CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court

Choosing aTrial Court

(Federal or State Court)

Subject MatterJurisdiction

Personal Jurisdiction

VenueVenue Transfer

Forum non conveniens+ +

FORUM NON CONVENIENSThe Basics

What does it mean? Where does the doctrine come

from? i.e. source of law

Judge-made law

FORUM NON CONVENIENSThe Basics

Typical state court use of doctrine Multi-state defendant subject to personal jurisdiction in

more than one place

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

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)

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?

SKILLS: ARGUING FROM PRECEDENT Noticing the “scope of review”

What standard of review applies? motion to dismiss for forum non

conveniens

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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