Civ Pro

Front 1

Jurisdiction

Back 1

-Subject Matter Jurisdiction
-Personal Jurisdiction

Front 2

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Back 2

1) Diversity jdx:
A) 2 parties, different states (physical presence and state of mind determine where domicile is)
B) above $75,000
2) Federal Question jdx:

Front 3

Hawkins v. Masters

Back 3

- Subject matter jdx; diversity jdx
- Whether the "loser" lived in Kansas with his wife or Missouri with his mother
- If your just looking at a complaint you have to assume all allegations regarding jurisdiction are true; if a motion has been files you can look at the other available facts. Plaintiff has burden of proof.

Front 4

Personal jdx

Back 4

Where you live or where the act takes place

Front 5

Bridges v. Diesel

Back 5

-Plaintiff did not file charge with the EEOC until after commencement of this action
-Defendant moves for sanctions pursuant Rule 11

Front 6

Rule 11 is violated only if:

Back 6

-At the time of signing, the signing of the document files was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances

Front 7

The prime goal of Rule 11 is:

Back 7

-deterrence of improper conduct;
-in this case monetary sanctions are not necessary to deter further improper conduct;
-the attorney recognized his mistake and attempted to rectify the situation

Front 8

Rule 11 sanctions should be reserved for:

Back 8

those exceptional circumstances where the claim asserted is patently unmeritorious or frivolous; not designed to be a fee shift

Front 9

Haddle v. Garrison

Back 9

-Petitioner stated 2 grounds for relief (one for conspiracy to deter him from testifying in the upcoming trial and one for conspiracy to retaliate against him)
- Defendants file a 12 b 6 (failure to state a claim); we must assume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true
-Haddle has failed to state a federal claim upon which relief can be granted; reversed by supreme court

Front 10

Conley v. Gibson (Rule 8 interpretation)

Back 10

-Railroad workers; wrongful discharge
-Defendants file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
-Court interrpreted Rule 8: notice pleading: all you really have to do is give the defendant fair notice as to what the claims are

Front 11

Twombly (Rule 8 interpretation)

Back 11

-Requires that the claim has to be nudged from conceivable to plausible which obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible
-conclusory allegations do not suffice; plaintiff must allege some facts leading to inference of an unlawful act

Front 12

Iqbal (Rule 8 interpretation)

Back 12

-To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true (legal conclusions are inapplicable), to:
"state a claim of relief that is plausible on its face"

Front 13

A claim is plausible on its face when:

Back 13

-the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Front 14

Erikson v. Pardus

Back 14

-Prisoner; Hep C treatment
-Supreme Court held that the district court erred in their dismissal for failure to state a claim
-The allegations in question were not too conclusory and were enough to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2)

Front 15

Stradford v. Zurich

Back 15

-Dentist office flood; insurance claim; fraud
-Defendants counterclaims alleged fraud
-Plaintiff moves to dismiss counterclaims bc of violation to Rule 9(b); they fail to identify the statement made by Dr. Stradford that they claim to be fraud
-Court grants leave to ammend the pleading to conform with Rule 9(b)

Front 16

Substitutionary Remedies

Back 16

a.Compensatory
Economic: damages that will compensate the plaintiff for money he has either lost or will have to pay
Noneconomic: loss of consortium, humiliation, harm to reputation (pain and suffering)
b.Liquidated, statutory, and punitive damages

Front 17

Punitive Damages

Back 17

1) the degree of reprehensability of the defendant's misconduct
2) 9-1 ration between punitive and compensatory damages
3) the disparity between the punitive damages and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases

Front 18

Standard of Review

Back 18

De Novo: Requires appellate courts reviewing punitive damage awards to give them closer scrutiny that other judgments; courts gives them substantive due process.

Front 19

Specific Remedies

Back 19

-Injunctions: Courts may order parties to do things or to refrain from doing them (Equitable Relief);
- Replevin: enlist the help of officals in recapturing personal or real property from defendant wrongfully possessing or occupying it (Legal Relief)
-Seesaw: harm to plaintiff if an injunction were not granted v. the threat of harm to defendant if an injunction were granted

Front 20

Sigma Chemical v. Harris

Back 20

-balancing the interests of the parties who might be affected by the court's decision
-Sigma is entitled to permanent injunction relief; on appeal injunction was modified

Front 21

Fee Shift

Back 21

-For any action or proceeding to enfornce civil rights statutes the court has discretion to award the prevailing party fees.
-Christianburg, prevailing plaintiff. (one way fee shift)

Front 22

Buckhannon v. WV DHHR

Back 22

-Catalyst theory: a plaintiff is a prevailing party if it achieves the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct
-Lacks the necessary judicial imprimatur on the change
-A request for attorneys' fees should not result in a second major litigation

Front 23

Temporary Remedies:

Back 23

1. Preliminary Injunctions and Temporary Restraining Orders
2. Provisional Remedies and Due Process

Front 24

Winter v. NRDC

Back 24

-preliminary injunction imposing restrictions on the Navy's sonar training
-possibility standard is too lenient; plaintiffs seeking preliminary relief must demonstrate that irreparable injury is "likely" in the absence of an injunction
-injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that may only be rewarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief
-pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the injunction

Front 25

A plaintiff seeking priliminary injunction must:

Back 25

-establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits;
-that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief;
-that the balance of equities tip in his favor; and
-that an injunction is in the public interest.

Front 26

For a case requesting a preliminary injunction, courts must:

Back 26

-balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of granting or withholding of the requested relief
-pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction

Front 27

Fuentes v. Shevin

Back 27

-Procedural due process: parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in an order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified.
-The right to notice and to be hear must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.
-The right to a prior hearing attaches only to the deprivation of an interest encompassed within the 14th ammendent.
-The court ruled that even temporary deprivation of property, so long as it was significant, was subject to the constraints of due process.

Front 28

Extraordinary situations that justify postponing notice and opportunity for a hearing:

Back 28

1) the seizure has been directly necessary to secure an important governmental or general public interest
2) there has been a special need for very prompt action
3) the person initiating the seizure has been a government offical

Front 29

Walker v. Norwest

Back 29

-failed to establish complete diversity; didn't move to ammend or dismiss the claim
-defendant moved to dismiss and asked for an award of sanctions
-Rule 11 proceeding for abuse of discretion (if it bases its ruling on an errorenous view of the law)

Front 30

Mattell

Back 30

Whether the court erred in awarding sanctions for a Rule 11 motion by potentionally considering misconducts not to be sanctioned under Rule 11 in its reasoning?

Front 31

Rule 11 permits the district court to sanction an attorney for conduct regarding:

Back 31

pleadings, written motions, and other papers