Wendy's CivPro Outline

Wendy's CivPro Outline - WENDYS CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
WENDY’S CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE PAGE 1 OF 6 1) INVESTIGATION • Problem • Remedy Legal damages Compensatory Actual damages to make π whole Nominal damages Liquidated damages, pre-agreed on Punitive Not so grossly excessive as to be unconstitutional ( BMW guidelines ) - egregious conduct - single-digit ratio of compensatory-to-punitive - sanction amount for comparable conduct - de novo appellate review (possible Erie problem) Equitable - balancing inadequacy of legal remedy and irreparable harm Plenary - final Provisional - temporary Affidavit based on personal knowledge Review Pre-trial hearing unless exigent circumstances . . . 2) PROPER COURT PERSONAL JURISDICTION - Ct’s power to make a binding order against a party and is obtained against a non-resident Δ by giving notice reasonably calculated to impart notice within the grasp of the St’s LAS. (if no LAS mentioned) IF LAS coextensive with USCon, examine m/c so as to not offend tnofpasj: A person is subject to a state’s PJ through being domiciled in that state, consent, general appearance in court, presence in that state (or failure to object to notice defect). M INIMUM C ONTACTS : The US Constitution requires that non-resident defendants have minimum contacts with the forum state so that the exercise of PJ over Δ does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Nature and quality of contacts must be examined: - Where contacts have been continuous and systematic and related to the suit, PJ has never been doubted. (direct m/c: mfr ST1 → π ST2 ) - Where contacts have been continuous and systematic but are unrelated to the suit, PJ may be granted if the defendant has had a Pervasive Presence , and general jurisdiction allows filing on any action in that state. - Where contacts have been isolated but are related to the suit, PJ may be granted if the defendant has purposefully directed his contacts towards that state and/or purposefully availed himself of the benefits of that state’s laws so that it is foreseeable he may be haled into court in that state, provided this contact is not random, fortuitous, or attenuated. Stream of Commerce splits: O’Connor: stream of commerce is insufficient-to-give-PJ even if knowledge of direction to specific state, as in Asahi . Brennan: it is sufficient-to-give-PJ as national marketing puts party on notice of possibility of suit in a forum where an injury might occur; as in Gray (per Shoe ) m/c satisfied through single act with substantial connection to the State even if doing no business in State. (indirect m/c: mfr ST1 → dealer ST1 → π ST2 ). - Where contacts have been isolated and are unrelated to the suit, there is no PJ without consent or general appearance. F
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/24/2010 for the course PR 123 taught by Professor Gramer during the Spring '06 term at Loyola Law School Los Angeles.

Page1 / 6

Wendy's CivPro Outline - WENDYS CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online