Aftermath Continued • Bench trial of fraud claims, product claims, and Rule 60(b) motion • Judge (same judge as in original trial) acknowledged that based on evidence, memo was admissible. But he denies Rule 60(b) motion and fraud claims, as well as products claim. • 10th Circuit affirms in May, 1995 • U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari in Jan. 8, 1996, 19 years after the accident took place

  20. Calder v. Jones: Personal Jurisdiction in Libel Actions • Libel action in California over 1979 National Enquirer article that claimed that actress Shirley Jones had a drinking problem.

  21. Calder v. Jones • Calder makes clear that the relevant contact between the D and the forum can be established not only by D going to the forum and doing something there but also by her intentionally causing an effect there/ • “Calder-Effects test”

  22. Hypo • D mails a package containing a bomb from NY to P in CA. P opens the package in CA, bomb explodes and P is injured. P sues in CA for damages caused by the bmb. Is D subject to in personam jurisdiction in CA?

More Related