Using TLB to Teach Civil Procedure (2026 update)

As the fall semester gets underway, we are updating our posts on using resources on TLB to teach various classes. This post gathers materials that can complement a standard civil procedure course, whether by providing concise overviews of doctrines, distilling Supreme Court developments, or suggesting recent cases that can spark discussions of perennial procedural issues.

Personal Jurisdiction

TLB has an updated primer on personal jurisdiction that can provide a useful summary for 1Ls or serve as a refresher for upper level courses.

TLB also has multiple posts related to the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Fuld v. PLO (2025) and Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway (2023). This post briefly summarizes (and provides some perspective on) the opinions in Fuld v. PLO, while this post considers what the implications of Fuld might be  for federal statutes like the FSIA. Our coverage of the Fuld oral arguments includes a rather prescient recap, as well as an even more concise summary rendered in haiku. This post explains how the lower federal courts were analyzing Rule 4(k)(2) before Fuld.

Over the last year, we have been tracking how federal courts are grappling with how to apply Fuld. These posts might be too in the weeds for 1Ls, but are a good resource for teachers curious about the current state of judicial thinking. (Look out for some upcoming posts on some recent D.C. Circuit opinions as well!)

As for Mallory, if you aren’t planning to assign the Court’s opinion, you can assign the TLB summary instead. If you are planning to assign Mallory, this Throwback Thursday post on Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites (1982) provides helpful context for Justice Jackson’s concurrence. More materials are available here.

Over the last year, we have covered some appellate decisions that address cutting-edge questions for Fourteenth Amendment personal jurisdiction:

• Last spring, I assigned the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Doe v. Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft to my 1Ls: it raises a really close question of nexus (what it means for a claim to “relate to” a forum), with a discussion-worthy analysis of reasonableness to boot.
• Ingrid covered a Fifth Circuit decision that addresses the limits of Ford‘s “fostering a market for a product” rationale (I modeled my spring exam on this case).
• Hannah highlighted a circuit split about when an e-commerce site can be said to have purposefully availed itself of a particular forum, with a focus on a Ninth Circuit en banc decision.

If you teach Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, consider assigning John’s Primer on Forum Selection Clauses and his post on using forum selection clauses to assert personal jurisdiction over non-signatories. I also like to assign my post clarifying that the “principal place of business” test for general jurisdiction is not necessarily the same as the nerve center test for diversity jurisdiction (tl;dr: don’t Hertz the Daimler test!).

Forum Non Conveniens

If you don’t have time to teach Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981)—or even if you do—consider assigning our Primer on Forum Non Conveniens as a concise summary of the doctrine that also touches on its history and how the federal doctrine differs from state doctrines. This post goes into greater detail about state doctrines of forum non conveniens, which sets up an interesting Erie debate: should state doctrines of forum non conveniens apply in diversity cases? To illustrate the stakes of that question, consider assigning this post as well, which discusses an example of what Zach Clopton calls “catch and kill jurisdiction”: Boeing first used snap removal to remove a tort case to federal court despite the forum defendant rule and then got the case dismissed from its home jurisdiction using the federal doctrine of forum non conveniens when the state doctrine likely would not have allowed it to do so.

We also recommend this post on Gore v. U.S. Steel Corp. (1954), the New Jersey Supreme Court case that was the first to allow forum non conveniens dismissals of cases brought against local defendants. The racial context of Gore provides a helpful counterpoint to the Supreme Court’s dismissive characterization of foreign plaintiffs’ claims in Piper.

Choice of Law (Erie)

Speaking of Erie, choice of law is an important building block for 1Ls, yet one that civil procedure professors can’t cover in depth. The TLB Primer on Choice of Law provides a concise introduction to the topic, including an introduction to the major methodologies used by different states. Most casebooks squib Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., Inc. (1941) despite its significance. To explore a bit more the import of Klaxon’s solution—as well as what possible alternatives there might be—consider assigning John Parry’s post on Federal Law and Choice-of-Law Reform.

Other student-friendly posts:

• Further Thoughts About Missouri’s COVID Suit Against China
• Ninth Circuit Decides Cassirer in Favor of Spain – and the California state legislature responds
• For more on the Cassirer case, see here and here (noting the California Supreme Court’s refusal to accept a certified question of state law on remand)

Service of Process and Discovery

Service of process and discovery are both good topics for flagging the existence of—and challenges presented by—transnational litigation. Our Primer on Transnational Discovery is an excellent tool in this regard: it concisely introduces readers to the challenges of cross-border discovery and the variety of tools that have developed to address it. You might also assign our Primer on Service of Process, which focuses on the question of how to serve foreign defendants.

TLB coverage has long drawn attention to whether the Hague Service Convention and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) permit service by email on defendants in other countries, in particular China. This last year, both the Second Circuit and the Seventh Circuit addressed this question (joining an earlier unpublished Third Circuit opinion).

Other discussion starters include:

• What are the implications of China’s new data secrecy law for U.S. discovery?
• What if the U.S. Government says that discovery in a case in which it is not a party would threaten U.S. national security interests?
• How should U.S. courts handle Russia’s refusal to fulfill its obligations under the Hague Service Convention?
• Can parties contract to waive the service requirements of the Hague Service Convention?