Civ. Pro.

Front 1

Personal Jurisdiction

1-Civ.Pro

Back 1

Personal Jurisdiction refers to the court's power over a particular defendant. Personal jurisdiction must be satisfied in both federal and state court.

Front 2

Traditional Bases

2-Civ.Pro

Back 2

Traditionally, there were three ways a court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. (1) when the defendant is personally "served" while being physically present in the forum state; (2) where the defendant consents to jurisdiction; and (3) when the defendant is domiciled in the forum state.

Front 3

Present in State when Served (Transient Jurisdiction)

3-Civ.Pro

Back 3

A defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction when he is personally served while being present in the forum state. But if the plaintiff gets the defendant to enter the forum state by fraud, service of process is invalid and the court cannot exercise in personam jurisdiction over the defendant.

Front 4

Present in State when Served

(California Distinction)

4-Civ.Pro

Back 4

Federal courts grant immunity from service of process for parties, witnesses, and attorneys who enter the state for the specific purpose of appearing in another case. However, California does not grant such immunity.

Front 5

Consent

5-Civ.Pro

Back 5

Personal jurisdiction is also proper when the defendant expressly or impliedly consent to jurisdiction. Consent is usually found: (1) when the defendant makes a general appearance and fails to contest personal jurisdiction at the earliest moment possible; (2) by contract; (3) by appointing an agent to accept service of process within the state; and (4) where the state has a non-resident motorist statute which subjects the defendant to jurisdiction if he has an accident in the state.

Front 6

Domicile

6-Civ.Pro

Back 6

Defendant who are domiciled in the state are subject to personal jurisdiction. Domicile refers to the place where the defendant lives with the intent to remain.

Front 7

Long Arm Statute

7-Civ.Pro

Back 7

A long arm statute gives a state the power to "reach out" and grab a non-resident defendant. Certain long arm statutes reach non-residents who perform certain acts within the state while others exercise jurisdiction to the fullest extent allowed by the constitution. California has an "unlimited" long arm statute.

Front 8

Constitutional Basis (Minimum Contact)

8-Civ.Pro

Back 8

Under the Due Process Clause, a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant so long as the defendant has sufficient minimum contact with the forum state so that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Factors to determine whether jurisdiction over defendant is constitutional are: (1) contact; (2) relatedness; and (3) fairness.

Front 9

Contacts (Purposeful Availment and Foreseeability)

9-Civ.Pro

Back 9

The defendant must have sufficient "contact" with the forum state so that the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable. The court must find that the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its law. Additionally, the defendant must reasonably anticipate that his activities with the forum state make it foreseeable that he might be "held into court" there.

Front 10

Relatedness (General and Specific Jurisdiction)

10-Civ.Pro

Back 10

Another factor to consider is whether the plaintiff's claim is "related" to the defendant's contacts with the forum state. When the cause of action is unrelated to the defendant 's contacts with the state, a greater showing of minimum contact must exist.

Front 11

Specific Jurisdiction (Related to the Defendant's Contacts)

11-Civ.Pro

Back 11

Specific jurisdiction exists when the plaintiff's claim arises out of the defendant's contacts with that state.

Front 12

General Jurisdiction ("Essentially at home" in the State)

12-Civ.Pro

Back 12

General jurisdiction requires that the defendant engage in "systematic and continuous" activities such that the defendant is "essentially at home" in the forum state. Unlike specific jurisdiction, general jurisdiction does not require the plaintiff's cause of action to relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum state. Thus, if general jurisdiction is satisfied, the defendant is subject to suit on any claim.

Front 13

Fairness (The Burger King Factors)

13-Civ.Pro

Back 13

In addition to having minimum contacts with the forum state, the exercise of jurisdiction must be fair and just. Factors to consider include: (1) the burden on the defendant; (2) the forum state's interest in providing redress for its residents; and (3) the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief.

Front 14

Personal Jurisdiction Snapshot

14-Civ.Pro

Back 14

Traditional Basis

(1) present in the state when served; (2) consent; (3) domicile

Constitutional Basis

"Minimum Contacts"

Contacts: (1) purposeful availment (stream of commerce); (2) foreseeability (anticipate being haled into court there)

Relatedness: (1) specific jurisdiction(relates to contacts); (2) general jurisdiction(systematic and continuous activities)

Fairness: (1) convenience; (2) the forum state's interest; (3) plaintiff's interest.

Front 15

In Rem Jurisdiction

15-Civ.Pro

Back 15

In rem jurisdiction refers to the court's power to adjudicate the rights of all persons with respect to a particular piece of property within its borders.

Front 16

Special Appearance

16-Civ.Pro

Back 16

In California, a defendant may make a "special appearance" and file a motion to quash service on the grounds that the court lacks personal jurisdiction. California allows the defendant to simultaneously raise other defenses, so long as the defendant immediately challenges personal jurisdiction.

Front 17

General Appearance

17-Civ.Pro

Back 17

A defendant consents to personal jurisdiction by making a general appearance. This happens when the defendant contests the merits of the case (such as by filing an answer) without challenging personal jurisdiction.

Front 18

California and Federal Distinction in Challenging Personal Jurisdiction

18-Civ.Pro

Back 18

In federal court, the defendant need not make a special appearance in order to contest jurisdiction. Lack of personal jurisdiction, as well as lack of subject matter jurisdiction, can be initially raised by motion or in the defendant's answer.

Front 19

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

19-Civ.Pro

Back 19

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court's ability to hear a particular type of case. A federal court may properly exercise subject matter jurisdiction in diversity actions and cases involving federal questions. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time even on appeal.

Front 20

Diversity Jurisdiction

20-Civ.Pro

Back 20

Diversity jurisdiction requires that (1) every plaintiff be completely diverse from every defendant; and (2) the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.

Front 21

Complete Diversity

21-Civ.Pro

Back 21

Complete diversity means that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Diversity must exist at the time the case is filed. It is immaterial if the parties had the same citizenship when the cause of action arouse or when the case goes to trial. Thus, diversity need only exist at the commencement or the action.

Front 22

Domicile of an Individual

22-Civ.Pro

Back 22

The citizenship of a person is based on domicile which is the place where the person lives with the intent to remain. In order to change domicile, the person must be (1) physically present in the new state; and (2) have the intent to permanently remain.

Front 23

Citizenship of Corporations

23-Civ.Pro

Back 23

For diversity purposes, a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of every state in which it has been incorporated and the "one" state where it has its principal place of business, which will typically be found at its corporate headquarters.

Front 24

Amount in Controversy

24-Civ.Pro

Back 24

In addition to complete diversity, the amount in controversy must exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is made in good faith.

Front 25

No Retroactive Application

25-Civ.Pro

Back 25

Subject matter jurisdiction is not retroactively defeated by the fact that judgment in ultimately entered for less than the jurisdictional amount.

Front 26

Value of an Injunction

26-Civ.Pro

Back 26

When the plaintiff seeks an injunction, the plaintiff may add the value of the injunction to his claim to satisfy the amount in controversy. Most courts calculate the amount of the injunction by determining the value to the plaintiff. Other courts look at the cost to the defendant.

Front 27

Aggregation of Claims

27-Civ.Pro

Back 27

A plaintiff may aggregate multiple claims to satisfy the amount in controversy: (1) a plaintiff may aggregate all the claims she has against the same defendant; (2) a plaintiff may aggregate claims against multiple defendants if they are jointly liable; and (3) multiple plaintiffs may aggregate their claims against one defendant when they are seeking to enforce a right in which they have a common undivided interest. The defendant's counterclaim may not be added.

Front 28

Federal Question Jurisdiction

28-Civ.Pro

Back 28

A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear any case arising under federal law or the U.S. Constitution. The federal claim must appear in the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint. Federal questions raised by the defendant's answer are irrelevant. Moreover, the plaintiff's anticipation of a defense based on federal law is irrelevant.

Front 29

Federal Preemption

29-Civ.Pro

Back 29

When Congress has entirely preempted state law on a matter, the plaintiff may not elude federal jurisdiction by electing not to plead the federal claim. Thus, if federal law "completely preempt" state law, the case may be removed by the defendant on federal question grounds because the only possible claim is federal.

Front 30

California Subject Matter Jurisdiction

30-Civ.Pro

Back 30

California classifies cases in three ways: (1) Unlimited Civil cases, the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000; (2) Limited Civil cases, the amount in controversy is $25,000 or less; and (3) Small Claims, the amount in controversy is generally $10,000 or less.

Note: if the defendant files a cross-complaint in a limited civil case that exceeds $25,000, the case will be reclassified as an unlimited civil case.

Front 31

Supplemental Jurisdiction

31-Civ.Pro

Back 31

When a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a "related" claim that would not independently satisfy subject matter jurisdiction if it arises from a common nucleus of operative fact as the claim that invoked subject matter jurisdiction. The supplemental claim must be part of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim.

Front 32

Supplemental Jurisdiction / Federal Question Cases

32-Civ.Pro

Back 32

When a plaintiff asserts both a federal claim and state law claim, a federal court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim if the two claims derive from a "common nucleus of operative fact" and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in one proceeding.

Front 33

Supplemental Jurisdiction / Diversity Cases

33-Civ.Pro

Back 33

In diversity cases, a claim that does not meet the amount in controversy requirement may invoke supplemental jurisdiction if it arises from a common nucleus of operative fact. But the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that would defeat the complete diversity requirement.

Front 34

Compulsory Counterclaims

34-Civ.Pro

Back 34

A compulsory counterclaim is a claim by the defendant against the plaintiff that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim. The defendant must bring it or it will be barred. A "compulsory" counterclaim does not need an independent basis. in California, it is called a compulsory "cross-complaint."

Front 35

Permissive Counterclaims

35-Civ.Pro

Back 35

A permissive counterclaim, one that arises out of an "unrelated" transaction, must have an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, supplemental jurisdiction does not apply to permissive counterclaims.

Front 36

Removal (From State to Federal Court)

36-Civ.Pro

Back 36

A defendant may remove a case from state court to federal court if the plaintiff could have originally filed the case in federal court. Only defendant can remove. If there is more than one defendant, all defendants must join in the removal. A notice of removal must be filed within 30 days from the time the case become removable.

Front 37

Removal (Continue)

37-Civ.Pro

Back 37

If the plaintiff amends the complaint to add a federal claim or to dismiss a non-diverse defendant, the defendant can then remove the case to federal court. But if the defendant asserts a defense based on federal law, the case is not removable. Under diversity jurisdiction, a case is not removable if any defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought.

Front 38

Remand (Back Down to State Court)

38-Civ.Pro

Back 38

Remand occurs when a federal court sends the case back to state court. If, at any time, the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case must be remanded and sent back to state court.

Front 39

Erie Doctrine (What Law Applies)

39-Civ.Pro

Back 39

In "diversity" actions in federal court, the court is required to apply federal procedural law and the substantive law of the state in which it sits. If there is a federal "procedural" rule on point, the court must follow it. If there is no federal rule on point, the court should determine whether the law is substantive or procedural, if the law is "arguably procedural" will apply federal law. If the law affects substantive rights, the court must follow state law.

Front 40

Tests to Determine Whether a Law is Substantive or Procedural

40-Civ.Pro

Back 40

(1) the outcome determinative test; an issue is substantive if it "significantly affect" the outcome of the case; (2) the balancing of interests test in which the court weighs both the federal and state interests in having its rule applied; and (3) whether application of state law would deter forum shopping. Furthermore, in diversity cases, state law determines whether a privilege exists.

Front 41

California's Choice of Law Rules

41-Civ.Pro

Back 41

When a case is filed in a "federal" court in California under diversity jurisdiction, the court will apply California's choice of law rules.

Front 42

California's Choice of Law Rules / Tort Cases (Governmental Interest Analysis)

42-Civ.Pro

Back 42

California applies the governmental interest analysis in tort cases. When the laws of two states conflict, the court determine to what extent each state has an "interest" in having its own law apply.

Front 43

California's Choice of Law Rules / Contract Cases (Choice of Law Provisions)

43-Civ.Pro

Back 43

In contract cases, California looks to the choice of law clause in the contract. Under this approach: (1) the court must first determine whether the chosen state has a substantial relationship to the parties or their transaction; (2) next, the court must determine whether the chosen state's law is contrary to a fundamental policy of California; and (3) whether California has a materially greater interest in the dispute than the chosen state. If California has a materially greater interest than the chosen state, the choice of law clause shall not be enforced.

Front 44

Venue (The Place of Trial)

44-Civ.Pro

Back 44

Venue is proper in: (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants "reside" in the same state; or (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events occurred. (3) if neither of the above provisions apply, then venue is proper in any district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. For venue purposes, a corporation is deemed to "reside" in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the suit is filed. A person's residence is his domicile.

Front 45

Change of Venue

45-Civ.Pro

Back 45

In the interest of justice, a court may transfer the case to any other district where it might have been brought. This means venue must be proper in the transferee court and the court must have "personal jurisdiction" over all defendants.

Front 46

Essay Tip: Change of Value

46-Civ.Pro

Back 46

When an essay asks about a change of venue, make sure to discuss whether venue is proper in both the original court and the proposed court, and don't forget, all defendants must be subject to "personal jurisdiction" in the new forum and "subject matter jurisdiction" must also be satisfied. Both plaintiffs and defendants may seek a change of venue.

Front 47

Venue in California

47-Civ.Pro

Back 47

In California, venue refers to the county in which the action may be brought. California distinguishes between two types of actions: Local actions concerned real property and interests in land and refer to the county where the real property is located. Transitory actions have no locality because the cause of action could have taken place anywhere.

Front 48

Venue in California (Transitory actions)

48-Civ.Pro

Back 48

In transitory actions, venue is proper: (1) in the county where any defendant resides; (2) in a personal injury action, where the injury occurred; (3) in a contract claim, where the contract was entered into or expected to be performed; (4) if no defendant resides in California, venue is proper in any county.

Front 49

Venue in California in an Action Against "Corporation"

49-Civ.Pro

Back 49

In an action against a corporation, venue is proper in the county where the contract was entered into or expected to be performed, where the breach occurred, or where the corporation has its principal place of business.

Front 50

Transfer of Venue in California

50-Civ.Pro

Back 50

In California, a defendant may move for transfer of venue: (1) when there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had; or (2) when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.

Front 51

Pleading in California and Federal Court

51-Civ.Pro

Back 51

A pleading is the formal allegation by a party of his respective claims. California is known as a code or fact pleading jurisdiction which requires the pleading of "ultimate facts" to support each element of the cause of action. Federal court is a "notice" pleading jurisdiction.

Front 52

Complaints

52-Civ.Pro

Back 52

In California, a complaint must contains a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action and a demand for relief. If a party is seeking money damages, the amount demanded must be stated in the complaint. However, in an action to recover actual or punitive damages for personal injury or wrongful death, the plaintiff may not state the amount of damages sought. The rationale is to prevent publicity for large demands.

Front 53

Service of Process

53-Civ.Pro

Back 53

In California, a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court. A summons may be served by any person who is at least 18 years of age and not a party to the action. Service of process maybe made by : (1) personal delivery; (2) by mail; or (3) by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the defendant's home or office with a person of suitable age and by thereafter mailing a copy by first-class mail.

Front 54

Service of Process California and Federal Distinction

54-Civ.Pro

Back 54

Federal courts grant immunity from service of process for parties, witnesses, and attorneys who enter the state for the specific purpose of appearing in another case. However, California does not grant immunity from service of process for individuals who are in California to participate in litigation.

Front 55

Special Appearance (Motion to Quash)

55-Civ.Pro

Back 55

In California, the defendant may make a "special appearance" and file a motion to quash service on the grounds that the court does not have personal jurisdiction over him or that service of process was improper. A "special appearance" means that the defendant does not admit the court's jurisdiction over him. Once the defendant files a motion to quash, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that service was proper and that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Front 56

General Appearance

56-Civ.Pro

Back 56

If the defendant files only an answer to the complaint, he has made a "general appearance" and has waived the right to assert a challenge based on lack of personal jurisdiction or lack of service of process.

Front 57

Motion to Dismiss

57-Civ.Pro

Back 57

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action challenges the sufficiency of the complaint and asserts that it does not state enough facts to constitute a cause of action. A court will grant a motion to dismiss only if, taking all of the plaintiff's allegations as true, there are not enough facts to show that he is entitled to any relief.

Front 58

Methods of Challenging Pleadings

58-Civ.Pro

Back 58

Instead of filing an answer, the defendant may attack the sufficiency of the complaint with a general or special demurrer. A demurrer can only be used to challenge defects that appear on the face of the complaint.

Front 59

General Demurrer

59-Civ.Pro

Back 59

In California, a general demurrer may be made on one of two grounds: (1) the pleading fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and (2) the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Front 60

Special Demurrer

60-Civ.Pro

Back 60

In California, a defendant may file a special demurrer for any of the following reasons: (1) lack of the legal capacity to sue; (2) there is another action pending between same parties and same cause of action; (3) defect or misjoinder of parties; or (4) the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Special demurrer are only available in unlimited civil cases. Even if a demurrer is sustained, the court routinely grants leave to amend.

Front 61

Motion to Strike

61-Civ.Pro

Back 61

Either party may file a motion to strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in a pleading.

Front 62

Answers

62-Civ.Pro

Back 62

In California, the defendant's answer must contain a general or specific denial of any allegations that are essential to the plaintiff's claim. The answer must also include any affirmative defenses. Additionally, the defendant has 30 days to file an answer. Failure to answer may result a default judgment.

Front 63

Genera and Special Denial

63-Civ.Pro

Back 63

Any allegations in the complaint that are essential to the plaintiff's claim will be taken as true if not controverted by the defendant's answer. General Denial denies every allegation in the plaintiff's complaint. Specific Denial only denies certain parts of the complaint.

Front 64

Differences between "Demurrer and Answer"

64-Civ.Pro

Back 64

A "demurrer" tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint while an "answer" tests the truth of the allegations and the plaintiff's ability to prove them.

Front 65

Affirmative Defenses

65-Civ.Pro

Back 65

An affirmative defense asserts some independent reason why the plaintiff cannot prevail. California does not permit the plaintiff to reply to affirmative defenses since such matters are deemed controverted.

Front 66

Cross-Complaint

66-Civ.Pro

Back 66

In California, a cross -complaint is when the defendant files a claim against the plaintiff. The defendant must file the cross-complaint as a separate complain. It may not be part of the answer. If cross-complaint arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim, it is compulsory and must bring it or will be barred. Any other claim the defendant has against the plaintiff may be asserted as a permissive cross-complaint.

Front 67

Amendments in Pleadings

67-Civ.Pro

Back 67

In California, a pleading may be amended once, as a matter of right, before an answer is field or a demurrer is heard. Thereafter, the pleading may only be amended with the opposing party's written consent or by permission of the court. Amendments can occur at any stage of litigation. Amendment will not be granted if it will cause prejudice to the other party.

Front 68

Relation Back of Amendments - Adding New Claim

68-Civ.Pro

Back 68

If a complaint was timely filed but an amendment adding a new cause of action is filed after the statute of limitations has passed, the amendment "relate back" to the date the complaint was originally filed. The new claim must arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original complaint. Essentially, the new cause of action must involve the same incident and be based on the same general facts.

Front 69

Relation Back of Amendment - Adding a New Defendant

69-Civ.Pro

Back 69

In federal court, an amendment changing the name of a party relate back to the date the complaint was originally filed if: (1) the claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence; (2) the new party received notice of the action and will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the party's identity, the action would have been brought against it. The new defendant must have been on notice within 120 days after the complaint is filed. Notice may come from any source.

Front 70

Relation Back of Amendment - "Totally New" Party

70-Civ.Pro

Back 70

An amendment cannot avoid the statute of limitation with respect to a "totally new" party. The fact that the plaintiff has filed an action against one defendant does not toll the statute of limitations against other defendants. The relation back provision was directed at situations in which the plaintiff simply uses the wrong name for the defendant.

Front 71

"Doe" Defendants

71-Civ.Pro

Back 71

In California, when the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant, the plaintiff may sue the unknown defendant under a fictitious name, and when the defendant's true name is discovered, the complaint may be amended accordingly. Moreover, the plaintiff may add a "Due" defendant after statute of limitation has run provided the original complaint named "Due" defendant is based on the same general set of facts, and the plaintiff was genuinely ignorant of the defendant's identity at the time the action was filed.

Front 72

Statute of Limitation

72-Civ.Pro

Back 72

A plaintiff must file his complaint within the statute of limitation. The clock begins to run as to the statute of limitations when the cause of action accrues or when the plaintiff discovers such facts that make him aware of the cause of action.

Front 73

Compulsory Joinder (Required Joinder of Parties)

73-Civ.Pro

Back 73

Joinder is required for any person who has a material interest in the case and whose absence would result in substantial prejudice.

Front 74

Approach to Attack Joinder Question

74-Civ.Pro

Back 74

(1) Determine whether the person to be joined is a necessary party; (2) if necessary, determine whether it is feasible to join that person; if feasible, must be joined; (3) but if it is not feasible, determine whether the action can proceed in that party's absence or should be dismissed. If party is indispensable, the case must be dismissed and refilled in state court.

Front 75

Necessary Party

75-Civ.Pro

Back 75

A person is a "necessary" party and should be joined if: (1) the court cannot accord complete relief among the existing parties in that person's absence; (2) that person claims an interest in the subject matter where a decision by the court will impair that person's ability to protect his interest; or (3) the party's absence would leave an existing party subject to a risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations. Furthermore, a joint tortfeasor is not a person needed for just adjudication.

Front 76

Feasible

76-Civ.Pro

Back 76

If the person to be joined is a necessary party, the person must be joined if he does not destroy diversity and is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Front 77

Indispensable

77-Civ.Pro

Back 77

when joinder is not feasible, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed or be dismissed.

Front 78

Factors to Consider, when Joinder is not Feasible, to Proceed or Dismissed

78-Civ.Pro

Back 78

(1) the extent of prejudice of all involved; (2) the manner in which the court can fashion a remedy to reduce or avoid any prejudice; (3) the adequacy of a remedy that can be granted in the party's absence; and (4) whether the plaintiff will have another forum available if the action is dismissed. If the court decides that the party is "indispensable," it must dismiss the case.

Front 79

Permissive Joinder

79-Civ.Pro

Back 79

A person may be joined if: (1) that person claims a right to relief for injuries arising from the same transaction or occurrence, and (2) there is a question of law or fact in common.

Front 80

Discovery

80-Civ.Pro

Back 80

Under the federal rules, both parties are required to disclose certain information without awaiting a discovery request such as the name and address of each individual likely to have discoverable information and a description of all documents that the disclosing party has in its possession and may use to support its claims or defenses. California does not have automatic disclosure requirements.

Front 81

The Scope of Discovery

81-Civ.Pro

Back 81

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense. Relevant evidence need not be admissible at trial so long as the information appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In California, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.

Front 82

Types and Mechanics of Discovery Devices

82-Civ.Pro

Back 82

In California, a party may obtain discovery by: (1) interrogatories; (2) inspection of documents and other property; (3) requests for admission; (4) deposition; and (5) physical and mental examinations.

Front 83

Written Interrogatories to Parties

83-Civ.Pro

Back 83

The plaintiff may serve written interrogatories (a set of written questions) on the defendant and vice versa. An interrogatory may involve an opinion that relates to the application of law to fact. Moreover, a party may propound a total of 35 specially prepared interrogatories and an "unlimited" number of form interrogatories (form rogs).

Front 84

Inspection of Documents and Other Property

84-Civ.Pro

Back 84

Either party may inspect or copy any documents including electronically stored information, land, or other property in the possession of the other party.

Front 85

Request for Admission

85-Civ.Pro

Back 85

A party may make a written request on the other party to admit the truth of certain matters. In California, a party is limited to 35 requests for admission but an unlimited number of requests to admit the genuineness of any documents.

Front 86

Deposition

86-Civ.Pro

Back 86

Either party may take the deposition of any person. Depositions involve live questioning under oath (similar to trial). The deponent is usually represented by a lawyer who can object to certain questions. An objection must be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds as the testimony is taken subject to any objection. The lawyer may instruct the deponent not to answer when necessary to preserve a privilege.

Front 87

Deposition (Continue)

87-Civ.Pro

Back 87

Generally, a person may only be deposed once. In California, there is no limit on the total number of depositions a party may take. If a party fails to make a timely objection to any errors, they will be deemed waived. California courts do not have the power to compel a witness residing outside of the state to travel to California for a deposition. Thus, a "non-resident" of California is not obliged to attend as a witness. Additionally, a party may take a deposition by written questions instead of by oral examination.

Front 88

Nonparty Discovery (Subpoena Required)

88-Civ.Pro

Back 88

Discovery may be sought from a person who is not a party to the case by serving that person with a subpoena. The nonparty may be "deposed" or may be required to "produce documents" in his possession.

Front 89

Subpoena Duces Tecum

89-Civ.Pro

Back 89

A "subpoena duces tecum" is used to compel any person, including a nonparty, to produce documents or electronically stored information in that person's possession or control.

Front 90

Nonparty Discovery

90-Civ.Pro

Back 90

The only type of discovery available in regard to a nonparty is the taking of a "deposition" via subpoena or requiring the nonparty to "produce documents" through the use of a subpoena duces tecum.

Front 91

Physical and Mental Examination

91-Civ.Pro

Back 91

A party may obtain a physical or mental examination of another party only when that party's physical or mental condition has been placed in controversy.

Front 92

Physical and Mental Examination (Federal and California Distinction)

92-Civ.Pro

Back 92

In Federal court, a physical or mental exam is only available by court order upon a showing of "good cause" and notice to all parties. The request must specify the time, place, condition, and scope of the examination, as well as the person who will perform it. In California, a party may obtain one physical exam as a matter of right, but a court order is required to demand that a party submit to a mental exam.

Front 93

Simultaneous Exchange of Expert Witness Information

93-Civ.Pro

Back 93

A party may request the simultaneous exchange of the names, qualifications, and substance of the testimony of each expert that the other party expects to call at trial. A party is not, however, required to disclose the names of any experts who are retained but not expected to testify, i.e., consulting experts.

Front 94

Limit on Discovery

94-Civ.Pro

Back 94

Even though certain material is relevant, information that is protected by a privilege is not discoverable, i.e., the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine.

Front 95

Attorney Work Product Doctrine (Federal Court)

95-Civ.Pro

Back 95

A party may not discover documents that are prepared in anticipation of litigation be the other party's attorney or agent. However, such material may be disclosed if: (1) the party seeking discovery shows that she has a substantial need for the materials to prepare his case; and (2) cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means. However, the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney are not discoverable.

Front 96

Attorney Work Product Doctrine (California Court)

96-Civ.Pro

Back 96

In California, the work product of an attorney is not discoverable unless the court determine that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery or will result in an injustice. This standard is pretty much the same as the federal standard.

Front 97

Discovery Remedies and Sanctions

97-Civ.Pro

Back 97

In California, if a party's response to discovery is incomplete or evasive, the other party must make a good faith effort to informally resolve the matter. If such efforts are unsuccessful, the party may file a motion to compel.

Front 98

Discovery Remedies and Sanctions (Continue)

98-Civ.Pro

Back 98

If a party "misuses" the discovery process, the court may impose monetary sanctions, may order that certain facts must be taken as true, or may prevent the introduction of evidence. As s more drastic measure, the judge may dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

Front 99

Right to Jury

99-Civ.Pro

Back 99

The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial in federal courts in suits at law where the amount in controversy exceeds $20. Thus, a federal court must permit a jury trial in diversity cases even if state law would deny such a right. The 7th Amendment's right to jury trial has not been incorporated to the states. If there are only equitable issues, there is no right to a jury trial.

Front 100

Judgment as a Matter of Law

100-Civ.Pro

Back 100

A party may make a motion for judgment as a matter of law after opposing party has been "fully heard" on an issue. The motion may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury and will be granted only if the court finds there is no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party.

Front 101

Judgment as a Matter of Law (California Distinction)

101-Civ.Pro

Back 101

In California, a defendant may bring a motion for nonsuit after the plaintiff's opening statement or after the plaintiff's case-in-chief. Moreover, either party may move for a directed verdict after the presentation of all evidence.

Front 102

Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

102-Civ.Pro

Back 102

If the jury enters a verdict against a party, the party may make a "renewed" motion for judgment as a matter of law so long as that party previously moved for a judgment as a matter of law at some point during the trial. In California, it is called a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. However, there is no requirement that a party must have previously brought a motion for directed verdict.

Front 103

Summary Judgment

103-Civ.Pro

Back 103

A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the moving party is able to show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material facts thereby allowing him to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Front 104

Interlocutory Appeal

104-Civ.Pro

Back 104

Interlocutory appeals are used to prevent irreparable harm from occurring during the pendency of a trial. An interlocutory order granting or dissolving an injunction is reviewable as a matter of right

Front 105

Time for Filing an Appeal

105-Civ.Pro

Back 105

In a civil case, an appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment.

Front 106

Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)

106-Civ.Pro

Back 106

Res judicata prevents a party from re-litigating (1) the same claim (2) against the same party (3) after there has been a final and valid judgment on the merit.

Front 107

Same Claim

107-Civ.Pro

Back 107

In federal court, a claim is the "same" if it is based on the same transaction or occurrence. California, on the other hand, follows the "primary rights" doctrine which gives the plaintiff a cause of action for each right that is invaded.

Front 108

Same Parties

108-Civ.Pro

Back 108

The ensuing case must be brought by the exact same plaintiff against the exact same defendant.

Front 109

Final Judgment

109-Civ.Pro

Back 109

In federal court, a judgment is deemed final when it is rendered. The fact that the case is under appeal is immaterial. In California, a judgment is considered "final" when the time for an appeal has expired or at the conclusion of the appeal.

Front 110

Valid Judgment

110-Civ.Pro

Back 110

A judgment is valid so long as the court had jurisdiction over the parties and the claim.

Front 111

On the Merits

111-Civ.Pro

Back 111

A judgment is "on the merits" when the claim has been litigated. A dismissal by the court for lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join an indispensable party is not considered on the merits because the dismissal is not related to the merits of the claim.

Front 112

Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)

112-Civ.Pro

Back 112

Issues of fact that were actually litigated an essential to the judgment are conclusive in a subsequent action between the plaintiff and the defendant. In essence, collateral estoppel compels the court to make the same findings of fact that the first court made on an identical issue.

Front 113

Actually Litigated

113-Civ.Pro

Back 113

Collateral estoppel only applies to issues that were actually litigated in the prior action.

Front 114

Essential to the Judgment

114-Civ.Pro

Back 114

An issue is "essential" to the action only if the judgment could not have been rendered without determining that particular issue. Thus, if there were two grounds for the decision, the issue wan not essential to the judgment.

Front 115

Exceptions to Collateral Estoppel Based on Fairness

115-Civ.Pro

Back 115

In certain situations, a losing party may be allowed to re-litigate an issue in a subsequent action. Common examples include: (1) when the stakes involved are much larger than the first case where there was little incentive to litigate; (2) when the burden of proof is different; or (3) where it would be unfair or unjust under circumstanced.

Front 116

Parties Bound be Judgment

116-Civ.Pro

Back 116

Generally, non-parties are not bound by a prior judgment since they had no control over the outcome and had no interest in the result.

Front 117

Parties and Persons in Privity

117-Civ.Pro

Back 117

Persons whose interests are represented are bound by the judgment. For example, members of a class action are bound by a judgment; so is a minor whose interests are represented by a guardian.

Front 118

Mutuality of Estoppel

118-Civ.Pro

Back 118

Under traditional mutuality rules, a judgment could not be used against a person who was not a party to the prior suit, nor could a stranger take advantage of a prior judgment. However, most jurisdictions (including California) have eliminated the mutuality requirement and, in certain situations, may allow a non-party to take advantage of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Front 119

Use of Collateral Estoppel by a Non-Party - Sword vs. Shield

119-Civ.Pro

Back 119

A non-party may use a prior judgment to avoid liability in a subsequent action if there are compelling reasons to do so (shield); moreover, courts will allow a non-party to use a prior judgment to assist in obtaining relief (sword). The critical factor is whether the losing party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first case.