The blog is public, although one must be a member of the blog to post a comment. Consequently, the blog is displayed on search results and members of the general public may view posts. If there are potential sensitivities to making public statements that relate to your current employment you should use an opaque user name.
Required posts:
- Each student shall make one substantive post during a week when the class does not meet that relates to (a) any of the readings, assignments, procedural rules or topics identified on the syllabus for the preceding week or (b) any lawsuit that is currently pending in any federal or state court in the United States. You will sign up for a posting date on the first day of class, which date will be on a Wednesday of the week where no class is held. The post is due at 9:00 am and should be 300-400 words in length and contain appropriate source citations or hyperlinks regarding the subject of the post. The post may offer a commentary on a particular litigation issue or case or simply raise an issue or question with the week’s readings. The post should be polished, well organized, thoughtful and analytical; not simply a stream of consciousness or opinion. The blog post author should be prepared to respond in class to questions from me about their post.
- Each student shall post a comment on every classmate’s substantive blog post, which comment is due on or before 5:00 pm. on the same day as the blog post. There is no minimum/maximum word count on comments and comments may be on the initial post or a reply to another comment. The purpose of the comments is to generate an intelligent and civil discourse on the blog postings. A robust, but civil, back and forth between author and commenter is encouraged. Students may be randomly called upon by me to expand upon or defend their comments in class.
We are going to have a great semester!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to meeting and learning from everyone!
ReplyDeleteThanks Randy. I’m excited to get started.
ReplyDelete(Nice meeting(ish) you Justin)
Hi Everyone! See you soon.
ReplyDeleteThis will be a great class. I look forward to learning from all of you!
ReplyDeleteI am very excited to be part of the MLS and meet you all. And I am also very willing to learn from the class.
ReplyDeleteI'm looking forward to meeting everyone and reading all of your class blog posts and related discussions. See you all soon.
ReplyDeleteI am thrilled to be a part of this cohort. See you all this Saturday!
ReplyDeleteThis next year is gonna be a ride - I'm excited!
ReplyDeleteVery excited to get started and to meet everyone!
ReplyDeleteHey guys!
ReplyDeleteBelow is my post for the week. It didn't look as pretty when I just copied and pasted it over so I included a link to the Google Doc below for aesthetic purposes. Under that is the post just copied and pasted. Happy reading!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1om-sYSM5NKKyPwmUIPjzcOzi9aKKQ2p7dk0IsLdqhns/edit?usp=sharing
What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas - or does it?
In a recent Supreme Court case, Walden v. Fiore argued that there was lack of personal jurisdiction when the plaintiffs (Fiore), who lived in Nevada, sued a DEA agent (Walden) in Georgia. In 2006, plaintiffs Fiore and Gipson returned from a relaxing vacation abroad when they were questioned by DEA agents within the Atlanta airport (a layover on their way home to Nevada). Walden stated that he had probable cause to search and seize their luggage - which contained $97,000 in U.S. Currency. Although Fiore stated that the cash was gambling winnings, and later provided proof of those earnings and past tax records, Walden still refused to return the money. Seven months later, due to the illegal process of obtaining the funds, the cash was returned; after which Fiore sued Walden for violating, what she claimed, were her Fourth Amendment rights. Walden moved to dismiss the case due to lack of personal jurisdiction - if Fiore wanted to sue him in Georgia, she would need to do so there, not in Nevada.
Personal Specific Jurisdiction vs Personal General Jurisdiction
Fiore was advised that she could continue with their lawsuit in Nevada because Walden’s actions in Georgia “individually targeted Fiore and Walden in Nevada, and thus were expressly aimed at Nevada”, therefore Walden intended to harm their “way of life” by withholding their cash. However, that would make it a case of general jurisdiction rather than specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction is based on the defendants home whereas specific jurisdiction would be ruled in the state in which the event occured.
Pay Up! and provide Due Process
Walden filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court. The Court’s order granting the petition stated that the parties should address the issue of “whether due process permits a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose sole ‘contact’ with the forum State is his knowledge that the plaintiff has connections to that State.” Moreover, it is not enough that he may have harmed someone who resides in the forum. He must have contact with the forum itself, not simply with the plaintiffs. Do you think that Walden and Fiore were provided due process in each scenario? Why or why not?
Conclusion
The due process clause does not allow courts to exercise personal jurisdiction where the defendant does not have substantial contacts with the state. This resulted in an unanimous decision for Walden.
This is really interesting! My first thought is that the spirit of the fifth amendment is violated by civil asset forfeiture policies and the court's willingness to uphold them. The fifth amendment says an individual cannot be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". From the article, it seems that the DEA agent was tipped off by agents in San Juan that money that had been discovered during the screening process and justified the seizure based on the assumption that such a large quantity of cash couldn't be legitimately acquired. Not only does it seem Fiore's due process was violated with the original seizure in Atlanta, it was extended with the unnecessary delay of the return of the money once incontrovertible evidence was provided.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Lauren! I’m curious about Walden’s move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. If that had been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals, would the entire case have been dismissed altogether or would the case simply have moved forward in Georgia?
ReplyDeleteIt's my understanding, and I may be wrong, but I would imagine that as long as the case falls within whatever the statutory time limits apply, they could refile in the proper court of jurisdiction.
DeleteI believe that is correct. Walden mentioned if they wanted to sue him for improper jurisdiction that she could in Georgia, but not Nevada. If she had dropped the charges in Nevada, I believe she could have refiled in Georgia - but does that then provide an issue of jurisdiction for them?
DeleteBecause this is a civil case, the primary consideration is the harm sustained as a result of the actions of the defendant. Because these are professional gamblers who needed their winnings to continue engaging in their profession, the bulk of the harm sustained was lost potential income forfeited as a result of the inability to use those winnings to enter gambling tournaments over the months during which the DEA agent refused to return the money, after having been presented sufficient evidence that the money was not illegally obtained. These months of being unreasonably limited were endured in Nevada which, I would argue, creates a strong enough connection to the state to justify the claim of personal jurisdiction. Additionally, the DEA agent, knowing they resided in Nevada, continued to cause them harm while they lived in Nevada, despite evidence that he was doing so unjustly, even if the initial seizure can be justified.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question of whether Walden was provided due process, I would say no. Due process for personal jurisdiction over a defendant requires that a defendant have significant contacts with the forum state. Had the search and seizure occurred in Nevada this would be different. But Walden’s contact with the plaintiff occurred in Atlanta. He never conducted any activities related to the plaintiff in Nevada, thus the court in Nevada does not have personal jurisdiction over Walden.
ReplyDeleteFiore was also deprived of due process in relation to the search and seizure that occurred in Atlanta. Simply put, there was no probable cause for the search and seizure, and they were deprived of their property without due process of the law.
This case should have been brought in the 11th District Court in Atlanta, Georgia. Though Fiore may have experienced later damages due to the event, Walden had insufficient contact with Nevada and thus could not be sued there.
DeleteThere is an interesting angle with diversity of citizenship and amount of the claim. I took a brief look at the Supreme Court decision and I don't believe that it mentions the amount claimed in damages but presumably it would be over the $75,000 required in Federal cases. Both issues appear to be red herrings and the actual issue involves where the action took place.
After reading the case, I must admit, if I were in Fiore's shoes, I too would have felt confused, embarrassed and violated. I would have felt that my Amendment IV rights of unreasonable searches and seizures had been breached by DEA Agent Walden. However, if I were in the shoes of DEA Agent Walden and had received a tip from the police in San Juan about possible drug connections, then I would have felt it my duty, under probable cause, to act in order to help keep our country free of drugs and criminals.
ReplyDeleteBecause this incident between the plaintiff and defendant took place in Georgia, the forum state of Nevada does not have long arm jurisdiction over Walden due to the minimum contact rule. Walden has no contact with the state of Nevada except the contact that occurred between him and Fiore in the Atlanta airport, therefore, the forum state cannot exercise general or personal jurisdiction over Walden.
The Walden v. Fiore case is a fascinating case. Jurisdiction in cases was/is a fuzzy concept in my mind. Listening to the oral arguments on the Oyez website Lauren provided was both helpful and super interesting. I highly recommend streaming it. I’ve pasted the actual language of part of the decision below too because it was helpful for me to read. The idea that a court’s power to hear cases is limited by specific factors (and why) is an intriguing concept. My first reaction was that the loss of cash suffered by Forie is entirely unfair and couldn’t possibly have been due process. However, the law sets the court’s control over persons and property, and it does not have the legal authority to pass judgment on cases where it does not have jurisdiction to do so. Why? As I understand it, a person should be able to reasonably expect to be sued in court in an area in which they have minimal contact. So, if I live in California, you couldn’t bring a suit against me in New York, just because that’s where you wanted to sue me. Suing me where I have no contact or connection is not fair to me (or in this situation, to Walden).
ReplyDeleteIn this particular case, the Supreme Court decided that Walden did not have minimal contact in Nevada where the lawsuit was filed—therefore, the court did not have the authority to pass judgment. It is a matter of fairness for those those being sued.
Opinion Announcement - February 25, 2014
(This is the last part of the opinion—skipping a recounting of the facts.)
In an opinion filed with the clerk today, we reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit.
In order to determine whether the Federal District Court in Nevada was authorized to exercise jurisdiction over petitioner, we ask whether a Nevada state court could exercise jurisdiction over him consistent with the limits imposed by the Due Process Clause.
That inquiry focuses on the relationship between the defendant and the forum State.
This relationship must arise out of context that defendant himself creates with the forum.
The plaintiff cannot be the only link.
Applying these basic principles, we conclude that petitioner lacks the minimum contacts with Nevada required for the exercise of jurisdiction over him.
All of petitioner's alleged conduct occurred in Georgia.
None of that had anything to do with Nevada.
Respondents contend that they suffered the effects of the delayed return of their cash while residing in Nevada, but respondents would have experienced these effects wherever they happen to be -- could have been in California for example.
This alleged injury does not tie petitioner to Nevada in any meaningful way.
For these reasons and others set forth in our opinion, we reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit.
The opinion of the court is unanimous.
Here is the link again to stream the oral arguments and the opinion announcement that Lauren provided. The ability to stream is on the left upper section of the website. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-574
Very interesting Lauren. I'm curious who advised Fiore that the case could proceed in Nevada, and why establishing whether the damage was inflicted in Nevada or in Georgia made any difference in Fiore's argument. It seems to me that suing Walden in Georgia right out of the gate would have been the best move since it is where the illegal seizure took place in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Fiore was interested in proceeding in Nevada because it was her home state. This would mean less travel and the ability to secure local representation. I also wonder if Nevada is less law-enforcement friendly than Georgia. Finally, in Georgia, a plaintiff having won $100,000 from gambling may be less relatable than in Nevada, where gambling is more visible and more likely to be an accepted career choice. This is a fun case!
DeleteInteresting points Kate! I am curious as well, jurisdiction is a pretty easy issue to sort out at the beginning of a lawsuit and it seems like a prudent Nevada attorney would advise Fiore to retain Georgia counsel to handle this matter.
DeleteAt my firm, most of our cases go to the Silver Summit Third District Court or the Heber Fourth District Court. We do have one case, however, that is in Federal District Court and is against a diplomat so not only are there jurisdictional issues, but also potential diplomatic immunity issues that may preclude the case from moving forward. Those issues are still be sorted out but by the time they are, the matter at issue may become moot.
Kate, I think that is a really great point where gambling is more visible, legal, and accepted as a means of living in Nevada over Georgia. I wonder if the plaintiff thought a jury would rule in her favor because of the culture in Nevada vs. Georgia.
DeleteAnother article I read spoke about how the seizing of funds caused damages to the plaintiffs (since it was their livelihood) and prevented them from living as they had previously - so, it was Walden that had "intended" to harm their way of life even after they provided the correct paperwork to prove that it was obtained legally. I thought this was interesting and tried to step into Walden's shoes and why he would not return the funds to Fiore, even after she provided him with the correct paperwork. My initial thought is that he still believed it was obtained illegally but, in my readings for this post, discovered that he assumed that the state of Georgia would be able to keep the cash. What would Walden get out of this? No idea...
I admit I'm sympathetic to Fiore's contention that the false probable cause statement was drafted only when she was back on her home state's soil, and I agree with the Ninth Circuit's reversal noting that Walden knew Fiore had "significant Nevada connections" at the time he filed his falsified statement. Still, the unanimity of the SCOTUS reversal, after granting a writ of cert, is compelling: the victims experienced their loss while in Nevada, but none of the crime itself took place there.
ReplyDeleteDoes this set a precedent for airport-based law enforcement to retain a "home court advantage," as long as they limit their mistreatment to passengers who reside out-of-state? With the increasing spotlight on DEA,, ICE, CBP, and TSA officers' alleged actions in the name of national security, it will be interesting to see which future cases might call back to this one, and how future courts might find in an increasingly mobile society.
Erin, I agree with what you just said. As I researched this post a little more, I found that airport agents invoke civil forfeiture a lot. Since civil forfeiture requires no proof of criminal wrong doing, it will be very interesting to see, as you said, how airport-based law enforcement continue to use this tactic and how it affects jurisdiction. I realize that this is meant to be an example of personal jurisdiction, but I just went down the civil forfeiture rabbit hole and...wow.
ReplyDeleteCivil asset forfeiture has been a hot topic for a long time based on various law enforcement incentives to seize assets. There has been attention drawn to this issue in our state and some recent legislative changes to mitigate incentives and increase the ability for innocent owners to reclaim their property. You bring up an interesting point about the difficulties of getting back property seized in forfeitures. Often the trouble to recover property is such a burden that people give up.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCorporations or businesses use the federal courts disputes for their advantage and benefit. Why? Andrea Figler Ventura, Associate, Dykema Gossett LLP who served as a law clerk for the United States District Court for the Central district of California says.
ReplyDelete“Although overworked, federal judges generally have more time to read the pleadings and take the time to analyze the motions that are coming in front of them,”
Not all corporations are eligible to take their cases into federal courts. As a corporation o business you have to take the chance to make a move and use all your resources to take your case to a federal court instead going to a state court. It is clear that in order to take cases to federal court you have to meet two criteria, a case arising from the Constitution or have a federal question. Federal court takes the time to analyze meticulously jurisdictional issues.
On the other hand, it is also time sensitive for a corporation to use their 30 days’ window to take their cases to federal court. Corporations take all their resources to end up in a federal trial court, because their case can be decided on the papers alone. Cases can be dismissed in these circumstances. This is a great way for corporations not to spend money in lawyers to argue a case. Federal court judges typically are more likely to dismiss a case on an initial motion because they analyze cases based on the letter of the law, they do not interpret the reasoning of the law as state court judges do, (interpretation of the law can lead to a more complex diverse judicial decision) therefore corporations take this instance to their advantage. Federal court judges are appointed by the president so they are seeking general mandate and perhaps favor corporations where political issues arise to protect their own interest.
Also federal trials move faster and sometimes plaintiffs do not have any evidence for supporting their allegations. Keeping in mind that federal law requires mandatory disclosure. That is why in some cases settlements happen sooner at low cost. In conclusion individuals might be in a weaker position, corporations take the easiest and the fastest way to settle at lower cost.
(http://www.sbnonline.com/article/how-moving-your-case-to-federal-court-could-benefit-your-business/)
What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas - or does it?
ReplyDeletePlaintiff filed a dispute in the Nevada District Court, it had to be dismissed because the searched was performed in Georgia that cannot stablish a personal jurisdiction in Nevada. Based on my research, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dispute acknowledging that the defendant acted knowingly that the plaintiff will be affected for their significant connections in Nevada. The due process limits state authority to bind a nonresident to a judgment of its courts. Plaintiff must proof that the defendant has certain minimum contacts were the injure was caused. The plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum. Meaning that Walden lacks of minimum contacts with Nevada. The search has not occurred in that jurisdiction even if the injured could possibly occurred in Nevada, it is not a good reasoning to stablish jurisdiction based on due process.
This is a difficult and complex case that I agree with Walden receiving the “unanimous decision,” because I believe it should have been a simple case. When the DEA was most likely tipped off to the large sum of money, it does inspire the thought of “drug money!” I don’t think anyone would argue that cutting off either the funds or the product should be every DEA agent’s objection. The part where the DEA caused an infringement on the constitutional rights of Walden is when proof of earnings was provided. If a citizen can produce documents showing that they earned the funds and paid taxes on the funds, why would it not be a simple return? If I can show my employer my timecard, I expect to receive the funds earned. Walden earned the funds.
ReplyDeleteThere is also a vein of due process problems that continued through the case and I wonder if this may have been a tactic to get Walden to walk away from the funds. The presumption of innocence seems to be negated by the officers of the DEA and may have caused them to hold onto the funds without full due process rights considerations.
Sorry I’m late to the conversation. Just barely got back into service. I find this case interesting not just for the jurisdiction matter, which makes sense to me given the mayhem that would abound in allowing people to sue whomever they’d like from around the country without some defined criteria for how and where the cases could be heard. This is a great example of why establishing general and specific personal jurisdiction is so critical, particularly for local, tribal, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Most law enforcement officers stand a good chance of interacting with the residents from within the state they work, setting up general personal jurisdiction if a lawsuit ensues. However that isn’t always the case. In Walden’s particular case, like so many law enforcement officers and agencies that work in transit hubs such as an airport, bus terminal or train depot, the jurisdiction criteria help avoid law enforcement agencies from having to fight claims against them within multiple or distant courts. The cost to those public entities, if these jurisdictional standards didn’t exist, would be depleting. I also find it interesting that the claim was filed against Walden personally and not the DEA. There are so many protections in place that typically make it difficult to sue a federal employee personally for actions taken while performing his or her job.
ReplyDelete