Syllabus - Hastings College of the Law

I. CLASS POLICIES
CIVIL PROCEDURE II
FALL 2011
Prof. Stefano Moscato
Office: Room 346 (200 McAllister St., 3rd floor)
Tel.: 310-384-6429
E-mail: moscato@uchastings.edu
A. Attendance, preparation and participation
I expect you to regard class attendance as you would a court appearance on behalf of a client.
Thus, you should be punctual, well prepared, and ready to fully participate in class discussion.
Voluntary participation also is strongly encouraged.
I reserve the right to lower your final grade for the course for excessive absences and/or lack of
preparation when called on.
B. Grading
Subject to the potential for your final grade being reduced as set forth above, 100% of your final
grade for this course will be determined by the final exam. The final exam will be an open-book,
three-hour in-class examination and will cover the entire semester’s material for this course. The
exam will comprise of several essay questions (no multiple choice). I will discuss the exact
format of the exam in more depth later in the semester, and will direct you to exams I have given
in the past as guides/study tools.
C. Office Hours
My office hours are Thusdays from 1:15pm - 3:00pm. You also are welcome to make an
appointment to meet with me at different time.
II. READING ASSIGNMENTS
Reading assignments indicated as “Marcus” refer to the hard-cover casebook, Marcus,
Redish, Sherman & Pfander, CIVIL PROCEDURE: A MODERN APPROACH, Fifth Edition
(Thomson/West 2009).
Reading assignments indicated as “Supplement” refer to supplemental cases and other
materials which you can download from the course website.
Reading assignments indicated as “COL” refer to Marcus, Civil Procedure II Choice of Law
Handout (2010), which you also can download from the course website.
When you are assigned to read a statute in the United States Code, a portion of the United
States Constitution, one of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or a state statutory
provision, you can find those in Kane & Levine, CIVIL PROCEDURE IN CALIFORNIA
1

(Thomson/West 2011). Students who already own prior editions of the Kane paperback can
use those instead—I don’t believe that any of the rules/statutes/provisions we are covering in
this course have materially changed in the last few years. You can also easily find them online.
Page references in this Syllabus are to the 2011 edition.
We will move through the syllabus in the order indicated below. Since we will meet for one hour
on Mondays and two hours on Thursdays, you should plan on reading the next topic on the
syllabus for Mondays and the next two topics for Thursdays. However, as you might notice,
there are fewer assignments than there are class hours in the semester. That is because we will
sometimes spend multiple class sessions on a single topic, and we also will from time to time
pause to take up class discussion problems I will assign you to prepare in advance of class. I will
instruct you at the end of each class whether to deviate from the standard reading plan for the
next class.
Syllabus:
CHOOSING THE FORUM: GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
1. The Traditional Constitutional Bases for Jurisdiction Over the Parties or Their
Property -- Pennoyer v. Neff
U.S. Constitution, 14 th Amendment (Kane, 215)
Marcus, 680-693
2. Evolution of the Traditional “Power” Theory of Personal Jurisdiction -- Hess,
Implied Consent and Corporate “Presence”
Marcus, 696-700
3. The Shift to “Minimum Contacts” -- International Shoe
Marcus, 700-707
4. Early Applications of International Shoe -- McGee, Hanson, Gray
Marcus, 707-713
5. State Long-Arm Statutes; Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Court
California’s Long-Arm Statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 (Kane, 329)
Long-Arm Statutes of Illinois & New York (Kane, 614-617)
Marcus, 713-719
Supplement: Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King
6. Refining the Minimum Contacts Alalysis for Modern Interstate Contacts -- World-
Wide Volkswagen
Marcus, 719-736
Supplement: Adams, The Story Behind World-Wide VW
2

7. Refining the Minimum Contacts Alalysis for Intentional Tortious Conduct Causing
Injury in the Forum State -- Calder, Kulko
Marcus, 736-742
Supplement: Kulko v. Superior Court
8. Minimum Contacts and Contractual Relationships -- Burger King
Marcus, 743-756
9. Minimum Contacts and the “Stream of Commerce” -- Asahi Metal, Nicastro
Marcus, 756-766
Supplement: McIntyre v. Nicastro
10. Internet and Other Technological Contacts
Marcus, 766-780
11. Jurisdiction Based Upon Power Over the Defendant’s Property -- Pennoyer revisited,
Harris v. Balk, Shaffer v. Heitner
Review Pennoyer v. Neff (Marcus, 681-687 and Note 2 pp. 688-690)
Marcus, 693-696, 781-796
12. Jurisdiction Based Upon Physical Presence -- Burnham
Marcus, 799-811
13. “General” Personal Jurisdiction: Permitting the Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Even
Where the Claim is Unrelated to the Defendant’s Activities in the Forum State
Supplement: Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall
Marcus, 815-817 (notes 1-4)
Supplement: Goodyear Dunlop Tires v. Brown
CHOOSING THE FORUM: STATE VS. FEDERAL COURT
14. Federal Court Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Based on Diversity of Citizenship:
Determining the Parties’ “Citizenship”
U.S. Constitution, Article III (Kane, 212-213)
28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Kane, 231-235)
Marcus, 850-858 (through note 6)
Supplement: Hertz Corp. v. Friend
15. Satisfying the “Amount in Controversy” Requirement for Diversity Jurisdiction
Marcus, 861-864
Supplement: AFA Tours v. Whitchurch
3

16. Federal Court Subject-Matter Jurisdiction in Cases “Arising Under” Federal Law
(a.k.a. “Federal Question” Jurisdiction) -- Mottley and its progeny
U.S. Constitution, Article III (Kane, 212-213)
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1338, 1343 (Kane, 231, 236-238)
Marcus, 864-873
17. Refining the Statutory “Arising Under” Test: State Law Claims with Federal
Ingredients
Marcus, 873-888
18. Federal Court Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over Supplemental State Law Claims
and Non-Diverse Parties -- United Mine Workers v. Gibbs and its progeny
Review Fed. R. Civ. P. 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 24 (Kane, 33-36, 45-48, 62-64)
Marcus, 888-894 (through n.2)
19. The Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute
28 U.S.C. § 1367 (Kane, 238-239)
Marcus, 894 n.3-914
20. Federal Court Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over Cases Removed from State Court
by Defendant
28 U. S.C. §§ 1441, 1447 (Kane, 245-246, 248-249)
Marcus, 914-923
ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS ON WHERE A LAWSUIT MAY BE
MAINTAINED
21. Choosing the Proper Venue
28 U. S.C. § 1391(a)-(d) (Kane, 240)
Marcus, 830-837
22. Transfer of Venue and Forum Non Conveniens
28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406 (Kane, 242-243)
Marcus, 837-849
4

ASCERTAINING THE APPLICABLE LAW IN FEDERAL COURT
DIVERSITY CASES: CHOOSING BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE
LAW
23. Evolution of the Erie Doctrine
Rules of Decision Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1652 (Kane, 251)
Marcus, 924-935
24. Untangling Erie’s Substance/Procedure Distinction -- York, Byrd
Marcus, 935-953
25. Erie And the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- Hanna and its progeny
Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (Kane, 268)
Marcus, 953-968
Supplement: Walker v. Armco Steel
Supplement: Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
CHOICE OF LAW: CHOOSING AMONG THE POSSIBLY PERTINENT
LAWS OF DIFFERENT STATES
26. Background; The Traditional (First Restatement) Approach
COL, 1-28
27. Escape Devices to Avoid the Traditional Rule
COL, 43-54
28. The “Governmental Interest” Approach: Discerning Interests and Conflicts
COL, 62-64, 77-96
29. The “Governmental Interest” Approach: Resolving Actual Conflicts
COL, 96-107, 112-122
30. The Second Restatement “Most Significant Relationship” Approach
COL, 122-148
5