March 17, 2025 • 10 mins
Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! This is the first of three episodes in which we review the substantive Civil Procedure law we've covered in our "Listen and Learn" series. Today we're talking about jurisdiction, or the power of a court to try a matter.
In this episode, we discuss:
- Subject matter jurisdiction
- Personal jurisdiction
- Venue and forum non conveniens
- Exam strategy for jurisdiction issues
Resources:
- Private Bar Exam Tutoring (https://barexamtoolbox.com/private-bar-exam-tutoring/)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/310/)
- Podcast Episode 92: Listen and Learn – Subject Matter Jurisdiction (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-92-listen-and-learn-subject-matter-jurisdiction/)
- Podcast Episode 169: Listen and Learn – Personal Jurisdiction (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-169-listen-and-learn-personal-jurisdiction-civ-pro/)
- Podcast Episode 180: Listen and Learn – Venue (Federal Civil Procedure) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-180-listen-and-learn-venue-federal-civil-procedure/)
Download the Transcript
(https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-304-spotlight-on-civil-procedure-part-1-jurisdiction/)
If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)!
Thanks for listening!
Alison & Lee
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lee Burgess (00:01):
Welcome to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast.
Today, we have our first ofthree episodes of our substantive
spotlight series on Civil Procedure.
Today, we are talking about jurisdiction.
Your Bar Exam Toolbox hosts are AlisonMonahan and Lee Burgess, that's me.
We're here to demystify the barexam experience, so you can study
(00:22):
effectively, stay sane, and hopefullypass and move on with your life.
We're the co-creators of the Law SchoolToolbox, the Bar Exam Toolbox, and the
career-related website CareerDicta.
Alison also runs TheGirl's Guide to Law School.
If you enjoy the show, please leavea review on your favorite listening
app, and check out our sister podcast,the Law School Toolbox podcast.
If you have any questions, don'thesitate to reach out to us.
You can reach us via the contactform on BarExamToolbox.com,
(00:46):
and we'd love to hear from you.
And with that, let's get started.
Welcome back to another episodeof substantive spotlight, where
today we're diving into theexciting world of Civil Procedure.
(01:06):
We're about to tackle one ofthe most fundamental concepts
in litigation - jurisdiction.
Think of it as the VIP passthat lets courts hear your case.
Without it, you're not evengoing to get in the door.
You know what's fascinatingabout jurisdiction?
It's everywhere in our legalsystem, quietly determining
which disputes get heard where.
(01:27):
Whether you're suing your neighborover a fence dispute or taking on a
multinational corporation, jurisdictionis the invisible force field that maps out
where these legal battles can take place.
Today, we're breaking down thekey concepts we've covered in
our "Listen and Learn" series.
And trust me, mastering these willmake your Civil Procedure professor
(01:47):
or bar examiner do a double take.
Let's start with the big picture.
Jurisdiction comes in two main flavors- subject matter jurisdiction [which
kind of cases a court can hear], andpersonal jurisdiction [which people
or corporations or organizations acourt can exercise authority over].
Think of subject matterjurisdiction as a restaurant menu.
(02:10):
It defines what the kitchenis prepared to serve up.
Personal jurisdiction?
That's more like therestaurant's delivery radius.
It determines who they can reach.
First up, let's look atsubject matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts are courtsof limited jurisdiction.
They can only hear cases thatfall into specific categories,
like being a specialist doctor whoonly treats certain conditions.
(02:33):
There are two main paths into federalcourt- federal question jurisdiction
and diversity jurisdiction.
Federal question is straightforward.
Your case must arise underfederal law, the U.S.
Constitution, or federal treaties.
It's the express lane for caseslike patent disputes, civil rights
violations, or federal crimes.
(02:56):
Diversity jurisdiction iswhere things get spicy.
Here we're looking at cases betweencitizens of different states where the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
But wait, there's a catch.
We need complete diversity, meaningno plaintiff can be a citizen of
the same state as any defendant.
(03:17):
It's like planning a dinnerparty, where no guest can be from
the same hometown as the host.
So let's break this down with a quickexample: Paula from Pennsylvania
sues Derek from Delaware and Conniefrom California for $100,000.
Is there complete diversity?
Well, yes.
No plaintiff sharescitizenship with any defendant.
(03:39):
But what if Connie was actuallyfrom Pennsylvania like Paula?
Game over for diversity jurisdiction.
Even one shared state of citizenshipkills complete diversity.
And don't forget about the amountin controversy requirement - more
than $75,000, excludinginterest and attorney's fees.
(04:00):
The courts want to make sure thecase is substantial enough to
warrant federal court attention.
It's like a minimum purchaserequirement for free shipping
- you've got to meet the threshold.
Now, sometimes a case has claimsthat would qualify for federal
jurisdiction hitched to claimsthat wouldn't qualify on their own.
(04:21):
Enter supplemental jurisdiction - the"plus one" invitation of federal court.
If the claims are part of the samecase or controversy - think same
nucleus of operative fact - thecourt can exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the related claims.
But be careful.
In diversity cases, supplementaljurisdiction has some important
(04:43):
limitations to prevent plaintiffsfrom gaming the system.
Moving on to personal jurisdiction,or the long arm of the law.
The question here is (04:53):
Can this court exercise authority over
this particular defendant?
The analysis differs dependingon whether we're dealing with a
traditional basis or a long-arm statute.
Traditional bases are straightforward- domicile [where you permanently reside],
presence [being physically served withprocess in the forum state], or consent
(05:18):
[agreeing to the court's jurisdiction].
These are like the three guaranteedways to get someone to your party
- invite a roommate, hand deliveran invitation to someone you bump
into, or get someone to RSVP "yes".
But what about defendants whoaren't from the forum state?
That's where long-arm statutes comein, allowing courts to reach defendants
(05:41):
with certain connections to the state.
The key here is the minimum contactstest from International Shoe.
Does the defendant have such minimumcontacts with the forum state that
exercising jurisdiction wouldn'toffend traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice?
This analysis breaks down intogeneral and specific jurisdiction.
(06:01):
General jurisdiction is fordefendants who are essentially
at home in the forum state.
Think corporations incorporatedthere or with their principal
place of business there.
It's like having an open invitationto your neighbor's house.
They can invite you over for any reason.
Specific jurisdiction requires aconnection between your forum state
contacts and the underlying claims.
(06:22):
Did you purposefully avail yourself of thebenefits of doing business in the state?
Was it foreseeable that youcould be haled into court there?
Would exercising jurisdiction be fair?
These questions form the backbone ofthe specific jurisdiction analysis.
Remember, a court can have subjectmatter jurisdiction but lack
personal jurisdiction, or vice versa.
(06:44):
You need both to proceed.
It's like needing both a ticketand an ID to board a flight.
Missing either one meansyou're not taking off.
Now, even if you've cleared thejurisdiction hurdles, you still need
proper venue - the specific placewhere your lawsuit should proceed.
Think of jurisdiction as gettinginto the right courthouse, while
(07:06):
venue determines which courtroominside the building you'll be in.
Venue is proper in a federal districtwhere any defendant resides, if all
defendants reside in the same state,where a substantial part of the events
giving rise to the claim occurred.
Or, if there is no other districtavailable, wherever the defendant
is subject to personal jurisdiction.
It's about convenience andfairness to the parties involved.
And here's where things get interesting: Even if venue is technically (07:32):
undefined
proper, a defendant might move forthe transfer under the doctrine
of forum non conveniens, if theybelieve another venue would be more
convenient for parties and witnesses.
The court will balance factors likewitness locations, access to evidence,
and local interests in determiningwhether to transfer the case.
(07:56):
Alright, let's get tactical.
When approaching jurisdictionissues on an exam, here's your
battle plan or attack plan:
1. Start with subject matter jurisdiction.
Is there a federal question?
Is there diversity jurisdiction[complete diversity plus
that amount in controversy]?
(08:16):
Could supplemental jurisdictionapply in related claims?
2. Then analyze personal jurisdiction.
Are there any traditional basis likedomicile, presence, and consent?
If using a long-arm statute, whatdoes the state statute permit?
Does the defendant have minimumcontacts with the forum state?
(08:36):
Is jurisdiction general or specific?
And would exercising jurisdictionbe fair and reasonable?
3. Finally, check venue.
Is venue proper under the statute?
Any reasons why transfermight be appropriate?
Remember, jurisdiction and venuequestions often come loaded with red
(08:57):
herrings and tricky fact patterns.
Be methodical and don't getthrown off by irrelevant details.
For a deeper dive into these topics,check out our "Listen and Learn"
episodes on subject matter jurisdiction,personal jurisdiction, and venue.
Don't worry, we will includelinks to them in the show notes.
Episode 92 breaks down diversity andfederal question jurisdiction, while
(09:20):
Episode 169 gives you everything youneed to know about personal jurisdiction.
For venue issues, Episode180 is your go-to resource.
This is Lee Burgess, signing offfrom substantive spotlight on
Civil Procedure, where jurisdictiondecides who gets their day in court.
If you enjoyed this episode of theBar Exam Toolbox podcast, please
(09:41):
take a second to leave a review andrating on your favorite listening app.
We'd really appreciate it.
And be sure to subscribeso you don't miss anything.
If you're still in law school, youmight also like to check out our popular
Law School Toolbox podcast as well.
If you have any questions or comments,please don't hesitate to reach out to
myself or Alison at lee@barexamtoolbox.comor alison@barexamtoolbox.com.
(10:01):
Or you can always contact us via ourwebsite contact form at BarExamToolbox.
com.
Thanks for listening, and we'll talk soon!
Welcome to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast.
Today, we have our first ofthree episodes of our substantive
spotlight series on Civil Procedure.
Today, we are talking about jurisdiction.
Your Bar Exam Toolbox hosts are AlisonMonahan and Lee Burgess, that's me.
We're here to demystify the barexam experience, so you can study
(00:22):
effectively, stay sane, and hopefullypass and move on with your life.
We're the co-creators of the Law SchoolToolbox, the Bar Exam Toolbox, and the
career-related website CareerDicta.
Alison also runs TheGirl's Guide to Law School.
If you enjoy the show, please leavea review on your favorite listening
app, and check out our sister podcast,the Law School Toolbox podcast.
If you have any questions, don'thesitate to reach out to us.
You can reach us via the contactform on BarExamToolbox.com,
(00:46):
and we'd love to hear from you.
And with that, let's get started.
Welcome back to another episodeof substantive spotlight, where
today we're diving into theexciting world of Civil Procedure.
(01:06):
We're about to tackle one ofthe most fundamental concepts
in litigation - jurisdiction.
Think of it as the VIP passthat lets courts hear your case.
Without it, you're not evengoing to get in the door.
You know what's fascinatingabout jurisdiction?
It's everywhere in our legalsystem, quietly determining
which disputes get heard where.
(01:27):
Whether you're suing your neighborover a fence dispute or taking on a
multinational corporation, jurisdictionis the invisible force field that maps out
where these legal battles can take place.
Today, we're breaking down thekey concepts we've covered in
our "Listen and Learn" series.
And trust me, mastering these willmake your Civil Procedure professor
(01:47):
or bar examiner do a double take.
Let's start with the big picture.
Jurisdiction comes in two main flavors- subject matter jurisdiction [which
kind of cases a court can hear], andpersonal jurisdiction [which people
or corporations or organizations acourt can exercise authority over].
Think of subject matterjurisdiction as a restaurant menu.
(02:10):
It defines what the kitchenis prepared to serve up.
Personal jurisdiction?
That's more like therestaurant's delivery radius.
It determines who they can reach.
First up, let's look atsubject matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts are courtsof limited jurisdiction.
They can only hear cases thatfall into specific categories,
like being a specialist doctor whoonly treats certain conditions.
(02:33):
There are two main paths into federalcourt- federal question jurisdiction
and diversity jurisdiction.
Federal question is straightforward.
Your case must arise underfederal law, the U.S.
Constitution, or federal treaties.
It's the express lane for caseslike patent disputes, civil rights
violations, or federal crimes.
(02:56):
Diversity jurisdiction iswhere things get spicy.
Here we're looking at cases betweencitizens of different states where the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
But wait, there's a catch.
We need complete diversity, meaningno plaintiff can be a citizen of
the same state as any defendant.
(03:17):
It's like planning a dinnerparty, where no guest can be from
the same hometown as the host.
So let's break this down with a quickexample: Paula from Pennsylvania
sues Derek from Delaware and Conniefrom California for $100,000.
Is there complete diversity?
Well, yes.
No plaintiff sharescitizenship with any defendant.
(03:39):
But what if Connie was actuallyfrom Pennsylvania like Paula?
Game over for diversity jurisdiction.
Even one shared state of citizenshipkills complete diversity.
And don't forget about the amountin controversy requirement - more
than $75,000, excludinginterest and attorney's fees.
(04:00):
The courts want to make sure thecase is substantial enough to
warrant federal court attention.
It's like a minimum purchaserequirement for free shipping
- you've got to meet the threshold.
Now, sometimes a case has claimsthat would qualify for federal
jurisdiction hitched to claimsthat wouldn't qualify on their own.
(04:21):
Enter supplemental jurisdiction - the"plus one" invitation of federal court.
If the claims are part of the samecase or controversy - think same
nucleus of operative fact - thecourt can exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the related claims.
But be careful.
In diversity cases, supplementaljurisdiction has some important
(04:43):
limitations to prevent plaintiffsfrom gaming the system.
Moving on to personal jurisdiction,or the long arm of the law.
The question here is (04:53):
Can this court exercise authority over
this particular defendant?
The analysis differs dependingon whether we're dealing with a
traditional basis or a long-arm statute.
Traditional bases are straightforward- domicile [where you permanently reside],
presence [being physically served withprocess in the forum state], or consent
(05:18):
[agreeing to the court's jurisdiction].
These are like the three guaranteedways to get someone to your party
- invite a roommate, hand deliveran invitation to someone you bump
into, or get someone to RSVP "yes".
But what about defendants whoaren't from the forum state?
That's where long-arm statutes comein, allowing courts to reach defendants
(05:41):
with certain connections to the state.
The key here is the minimum contactstest from International Shoe.
Does the defendant have such minimumcontacts with the forum state that
exercising jurisdiction wouldn'toffend traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice?
This analysis breaks down intogeneral and specific jurisdiction.
(06:01):
General jurisdiction is fordefendants who are essentially
at home in the forum state.
Think corporations incorporatedthere or with their principal
place of business there.
It's like having an open invitationto your neighbor's house.
They can invite you over for any reason.
Specific jurisdiction requires aconnection between your forum state
contacts and the underlying claims.
(06:22):
Did you purposefully avail yourself of thebenefits of doing business in the state?
Was it foreseeable that youcould be haled into court there?
Would exercising jurisdiction be fair?
These questions form the backbone ofthe specific jurisdiction analysis.
Remember, a court can have subjectmatter jurisdiction but lack
personal jurisdiction, or vice versa.
(06:44):
You need both to proceed.
It's like needing both a ticketand an ID to board a flight.
Missing either one meansyou're not taking off.
Now, even if you've cleared thejurisdiction hurdles, you still need
proper venue - the specific placewhere your lawsuit should proceed.
Think of jurisdiction as gettinginto the right courthouse, while
(07:06):
venue determines which courtroominside the building you'll be in.
Venue is proper in a federal districtwhere any defendant resides, if all
defendants reside in the same state,where a substantial part of the events
giving rise to the claim occurred.
Or, if there is no other districtavailable, wherever the defendant
is subject to personal jurisdiction.
It's about convenience andfairness to the parties involved.
And here's where things get interesting: Even if venue is technically (07:32):
undefined
proper, a defendant might move forthe transfer under the doctrine
of forum non conveniens, if theybelieve another venue would be more
convenient for parties and witnesses.
The court will balance factors likewitness locations, access to evidence,
and local interests in determiningwhether to transfer the case.
(07:56):
Alright, let's get tactical.
When approaching jurisdictionissues on an exam, here's your
battle plan or attack plan:
1. Start with subject matter jurisdiction.
Is there a federal question?
Is there diversity jurisdiction[complete diversity plus
that amount in controversy]?
(08:16):
Could supplemental jurisdictionapply in related claims?
2. Then analyze personal jurisdiction.
Are there any traditional basis likedomicile, presence, and consent?
If using a long-arm statute, whatdoes the state statute permit?
Does the defendant have minimumcontacts with the forum state?
(08:36):
Is jurisdiction general or specific?
And would exercising jurisdictionbe fair and reasonable?
3. Finally, check venue.
Is venue proper under the statute?
Any reasons why transfermight be appropriate?
Remember, jurisdiction and venuequestions often come loaded with red
(08:57):
herrings and tricky fact patterns.
Be methodical and don't getthrown off by irrelevant details.
For a deeper dive into these topics,check out our "Listen and Learn"
episodes on subject matter jurisdiction,personal jurisdiction, and venue.
Don't worry, we will includelinks to them in the show notes.
Episode 92 breaks down diversity andfederal question jurisdiction, while
(09:20):
Episode 169 gives you everything youneed to know about personal jurisdiction.
For venue issues, Episode180 is your go-to resource.
This is Lee Burgess, signing offfrom substantive spotlight on
Civil Procedure, where jurisdictiondecides who gets their day in court.
If you enjoyed this episode of theBar Exam Toolbox podcast, please
(09:41):
take a second to leave a review andrating on your favorite listening app.
We'd really appreciate it.
And be sure to subscribeso you don't miss anything.
If you're still in law school, youmight also like to check out our popular
Law School Toolbox podcast as well.
If you have any questions or comments,please don't hesitate to reach out to
myself or Alison at lee@barexamtoolbox.comor alison@barexamtoolbox.com.
(10:01):
Or you can always contact us via ourwebsite contact form at BarExamToolbox.
com.
Thanks for listening, and we'll talk soon!
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.