Top Law Schools

My teacher gave the class an exam hypo that stated: Guy from CA gets into a car wreck with an Uber car in Iowa in which over 75k is sought. Uber is incorporated in DE and principle place of business is NY. Where all can he sue? Basically she said that there's general personal jurisdiction in every state that Uber operates in (substantial and continuous contacts). Assume that Uber has general PJ in every state. Which means that guy can sue Uber in every state in fed court. But can the guy sue Uber in every state for state court too? Here the issue is whether state courts have subject matter jurisdiction. Assuming the claim is a state court tort claim, does the state in which the accident happened (Iowa), and/or the states that Uber is a citizen (DE and NY) the only states with subject matter jx?

Is this a conflicts of law class? It depends on the state long arm statute.

edit: depends on state long arm for pj and the state subject matter jurisdiction statute for smj.

Well first, can this guy sue Uber in every federal court? Would venue be appropriate everywhere? Unless the question only asks about jurisdiction, the best answer is going to discuss venue. And depending on the material/question, the best answer might also need to discuss a forum non conveniens motion.

Then, remember that subject matter jurisdiction is a statutory creation on both the state and federal level. It would depend on the state laws. Most likely it would be only those three states, but some states might have broad enough statutes that would allow you to bring the claim there as well.

I thought venue would not be a factor since Uber is a corporation and for the rule that plaintiff can sue defendant in any state that the defendant resides would mean that anywhere there's PJ over Uber would be okay (assuming hypothetically that Uber does business in every district in every state). The teacher said plaintiff can sue anywhere in fed court at least so that's why i assumed about venue. Ledique, Yea I was confused bc the teacher said only CA, DE, NY, and Iowa for state SMJ. And she didn't mention anything about factoring in each state's long-arm statute. (it's her first time teaching civpro and she basically is learning as she is going along which makes me kind of nervous). But thanks for helping out, i think i got it

Is he not also suing the driver? That would definitely change your calculus.

It seems to me that venue would only be a factor for a §1404 motion for discretionary transfer of venue: interest of justice/convenience of parties and witnesses (apply factors for forum non conveniens) with some deference to the P's original choice of venue (but that seems to vary by circuit). Maybe that's what your prof wants you to talk about.

Also, he can't sue Uber in CA fed court because no diversity there.

But it's highly unlikely they want you to discuss state subject matter jx.

I would say that from a perspective of subject matter jurisdiction only - state courts of courts of general jurisdiction and as this is a tort claim, any state court would have SMJX and the grounds for dismissing would be under a theory of PJX. Kind of dumb, kind of nitpicky, but I think that's the point your prof is trying to make - distinguishing between general jurisdiction and limited/exclusive jurisdiction cases.

BVest wrote:Is he not also suing the driver? That would definitely change your calculus.

It seems to me that venue would only be a factor for a §1404 motion for discretionary transfer of venue: interest of justice/convenience of parties and witnesses (apply factors for forum non conveniens) with some deference to the P's original choice of venue (but that seems to vary by circuit). Maybe that's what your prof wants you to talk about.

Also, he can't sue Uber in CA fed court because no diversity there.

But it's highly unlikely they want you to discuss state subject matter jx.

Yea this was a practice exam question she posed in class i think just to review everything we have gone over. (and she did mention the driver, but that part i wasn't confused on). She asked, where all you can sue Uber, driver, and Uber and Driver together. But how could he not sue Uber in CA? Uber is a citizen of Delaware and NY for diversity purposes and he is a citizen of CA for diversity purposes.

pancakes3 wrote:I would say that from a perspective of subject matter jurisdiction only - state courts of courts of general jurisdiction and as this is a tort claim, any state court would have SMJX and the grounds for dismissing would be under a theory of PJX. Kind of dumb, kind of nitpicky, but I think that's the point your prof is trying to make - distinguishing between general jurisdiction and limited/exclusive jurisdiction cases.

i agree and the fact that she said "no, just these three states" confused the hell out of me. I honestly think she just screwed up, but i'm going to her office hours to clear this up. Her in-class explanation was "why would any state other than the three that have connections to the parties want this case?"

Here's a good way to learn the mechanics of this and I think is actually a really learning opportunity:

Pick a random state that would seem to not apply here at all. Say, Virginia. Try to draft a complaint, describing the parties, jurisdiction, and venue. You'll need to pick the specific court you want to sue in too. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/home.html
Look up their SMJ rules and venue statutes and really try to figure out how you'd get in there.

Once you're done with that, write Uber's demurrer.

Feel free to post a public dropbox link of both and we can let you know how you did.

#learningbydoing #laxbrahspracticallegalcurriculum #ifyoudontdothisyourenotactuallyalawdork

pancakes3 wrote:I would say that from a perspective of subject matter jurisdiction only - state courts of courts of general jurisdiction and as this is a tort claim, any state court would have SMJX and the grounds for dismissing would be under a theory of PJX. Kind of dumb, kind of nitpicky, but I think that's the point your prof is trying to make - distinguishing between general jurisdiction and limited/exclusive jurisdiction cases.

wat

lacrossebrother wrote:Here's a good way to learn the mechanics of this and I think is actually a really learning opportunity:

Pick a random state that would seem to not apply here at all. Say, Virginia. Try to draft a complaint, describing the parties, jurisdiction, and venue. You'll need to pick the specific court you want to sue in too. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/home.html
Look up their SMJ rules and venue statutes and really try to figure out how you'd get in there.

Once you're done with that, write Uber's demurrer.

Feel free to post a public dropbox link of both and we can let you know how you did.

#learningbydoing #laxbrahspracticallegalcurriculum #ifyoudontdothisyourenotactuallyalawdork

#don'tshitupmythread

Lawdork wrote:

BVest wrote:Is he not also suing the driver? That would definitely change your calculus.

It seems to me that venue would only be a factor for a §1404 motion for discretionary transfer of venue: interest of justice/convenience of parties and witnesses (apply factors for forum non conveniens) with some deference to the P's original choice of venue (but that seems to vary by circuit). Maybe that's what your prof wants you to talk about.

Also, he can't sue Uber in CA fed court because no diversity there.

But it's highly unlikely they want you to discuss state subject matter jx.

Yea this was a practice exam question she posed in class i think just to review everything we have gone over. (and she did mention the driver, but that part i wasn't confused on). She asked, where all you can sue Uber, driver, and Uber and Driver together. But how could he not sue Uber in CA? Uber is a citizen of Delaware and NY for diversity purposes and he is a citizen of CA for diversity purposes.

Sorry. The CA bit was a brain fart from elsewhere.

But yeah, if she included the driver, then the question she's asking is (a) where is there PJ over the driver, (b) what is the proper mandatory venue, and (c) what discretionary venue issues (if any) might you encounter. Don't worry about state SMJ. If a prof wants you to deal with state civ pro issues besides PJ, removal/remand, or Erie, they'll usually tell you something like "State X has adopted FRCP 11 as a state rule..."

I'm not understanding these responses. I think you actual lawyers are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

State courts of general jdx have subject matter jdx over everything that isn't exclusively federal (like bankruptcy). As long as the general jdx state court (so not like traffic court or something) can establish personal jdx, and the claim isn't founded on an exclusively federal matter, they can hear the case.

There's no way OP has to deal with statutes at this point in the game, especially not ones that aren't in the question.

(assuming hypothetically that Uber does business in every district in every state)

Wat? States have jdx, not districts. You don't have to care about districts. State courts have personal jdx over all domiciliaries of the state, not just the ones in their district.

PeanutsNJam wrote:I'm not understanding these responses. I think you actual lawyers are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

State courts of general jdx have subject matter jdx over everything that isn't exclusively federal (like bankruptcy). As long as the general jdx state court (so not like traffic court or something) can establish personal jdx, and the claim isn't founded on an exclusively federal matter, they can hear the case.

There's no way OP has to deal with statutes at this point in the game, especially not ones that aren't in the question.

…this does sound a lot like the answer a 1L Civ Pro prof would be looking for.

PeanutsNJam wrote:I'm not understanding these responses. I think you actual lawyers are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

State courts of general jdx have subject matter jdx over everything that isn't exclusively federal (like bankruptcy). As long as the general jdx state court (so not like traffic court or something) can establish personal jdx, and the claim isn't founded on an exclusively federal matter, they can hear the case.

There's no way OP has to deal with statutes at this point in the game, especially not ones that aren't in the question.

(assuming hypothetically that Uber does business in every district in every state)

Wat? States have jdx, not districts. You don't have to care about districts. State courts have personal jdx over all domiciliaries of the state, not just the ones in their district.

Yea this is basically what i wanted to confirm. I said that since Uber does business in every district, then every district would have PJ and thus venue (bc they 'reside' in every district) over Uber. So they can be sued in every court in the country, state or federal. (besides the ones with limited jx)

Lets be clear: yes, as a matter of generality, states have smj over everything unless a fed statute says otherwise. But many states statutorily limit that jurisdiction. Now, there's no way your 1l civ pro prof is asking about that unless they have the state law mirror a fed rule--which is why I asked if this was for a conflicts of law class.

Yeah, business in every district is important for venue.

Twist: guy chooses to sue in a random state court (say Mississippi). Uber would then be able to remove to the district court that embraces the state trial court where the action was originally brought. Then they can transfer it to a fed district court in Iowa because that is where all the witnesses are. But say they wanted to remain in state court. How would they get to the Iowa state court? Could they move to dismiss from the MS state court under forum non conveniens, and the plaintiff would have to refile. Since the plaintiff is master of the claim, he could either then (a) file in Iowa state court or (b) file in a fed court in Iowa. Is this all correct?

I have a practice civpro midterm next week so i'm just trying to make sure i have it right.

If the MS claim is dismissed for FNC, then, yeah, P can refile in Iowa state court or Fed ct in Iowa. And if P files in Iowa state court, it cannot be removed to Fed Ct so long as the Iowa citizen driver is a D.

Except if P is going to file in Iowa, he would just file there in the first place instead filing in Mississippi.

I have a feeling that when you say "they" want to remain in state court, and if "they" can get it to Iowa state court, you're asking if there's a way for Uber to dictate that the case ends up in Iowa State court. Outside of a forum selection clause, no, they can't.

BVest wrote:If the MS claim is dismissed for FNC, then, yeah, P can refile in Iowa state court or Fed ct in Iowa. And if P files in Iowa state court, it cannot be removed to Fed Ct so long as the Iowa citizen driver is a D.

Okay thanks a lot!

This was awesome. Can we start a TLS hypos board?

BNA wrote:This was awesome. Can we start a TLS hypos board?

Not sure if serious but that would provide the most practical help for 1L's by far.