New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here


by: Lexi Runte


Lexi Runte
GPA 3.9

Robin Craig

Almost Ready


These notes were just uploaded, and will be ready to view shortly.

Purchase these notes here, or revisit this page.

Either way, we'll remind you when they're ready :)

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Robin Craig
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Course

Popular in Law

This 12 page Class Notes was uploaded by Lexi Runte on Thursday September 17, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to LAW 5300 at Florida State University taught by Robin Craig in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 90 views. For similar materials see /class/205617/law-5300-florida-state-university in Law at Florida State University.




Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 09/17/15
Table of Contents Personal Jurisdiction Hess v Polawski International Shoe v Washington Mnllane v Cent Hannover Bank Subject Matter Jurisdiction UM W of America v Gibbs Venue Erie Doctrine Pleadings Bell Atlantic v T wombly Joinder Claims Parties Interpleader Discovery Pre Trial Adjudication Personal Jurisdiction PJ Territorial 1 Personal Jurisdiction addresses questions about authority of a court to exercise power over an individual or entity and adjudicate their rights 39 PJ really involves one issuegtIn what states can P sue D gtAnalysis is exactly the same in Federal and State Court To have PJ court must have power over one ofthe following 1 Power over D himsel 2 Power of D s property both real and personal Vocabulary In Personam Jurisdiction court has power over D himself eg because of some contact with forum In rem Jurisdiction power of D s propertyithe dispute itself is about who owns this property gtConstitutionally property has to be attached at the outset of the case Quasi In Rem J urisdiction power over D s propertyithe dispute has nothing to do with ownership of the property This is jurisdiction to render judgment against a person and recovery in the action is limited to the value of the property owned by that person gtThis dispute would have been in personam if we could have obtained jurisdiction on that ground gtConstitutionally property has to be attached at the outset of the case Note We ALWAYS prefer In Personam Jurisdiction How do we know whether a court has power gtDue Process Clause of the 1439h Amendment sets the outer boundaries and tells courts how far they can reach jurisdictionally gtStates must have a statute that grants personal jurisdiction in a case How far this right extends is a political question Statutes granting jurisdiction can grant rights to the full extent of the Due Process Clause or less not more Steps for Analyzing Personal Jurisdiction STEP 1 Look for a Statuteiif one is present and the case in question falls with in its limits proceed STEP 2 Assess constitutionality of Plithis is developed below for each of the forms of PT A In Personam Jurisdiction General in personam D can be sued in the forum on a claim that arose anywhere in the world Speci c in personam D is being sued on a claim that has some connection with the forum eg claim itself arose from activities in the forum I Constitutional Limits Pennayer v Ne Sale of property by sheriff s auction after a default judgment from failure to respond to servicei original claim sought atty fees service was published in newspaper in forum state Oregon not in PS state P l was not a resident of the forum state and was not personally served with process default judgment against property invalid could have gotten judgment property was not attached to original suit Court did not have jurisdiction therefore a ruling would be in Violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14 h Amendment What to take away from this gtA state has power over people and things within that state gtTraditional Bases D served with process in the forum subject to general jurisdiction gtalso referred to as presence 2 D s agent served with process in the forum 3 D is domiciled in the forum subject to general jurisdiction 4 D consents to jurisdiction waiver gtIt was very tough to get in personnm jurisdiction under these factors D could easily commit a tort within a state and if he left before being served with process could not be hailed into court in that state Hess v PalnwskiiCar accident in Mass between a Mass resident and Penn resident H and H left the state before being served with process Penn resident claims that Mass court does not have personal jurisdiction over him because he was not personally served process in the state of Mass Mass had a Non resident Motorist Act which created implied consent for anyone operating a motor vehicle within the state and served process to an appointed representative agent within Mass Supreme Court SC says Act is constitutional and that process was therefore served in a manner that comported with Due Process Mass court does have jurisdiction on this basis What to take away from this gtSC expands the traditional bases by holding consent now includes implied consent as such D was served within state on this basis state can infer if you drive on its roads that you consent to its jurisdiction gtNon resident Motorist Actiby operating a motor vehicle in a state you have appointed an agent for services of process within that state Every state has this today Modern Doctrine of PJ International Shae v Washington suit for payment of contributions to an unemployment contribution fund in Washington b a Delaware corporation An agent of the business was served with process within the state SC held that 39 mmmw must exist in order to not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice Contacts at this pomt had to be my ivjmr w 1 What to take away from this gt New doctrinal formula State has jurisdiction ifthe D has such rm quot nnJUU Exercise of jurisdiction on this basis does not offend traditional notions of fair pl gtThis test is very exible and led to an expansion ofjurisdiction gtMade it clear that services of process outside of the forum state is effective gtThere seems to be 2 parts to this test 1 L 39 39 gym quot 39 gtNOTE nowhere does this case purport to overrule Pennayer jurisdiction is still valid with the forum substantial justice ay and presence personal service as a test of McGee v International Life Ins Co SC 1 95 7 7 P Resident of CA purchases Life Ins rom AZ corporation P gets a letter from D offering to insure under the terms of the AZ corp P accepts offer to be insured by D P pays premiums to A s office in Texas P dies and wife wants to collect on PS policy but D refuses to pay Wife brings suit in CA court where she wins goes to Texas and tries to get Texas court to enforce CA court ruling Texas court says no jurisdiction over D SC says CA court did have jurisdiction over A Note it was only one contract What to take away from this gtPJ was upheld even on one contact because 1 D solicited contract from Californiaireached out to California for the sale P s claim arose directly from D s contact with California 3 m l California had a strong interest in defending against this case eg contract was delivered to the state premiums were mailed out of state and PS mother wife was a resident of state Hanson v Dencklo A trust was established in Delaware by Penn resident who later moved to Florida She made changes to the trust at the time she formed her will from Florida When it came time to split trust there was disagreement among bene ciaries in Delaware and in FL A claim was led in Florida court against out of state bene ciary and trust company Florida court made ruling on appointment and validity of trust Out of state bene ciary led another suit in Delaware saying FL court did not have the power to rule on the issue SC rules there was not suf cient minimum contacts of the trust company in FL D trust company had no office in Florida and transacted no business there None of the trust assets has ever been held or administered in Florida and the record discloses no solicitation of business in that state either in person or by mail What to take away from this gtCourt found no jurisdiction over the Delaware trust company on the basis of no gtNo relevant contact to be relevant contact under International Shoe the contact must result from l gtThis means that D reached out to the forum in some way in attempt to avail itself for the purpose of some form of bene t gtTrust never did this its only contact was with the woman to continue doing business World Wide Volkxwogen v Woodson P purchased car in NY and then drove to Oklahoma where an accident occurred as a result of an apparent defect in the automobile Jurisdiction was granted for 2 of the defendants manufacturer and importer but not over other 2 defendants World Wide and Sea Way Motors SC said no personaljurisdiction over these 2 Ds because there was no minimum contacts with OK What to take away from this gtno jurisdiction because no relevant contact gtP brought suit in OK Worldwide only did business in NE area and Sea Way Motors only did business in NY gtCourt said no relevant contact because Ds did not reach out to OK no purposeful availment gtThis is sur risin fit was foreseeable this car would be taken to OK SC said it must be w39w am will 114 Ll 39 in quot3 an Burger King v Rndzewicz Suit for breach of contract for franchise agreement BK sues franchisees Michigan residents in FL court SC said D had purpose purposely availed themselves in the forum state 20 year contract business trips attended BK College all in FL This is not a violation of due process bc they reached out to the state and it was foreseeable they would be sued there also a forum selection clause present and traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice were not offended What to take away from this gtInternotionol Shoe has two part test Minimal contact and Reasonableness fairness m Franchisees satis ed cause they reached out to FL for a 20 year deal that said FL law would govern f uld travel ou want to comla1nt about the burden you this e gtWhat about fairness SC said D co the D must show m L 7 ANALYZE BASED ON THE CLAIM 1 Burden on D const1tutionally burdensome affect D s ability to raise defense 2 Forum State s Interest in adjudicating the dispute strengthened when statutes laws citizens or corporations are involved in litigation 3 P s interest in obtaining convenient and effective forum 4 Interstate judicial system s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies 5 Shared interest ofthe several states in furthering fundamental substantive policiesisocial policies Internet Cases Inset Systems Inc v Instruction Set Inc District Court 19967Trademark case P is Conn based company D is Mass based company P wants jurisdiction in Conn D says Conn doesn t have jurisdiction What to take away from this case gt Directed Advertising through the internet and toll free phone numbers are sufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts requirement in order to exercise personaljurisdiction over a D the company purposely avails itself to jurisdiction Court says marketing practices of D are enough to satisfy minimum requirements gtPATH NOT TAKENidon t pay much attention to it focus on Zippo Zippo Mfg Co v Zippo Dot ComiP is Penn based company D is CA based company P bringing suit for copyright infringement in Penn D says no jurisdiction D has no sales team or of ces in Penn but 2 of subscription internet service based in Penn Passive sitesido little more than make information available to users NO JURISDICTION Active sitesiD enters into contract with residents of a foreign jurisdiction knowingrepeated transmission of computer les if the defendant enters into contracts w residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer les over the Internet PERSONAL JURISDICTION Interactive sitesithe exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information gtIf advertising and sales result there is probably jurisdiction gtLook for where conduct is aimed Colder v Jones gtSome jurisdictions vary on the requirement for active v interactive sites to exercise jurisdiction YES MAYBE NO l l l l l Active sites Interactive sites Passive sites Young v New Haven Advocate Young alleging defamation by Connecticut papers for naming him when criticizing the prison there and the Connecticut policy of shipping its prisoners to other places since their prisons are so crowded Young les suit in Virginia and the current case is in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals arguably the most conservative Circuit Court on all issues Court modifies the rule from Zippo in order to establish jurisdiction r Young is focusrng only on spec1 cjunsd1ctron 1 A ll ll 1 Does defendant purposefully avail itself to business within the forum state Does plaintiff s claim arise out of forum related activities Is the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant constitutional Young argues that defendant knew that the effects of the defamation would be felt in Virginia where Young lives and was therefore foreseeable Court ruled that if the defendants knew that the defamation was directed at the plaintiff and that harm would be suffered there then personal jurisdiction could be established However the court ruled that the articles written by the defendant was not directed at Young and had many advertisements and information directed at Connecticut rather than Virginia Therefore there was no intent to target General Jurisdiction differences Perkins v Bengnet Consolidation Mning SC 1952 P sues because she never received stock dividends from several companies D s contacts to forum state bear no relationship to the action but were continuous and systematic What to take awa from this case gtIf there exist 2 quot ties with the forum state even if unrelated to the cause of action these will be sufficient to allow in personam jurisdiction within the forum state gtState has the choice of whether it wants to exercise jurisdiction MW 3 quot 7 Helicapteras v Halliwrongful death suit against a foreign corp who bought parts in TX Suit arose from crash in Peru and the action was not related to the corp s contacts with the forum state and contacts with state were not systematic and continuous What to take away from this case gtcontact with a forum state that is single and isolated and unrelated to the cause of action will not permit the forum state to exercise jurisdiction Contacts Classi cation Short list Continuous and Systematic and Related to cause of actioniin personam jurisdiction appropriateispeci c Continuous and Systematic and Unrelated to cause of action ossible in ersonam 39urisdiction eneral quotgtNeed to analyze whether the contacts can be uf 39 39 l MW Single and Isolated and Unrelated to cause of actionino personal jurisdiction Single and Isolated and Related to cause of actionipossible in personispeci c gtneed to proceed and apply International Shae two pronged test B In Rem and Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction Steps for analysis of Jurisdiction STEP 1 Find a statute not a long arm statute an attachment statue gtWe can proceed if there is property that D owns or claims to own STEP 2 Constitutional analysis gtno longer enough to just attach property because of Shn er Shn er v H eitner P brings action against of cers and directors of a Delaware company as result of antitrust claim Actions took place in Oregon P is nonresident of Delaware D is company incorporated in AZ but principle place of business in Delaware P is attempting to bring suit in Delaware What to take from this case gtFor In Rem and Quasi In Rem actions D must now meet International Shae test gtSome think minimum contacts is satis ed sim l b D having property in the forum in an in rem action i l I 39v Transient gTagGotcha Jurisdiction Burnham v Superior Ct ofCA NJ D served with process in divorce action while in CA on unrelated business What to take away from this case gtDoes the traditional basis of being served in the forum survive by itself I 3 Court unclear Scalia presence when served is its own basis Don t need to assess Int Shoe at all Brennan even with presence you must apply International Shae gtAlljustices said there wasjurisdiction in CA Generaljurisdiction gteven if there for only 3 days you availed yourself gton the traditional bases they may be good by themselves or they may be supplanted by minimal contacts gtFor this class usually said that if person is in the state and you personally serve them tag jurisdiction there are limits on this doesn t apply if someone was enticed to enter the state through fraud or misrepresentation II Statutory Inquiry On exam you engage in the statutory analysis rst and then proceed to the constitutional analysis If there is no state statute that confers power in the courts ofa forum state to exercise jurisdiction over a claim then there is NO JURISDICTION Statutes that exist in every state gt a series of in personam statutes gt statutes that gives general jurisdiction based upon service in the forum gt statute that gives general jurisdiction if you are domiciled in that sate gt a nonresident motorist statute that gives speci c jurisdictionijurisdiction only over nonresidents involved in a motor crash in the forum implied consent my allows jurisdiction over nonresidents Two types of long arm statutes gtThose that reach to the full extent granted by the Due Process Clause gtThose that do not apply the full extent of jurisdiction granted by the Due Process Clause gtusually give a series of things a nonresident can do that will subject him to jurisdiction within the state eg entering contract in state has land corporation etc gtalmost always speci c jurisdiction statutes III Exceptions to Jurisdictional Analysis Carnival Cruise Lines v Shnte P slipped and fell on ship while in waters off coast of Mexico Cruise left FL and PS ticket says that all disputes withD would take place in FL Court P brings suit in DC and D claims hearing must take place in FL What to take away from this case gtBremen a freely negotiated private international agreement unaffected by fraud undue in uence or overweening bargaining power such as that involved here should be given full affect gtForum Selection Clauses can serve as consent to jurisdiction in a particular forum state Other noteworthy exceptions gtState Domestication Statutes corporations could be made to consent to jurisdiction in order to do business Within a state need to address D s awareness that corporate registration etc can constitute consent gtConsent by EstoppelD refuses to comply with discovery orders such as instructions to produce information pertaining to forum connections sanction gtConsent after an L 39 special 1 l but 39 l 39 not before gt amp WaiverD can waive a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction just like a defendant can consent from the outset D has to raise the defense in the rst responsive motion or pleading that the D les gtChoice of law Clauses identify the law that will govern disputes arising under the contract and say nothing about the forum in which such a dispute must be litigate gtStatus when action concerns personal status of P eg divorce actions they can be adjudicated in state where P resides Sha er v Heitner gtState Citizens domicile in a state is suf cient to bring an absent D Within the reach of a state s jurisdiction Milliken v Meyer Look for Actual consent before resorting to the exceptions that are based on ctitious consent Notice Service of Process Territorial Geographic limits of Effective service Note Service of summons or waiver of service establishes jurisdiction over a defendant Who could be subjected to jurisdiction in a state court hence the relevance of state longarm statutes Who is joined under governs necessary and indispensible parties and is served within 100 miles of the place where the summons issues known as bulge jurisdiction this person has to be other than the main defendant Who is subject to federal statutory interpleader jurisdiction under or If a federal statute authorizes such jurisdiction opw P15 gtWe can serve process throughout the state in which the federal court sits gtalso says we can serve out of state only ifa state court in this state could do so eg Federal court in NY can only serve process outside NY if a state court can gt outside the forum state igive very narrow exceptions outside of these we cannot serve process If the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States Serving a summons or ling a waiver of service is effective to establish personal jurisdiction over A defendant who is not subject to the general jurisdiction of ANY state court So long as the claim arises under federal law B Constitutional Standard gtFederal courts apply the rules enumerated in the FRCP gtStates have a choice of using these rules or imposing stricter requirements gtStricter requirements must not violate constitutional standards 1 Process consists ofa summons and a copy of the complaint gtSummons is symbol of power over you what elements must be present in a summons requirements for issuance of summons summons must be served with copy of complaint 2 Service can be made by any nonparty who is at least age 18 Some states require someone appointed by the court 3 Services on individuals within the US gt may be served by any method following state law for serving summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction state where federal court sits gtFRCP doesn t really allow service by mail but States do and so does gt b doin any of the following 3 methods gt personal service delivering a copy of summons to individual personallyican be anywhere in forum state gt substituted serviceileaving a copyat the individual s dewing or usual place of abode hangout with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there gt serving D s agent that has been authorized by appointment or by law to receive 4 Service of Co oration Partnership or Association gt by a means prescribed in can serve an officer or a managing or general agent gtmanaging or general agent doesn t include all employees has to be someone with enough job responsibility that we can expect him to transmit important documents 5 Waiver of service gtfor individuals corporations or associations that are subject to service under who have a duty to avoid unnecessary eXpenses or serving summons Mullane v Cent Hannaver Bank Large trust in NY where several small trusts are joined together to lessen administrative costs Trust wanted to notify trust fund bene ciaries about fees Under NY law the only notice required to be given to bene ciaries was by publication D gave notice by publication in local newspaper and B brings action charging that notice by publication is not sufficient under the Due Process Clause of the 14 Amendment Publication was sufficient for people whose interests and whereabouts are unknown not for bene ciaries whose whereabouts are known What to take away from this case mm HHg mm 1 has to be reasonably calculated under ALL the circumstances quotgtthere may be circumstances where publication notice is all we can do gtalwa s a last resort gt gry mi w i LH Ll u 39 to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the suit and afford them a meaningful opportunity to present objections Dusenbmy v US SC 2002 Property was being seized by the FBI FBI sent notice in line with the requirements of the Controlled Substances Act by sending it through certi ed mail to the jail wher petitioner was located to his mother s house and to the place where he was arrested There was no response to notice and FBI seized property Petitioner brought suit nearly 5 years later claiming he never received notice Officer at jail said that an of cer signs for certi ed mail and then it is distributed among inmates gtthe reasonableness ofa method to serve process cannot be succinctly calculated it is a determination of the court based on precedent and judicial interpretation Jones v Flowers SC 2006 P paid mortgage company for his house and mortgage company paid taxes P and wife separated and P moved out but kept paying mortgage When mortgage was paid off taxes were no longer paid and property went into delinquency State attempted to notify P of this delinquency by mailing a certi ed letter to his house which was returned unclaimed Subsequently notice was also published in a local paper State sold the property to respondent P is trying to reclaim property on the grounds of insufficient notices What to take away from this case gtIf you become aware notice was not actually received Due Process may require you to pursue other available means of giving notice if it is practicable to do so Federal or State court If state court limits on state court jurisdiction apply If Federal court look to waiver of PJ challenge 2 Look to see if the state s long arm statute authorizes PJ under the fact pattern Either enumerates full power of Due Process Clause or something less 3 Proceed with a constitutional analysis to see if P comports with requirements of due process i Does traditional basis apply quotI V a gtIn state serviceiBurnhamnjurisdiction if not enticed instate by fraud gtVoluntary appearance has D voluntarily appeared gtException apply Consent Forum selection clause Carnival Cruise Lines Inc choice of law clause statute incorporation nonresident motorist clause Status concern status of P such as divorce State citizen who lives out of state Miliken V Meyer Estoppel ascent to P because of disobeying discovery ii Qualifyjurisdictional basis gtIn rem Sha er V Heitner in rem action property is probably enough to establish PJ gtQuasi in rem Sha eriisolated contact need to proceed with International Shoe test gtIn pesonam proceed with International Shoe test iii International Shoe test gtDetermine the type of contacts Continuous amp Systematic amp RelatediSpeci c JPJ appropriate Continuous amp Systematic amp Unrelatedipossible General Jineed to be substantial contacts compare w Perkins V Benguet good and Helicoperos V Hall not good enough Single amp Isolated amp Unrelatedino PJ Single amp Isolated amp RelatediSpeci c J fact pattern W iv Apply 2 pronged International Shoe test gtMinimum contacts Pnrposefnl Availment by D Hanson V Denckla contacts met go to reasonableness likelihood of me being sued in forum from these contacts Intentional Tort Calder V JonesiEffects testiD targets forum resident w tortuous act that had effect in forum state Contractual contact Burger KingiContract Plus testiplace of negotiation execution and performance of the contract Stream of commerce Asahi MetaliD must have intended product be marketed in forum state to have purposely availed itselfO Connor just in stream of commerceBrennan Brennan sliding scale more contacts less reasonableness and vice versa ok O Connor approach if no availment proceed with reasonableness anyway Internet case Zippo MfgiPassive site no PJ Active PJ Interactive more analysis of degree of interactivity and commercial nature of site gtReasonableness foreseeability likelihood D expected he could be hailed into court based on his contacts Five factor balancing test 1 Burden on the D hard to meet 2 State interest 3 P interest 4 promote interstate judicial ef ciency 5 Further shared substantive social olicies If both satis ed you have PJ r l l Standards Mullaneinotice must be reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the suit and afford them a meaningful opportunity to present objections Don t need actual notice Flowers if you become aware notice was not actually received Due Process may require you to pursue other available means of giving notice if it is practicable to do so Subject Matter Jurisdiction SMJ gtSMJ and PJ are different have nothing to do with each other can sue D in a particular state does not say what court we go to decide what court we go to Only really matters for Fed Court Are we oin to state or federal court gtFederal courts have meaning they can only hear certain kinds of cases establishes the constitutional limit to SMJ gtNeed diversity of citizenship or federal question jurisdictioniif not within one of these you can t go to Federal Court State courts have General SMJ can hear any case gtminor exceptionistate courts cannot here some federal question cases gtwhere there is exclusive federal jurisdiction patent infringement Federal antitrust gtoutside these any can go to state court SMJ Reguirements gtComplete Diversity Diversity of Citizenship Amount in Controversy OR gtFederal Question 1 Complete Diversity This is a STATUTE passed by Congress DO NOT call this a federal rule or say FRCP 1332 Two requirements for Diversity under 4 w r is a citizen of the same state can have 5 AZ Ps agains there is no diversity t t 10 C0 D5 you gtCitizenship of IndividualiA US citizen is a citizen of the state where domiciled gtOn y have one domicile at a time can only be citizen of one state and everyone has a domicile Domicile is established by i PresenceResidence in the state physically ii Intent to make that your perm anent home


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Jennifer McGill UCSF Med School

"Selling my MCAT study guides and notes has been a great source of side revenue while I'm in school. Some months I'm making over $500! Plus, it makes me happy knowing that I'm helping future med students with their MCAT."

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.