CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court

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 PRECEDENT Noticing 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 cant?
• How is it used today in federal system?

9
SKILLS APPLYING STATUTES28 U.S.C. 1404(a)

• For
• the convenience of parties Ws,
• 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 States 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 States law
  applies?
• Penn. law (Court to which transferred)
• But Penn. choice of law rules
• Scottish law

14
TAKEAWAYSBLACK LETTER LAW Forum Non Venue
Transfer

• FNC
• Gilbert test
• Federal court -gt 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