Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
197 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
jurisdiction over the person; binds a D personally
|
In personam
|
|
|
jurisdiction over a thing, no particular person can be found; bind property in the sense of adjudicating the rights of all who claim interest in the property.
|
In rem (pure)
|
|
|
jurisdiction that settles property rights of specific persons; does not settle rights in property "against the world." Type where property itself is the subject of the lawsuit:
|
quasi in rem (type 1)
|
|
|
jurisdiction that establishes rights to property, but the underlying dispute is unrelated to the property. The property is brought within the jurisdiction of the court by "attachment" prior to suit, and the absent D must choose either to come into the state to litigate the claim or staying outside the state and losing the litigation and the property through a default judgment.
|
quasi in rem (type 2) - (attachment jurisdiction)
|
|
|
Jurisdiction base on "arising out of factor" set in International Shoe. Contact (case arose out of) is same as or gives rise to underlying case in forum state. (McGee Life Ins) Inconvenience is not a factor.
|
Specific jurisdiction
|
|
|
Jurisdiction where case does not arise out of contact in forum state.
|
General jurisdiction
|
|
|
Two step analysis for territorial jurisdiction:
|
1) Does state have a long arm statute that confers jurisdiction?
2) If the statute applies, does the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction in the case at hand? |
|
|
Two main types of long arm statutes:
|
1) statute authorizes jurisdiction to the extent that the federal constitution allows;
2) statute specifically articulates the factual circumstances under which state courts can exercise jurisdiction. |
|
|
Doctrine that states sovereign entity only has power over the things within its boundaries.
|
Raw Power Doctrine
|
|
|
D submits to the jurisdiction of the court but subjects himself to liability only up to the value of the property that served as the basis for the jurisdiction.
|
Limited Appearance
|
|
|
When D shows up in court and submit to the jurisdiction of the court subjecting himself to liability full amount of the asserted debt. D cannot later claim that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over them or that they had insufficient notice of the suit.
|
General Appearance
|
|
|
In International Shoe the Supreme Court articulated a new test of determining whether personal jurisdiction exists over a nonresident defendant who cannot be found and served within the forum state:
|
Whether the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state, such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’.
|
|
|
Term where the nature and quality of D's contacts with the forum state are sufficiently substantial that one may litigate an dispute in the courts of the forum, whether or not the dispute grows out of those contacts.
|
General jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Term for where contacts with the forum are related to the dispute sought to be adjudicated. relation
|
Specific jursdiction
|
|
|
Under Helicotperos for a P to assert in personam jurisdiction over a defendant business whose place of business resides outside of the state must show that the defendant business' contact with the state:
|
was of a "continuous and systematic" nature
|
|
|
Under World Wide Volkswagon the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits a state from making binding a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant:
|
When he has no "contacts, ties, or relations." with the state. Unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state.
|
|
|
This emphasizes the benefits a would-be D has obtained from its business activities conducted w/in the forum state, often involving contractual relations with forum residents. Most often used in suits sounding in contract.
|
Purposeful availment.
|
|
|
This emphasizes D's activities outside the forum state that have consequences inside the forum state. Most often used in suits sounding in tort.
|
Purposeful direction
|
|
|
Under Asahi, for a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in accordance with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth amendment the facts must establish:
|
1)the defendant had minimum contacts with the forum state; 2)exercise of personal jurisdiction must be consistent with fair play and substantial justice based on the "reasonableness factors.
|
|
|
Foreign D's minimum contacts with forum state should be based on:
|
1) An action of the defendant, 2)Purposefully directed at the forum state (advertising, marketing, design) and is more than introduction into stream of commerce; 3)Defendant avails itself of the privilege and benefits of business in forum states and invokes benefits and protection of forum state.
|
|
|
the five "reasonableness factors" for determining "fair play and substantial justice":
|
1)Burden on defendant; 2)Interest of forum state;3)Plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief; 4)Interstate judicial system's interest in efficient resolution of controversies;
5)Shared interest of states in furthering substantive social policies |
|
|
A foreign act that is both aimed at and has effect in the forum state satisfies the purposeful availment prong of the specific jurisdiction analysis and meets the "effects test" if the D:
|
1) committed an intentional act which was 2) expressly aimed at the forum state and 3) caused harm, the brunt of which is suffered, and which the D knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state.
|
|
|
A court will not find in personam jurisdiction unless there is a statutory authorization for the exercise of that jurisdiction which asserts the state's authority to reach across state boundaries and thereby subject a person or corporation to its jurisdiction. This authorization is called:
|
A long-arm statute
|
|
|
In diversity or federal question cases a court that wishes to assert jurisdiction must:
|
First look to the long-arm statute of the forum state and if exercise of jurisdiction is appropriate under that statute, the court must then decide whether such exercise comports with the requisites of due process.
|
|
|
Shaffer v. Heitner set forth the standard that in cases of in rem jurisdiction just as in in personam jurisdiction:
|
The standard of fairness and substantial justice, and the minimum contacts test of International Shoe should be applied.
|
|
|
Though the D's presence in the forum state be temporary, and insufficient to satisfy the contacts standard set forth in International shoe the state may still assert in personam jurisdiction if:
|
D is served with process within the; In state service of process = proper jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Minimum contacts test is confined to situations where:
|
The D not present in the forum.
|
|
|
W/proper service, domicile w/in the state alone:
|
is sufficient to bring an absent D within reach of the state's jurisdiction
|
|
|
Service of process on someone who has been fraudulently enticed into the state:
|
Will not confer in personam jurisdiction.
|
|
|
FRCP 4:
|
service of process: summons and complaint
|
|
|
Under Mullane, when other means exist, a published notice is insufficient to deprive a person of their property rights as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; instead, for propert notice :
|
Notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise the interested parties of the pendency of the action.
|
|
|
Notice posted on a door is:
|
constitutionally insufficient.
|
|
|
Before constructive notice by publication will be sufficient:
|
The P must have used reasonable diligence to personally reach D; mailing a letter the D's last known address would have provided actual notice.
|
|
|
A forum selection clause is valid if it:
|
1) gives proper notice, 2)accession was not by fraud or overreaching, 3)allows for fair judicial resolution of claims without serious inconvenience to the parties and 4)does not purport to limit the creator's liability.
|
|
|
A state will not exercise judicial jurisdiction over an individual who appears in the action for the sole purpose of objecting that there is no jurisdiction over him.
|
Special appearance
|
|
|
D is allowed to appear to defend the merits of the lawsuit, and his liability is limited to the potential liability in the suit to the value of the property that formed the basis for the jurisdiction.
|
Limited appearance
|
|
|
A forum state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an absent class-action plaintiff, even thought the plaintiff does not possess the minimum contacts with the forum state, if it provides minimum procedural due process protection:
|
1) notice reasonably calculated to reach the parties which includes an opportunity to remove himself, 2)an opportunity to be heard, and 3) named plaintiff at all times represent the interests of the absent class members.
|
|
|
Is there a significant contact, or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that choice its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair:
|
Constitutional test for choice of law.
|
|
|
System where the forum state applied the law of another state according to generally accepted principles, as a matter of good will and harmonious interstate relations
|
System of comity.
|
|
|
The authority of the Court to adjudicate a particular type of suit. Both a constitutional and statutory matter.
|
Subject matter jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Two ways federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction:
|
1) federal question; 2) completer diversity of citizenship (amt in controversy exceeds $75,000.
|
|
|
"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
|
28 U.S.C. 1331: Federal Qustion subject matter jurisdiction.
|
|
|
A means of sorting cases that should go into federal and state courts. Case must "arise under" (P's cause of action depends on) federal law and doesn't apply to appellate courts:
|
well pleaded complaint rule.
|
|
|
Article III of the constitution confers jurisdiction on the federal courts over "controversies between citizens of different states, between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states or subjects. This type of suject matter jurisdiction is called:
|
Diversity jurisdiction. Each P must be a citizen of a different state as each D, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.
|
|
|
28 U.S.C. § 1332:
|
Diversity Jurisdiction Statute
|
|
|
Domicile of a person is for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is:
|
"His true, fixed, and permanent home and establishment, which he has the of returning to.
|
|
|
A corporation is a citizen of: both its state of incorporation and its principle place of business
|
1)its state of incorporation; and 2) its principle place of business.
|
|
|
An unincorporated association is a citizen of:
|
All the states in which the members of the association are citizens.
|
|
|
Strawbridge v Curtiss set forth that:
|
Complete diversity is required under 1332. All Ps must be of a different state from all the Ds.
|
|
|
Test that requires D opposing jurisdiction to prove to a "legal certainty" that P cannot recover damages in excess of $75,000.
|
Legal certainty test.
|
|
|
28 U.S.C. § 1367:
|
The supplemental jurisdiction statute.
|
|
|
1367 The Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute:
|
Extends jurisdiction to all other claims that are so related as to form part of the same case or controversy. Codified most of judge-made law, terms ancillary jurisdiction and pendant jurisdiction and invented a new term that combined the two into supplemental jurisdiction
|
|
|
Jurisdiction over claims brought between existing parties, or between existing and new parties, for which there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction if those claims are considered independently. Combined ancillary and pendant jurisdiction:
|
Supplemental jurisdiction
|
|
|
Jurisdiction over additional claims brought by the same P against the same D.
|
Pendant jurisdiction
|
|
|
Jurisdiction over additional claims brought by existing parties other than the P, or over claims brought by or against additional parties.
|
Ancillary jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Subcategory of ancillary jurisdiction - jurisdiction over claims brought against additional parties.
|
Pendant Party jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Constitutional test of what constitutes a case for purposes of pendant jurisdiction is:
|
Common nucleus of operative fact, and must be such that P would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.
|
|
|
When a P plaintiff asserts two claims, one based on federal law and another based on state law they may be combined and there is power in federal courts to hear the whole if:
|
The federal claim arises under the constitution or laws of the United States and the relationship between the that claim and the state claim arise under a "common nucleus of operative fact."
|
|
|
In a diversity action with multiple defendants, both for class actions brought under rule 23 and multiple plaintiff suits brought under rule 20:
|
Only one plaintiff's claims must satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. Other claims that do not meet the amount in controversy requirement may be heard under supplemental jurisdiction.
|
|
|
If P has both federal and state-law causes of action it may prevent removal by:
|
Confining the complaint to a state-law cause of action.
|
|
|
Federal defenses may not be used as a basis for removal.
Removal is proper only if: |
The P could have field the suit in federal court in the first place.
|
|
|
P may prevent removal to federal court by:
|
Joining Ds who would destroy diversity. Cannot be fraudulent joinder.
|
|
|
Subject to exceptions for actions with a particularly strong connection to a particular state federal courts have concurrent subject matter jurisdiction over all diversity class actions:
|
1) the aggregate amount exceeds $5,000,000; and 2) in which there is minimal diversity of citizenship.
|
|
|
Before it can decide any question on the merits a federal court must:
|
It must find that it has subject matter jurisdiction.
|
|
|
To protect the defendant against the risk that the plaintiff will select an unfair or inconvenient place for trial since the plaintiff will have taken her own interests into account in choosing her initial forum:
|
The primary purpose of venue.
|
|
|
Statute 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Venue is proper:
|
1) judicial district where any D resides, 2) substantial part of events occurs, or property is located, 3) D is subject to personal jurisdiction.
|
|
|
This statute allows both defendants and plaintiffs to transfer an action to any district where it might have been brought.
|
1404(a)
|
|
|
Under a 1404 transfer the transferee forum will apply:
|
The same choice of law rules will apply in the new court as in the original. A chang of courtrooms, not a change of law.
|
|
|
A 1404 transfer resembles a forum non conveniens dismissal in that:
|
Both are premised on a finding that the initial forum choice is inappropriate.
|
|
|
A 1404 transfer is different than a forum non conveniens dismissal b/c:
|
1) A 1404 transfer is available on a significantly lesser showing of inconvenience than dismissal for forum non conveniens; and 2) 1404 permits transfer rather than dismissal and permits transfer of cases brought under both federal and state law.
|
|
|
A federal district court will follow the choice of law rules:
|
Of the state in which it sits, and then apply the law to which it is directed by those choice of law rules.
|
|
|
28 U.S.C. §1406 Cure or Waiver of Defects:
|
District court of the district in which is filed a case lying in the venue in the wrong division of district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which tit could have been brought.
|
|
|
P's forum choice will not be disturbed unless the balance of the factors is strongly against the P's choice. Allows a court to dismiss a suit in which it has valid in personam jurisdiction but when the forum is nonetheless inconvenient:
|
Forum non conveniens dismissal.
|
|
|
A motion for dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens in federal district court is proper only:
|
When the alternative forum is in a foreign country.
|
|
|
If the alternative forum is in the United States, the proper motion:
|
Transfer to another federal district court under 28 U.S.C. §1404.
|
|
|
Another strategy for D's is to seek transfer from the more convenient forum (frequently where the P resides)is:
|
An injunction forbidding the P to pursue the suit in the inconvenient forum.
|
|
|
Except in matters governed by the Constitution or by acts of congress, the substantive law to be applied is:
|
The law of the state.
|
|
|
The law that ought to govern in litigation founded on that state's law, whether the forum of application is a State for a federal court and whether the remedies be sought at law or in equity is:
|
The law if the state if it is authoritatively declared by a state whether its voice be the legislature or its highest court.
|
|
|
Outcome determinative test applied in Guarantee Trust v. York for substantive/procedure distinction:
|
Does it significantly affect the result of the litigation of a federal court to disregard the law of the state that would be controlling if in state court.
|
|
|
Federal courts will apply federal law if the law is:
|
Procedural.
|
|
|
In a civil action where jurisdiction of a United States District Court is based upon diversity of citizenship of the parties, service:
|
Will be based on federal rule 4(d)(1)-service of summons and complaint sufficient notice.
|
|
|
28 U.S.C. §1652 - Rules of Decision Act:
|
The laws of the several states, except where the constitution or treaties of the United States or acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision.
|
|
|
A suite based on federal law is commenced and the statute of limitation tolled when:
|
A complaint is filed. Federal Rule 3.
|
|
|
When a cause of action raises a federal question a court must:
|
Apply federal law.
|
|
|
Under DeWeerth v. Baldinger a federal court that must apply state law:
|
May interpret state law. However, a state Court's interpretation of state law holds over federal interpretation of state law.
|
|
|
When deciding a question of state law, the federal court should:
|
Put itself in the position of state court of the state in which its sits. If there be no state court decision then federal authorities must apply what they find to be the state law after giving regard to the relevant ruling of the other courts of the state.
|
|
|
Two devices for a federal court interpreting state law to get an authoritative determination by state courts:
|
1)certification; 2)abstention
|
|
|
Judge made federal law that is both jurisdiction conferring under the federal court's federal question jurisdiction and supreme under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
|
Federal common law.
|
|
|
A modern lawsuit is commenced by:
|
The parties filing statements of their claims and defenses in writing w/the trial court. These written statements of claim or defense are called pleadings.
|
|
|
Two Kinds of Pleading:
|
1)notice; 2) code
|
|
|
used in federal court and most state trial courts. Favors Ps b/c it requires very little of the pleader, a complaint need only provide a short and plaint statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.
|
notice pleading
|
|
|
Sometimes called fact pleading. Complaint must state facts constituting the cause of action. Facts are more specific than legal conclusions. Used in a minority of state courts which includes large and influential districts like California and New York. It requires somewhat more, though not a great deal more.
|
Code Pleading.
|
|
|
According to FRCP 8 Pleading a complaint:
|
Need only provide a short and plaint statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.
|
|
|
In code pleading, a complaint must state:
|
facts constituting the cause of action.
|
|
|
In both systems of pleading the function is to:
|
Provide notice of the pendency of the action and the nature of the pleader's contentions, so as to facilitate informed preparation for discovery, settlement, or disposition on a more complete factual record.
|
|
|
FRCP 12(b)(6):
|
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
|
|
|
In code pleading states serves the same function as rule 12(b)(6) motion:
|
Demurrer.
|
|
|
Party has the burden of placing sufficient evidence in the record supporting all essential elements of her claim to allow the fact finder to find in its favor.
|
Burden of production
|
|
|
Describes the standard that the fact-finder is required to apply in determining if it believes that a factual claim is true. In civil cases the P must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. The fact-finder must find against that party if the evidence fails to meet the specified degree of persuasiveness.
|
Burden of persuasion.
|
|
|
Pleading with specificity FRCP 9(b):
|
Requires specificity in two limited classes of cases: involving averments of fraud or mistake.
|
|
|
At common law pleader's allegation had to be consistent, but
|
Modern procedural regimes generally permit pleading inconsistent or alternative allegations, so long at the pleading satisfies the ethical requirements of FRCP 11.
|
|
|
A claim will not be frivolous
|
It is warranted by existing law or is an adequate argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or the creation of new law
|
|
|
12(e) motion:
|
Motion on the pleadings for more definitive statement
|
|
|
12(f) motion:
|
Motion to strike redundant, immaterial, or impertinent, or scandalous matters in the complaint.
|
|
|
12(g):
|
consolidation of defenses.
|
|
|
12(h):
|
Defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient service or process is waived if omitted from the consolidated defenses.
|
|
|
D's answer must respond to P's allegations and can be:
|
1) Deny; 2) Admit; 3)Silence same effect as an admission.
|
|
|
FRCP 8(c):
|
Affirmative defenses
|
|
|
FRCP 15(a):
|
Amendment to the pleadings is allowed liberally to allow pleaders to correct mistakes or to reflect facts revealed through discovery.
|
|
|
Rule 15 allows a party to revise a pleading w/out having to seek permission
|
If no responsive pleading has been filed, or if the pleading is one in which no responsive pleading is permitted and the amendment is made within 20 days of service of the initial pleading.
|
|
|
Once past the point where amendment is permitted "as a matter of courts" the parties may amend earlier pleadings:
|
Only with written consent of the other party or by leave of the court. Leave to amend "shall be given freely."
|
|
|
when D's are properly named, Rule 15(c)(2) permits relation back of new claims against the D if the claim asserted in the amended pleading:
|
Arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.
|
|
|
Notice has to be given:
|
Within 120 days following the filing of the complaint.
|
|
|
Basic philosophy of modern rules regarding joinder of parties:
|
To allow liberal joinder of claims and parties.
|
|
|
FRCP 18(a):
|
Joinder of multiple claims in the same pleading.
|
|
|
A D may assert claims of its own against P. Any claim asserted by a party against an opposing party who has already asserted a claim is:
|
a counter claim.
|
|
|
FRCP 13(a) compulsory counter claim:
|
Claim that arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the other party's claim and does not require the prescence of third parties of whom the court cannot obtain jurisdiction.
|
|
|
FRCP 13(b) permissive counter claim:
|
Any claim not arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. A failure to assert a permissive counterclaim has no preclusive consequence in later litigation.
|
|
|
Test for whether case forms part of the same case or controversy:
|
Loose factual connection.
|
|
|
Federal Rule 13(g)Cross-claims:
|
A cross-claim must arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of either the original action or a counterclaim therein, or relating to property that is the subject matter of the action.
|
|
|
FRCP 17 Real Party in Interest Rule:
|
Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.
|
|
|
A claim that originally belonged to one party may have been transferred to another
|
Assignment. By formal assignment or by operation of law.
|
|
|
Federal Rule 20(a)Permissive Joinder of parties:
|
The court may make such orders as will prevent a party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to expense by the inclusion of a party against whom he asserts no claim and who asserts no claim against him, and may order separate trials or make other orders to prevent delay or prejudice.
|
|
|
Federal Rule 19 Compulsory Joinder:
|
The necessary parties rule contains three criteria if any one of them is satisfied, the absent party is to be joined if feasible.
|
|
|
The criteria for the necessary parties rule, Rule 19:
|
1) in the persons absence complete relief cannot be granted,2) person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposition of the action will impair their ability to protect that interest, or make any of the parties subject to multiple obligations to the interset of the claims.3) if joinder not possible are they indispensible.
|
|
|
Third party complaint should be allowed if:
|
The original complaint satisfies the federal requirements for jurisdiction and the third party complaint arises out of the same set of operative facts, and if under some construction of facts at trial recovery might be possible.
|
|
|
FRCP Rule 24 Intervention:
|
Allows a third part to intervene if that party has an interest which may be impaired or impeded as a practical matter by the decisions of the present action.
|
|
|
FRCP Rule 22 Interpleader:
|
Special joinder device that allows stakeholders to obtain a judicial determination that he owes an obligation to one of several competing claimants.
|
|
|
FRCP 23 - Class actions: the necessary elements are:
|
1) numerosity; 2)commonality; 3)Typicality; 4)adequacy or representation.
|
|
|
23(b)(1):
|
Type of class where adjudication would lead to varying adjudications w/respect to member or be dispostive of the rights of the other members.
|
|
|
23(b)(2):
|
Type of class where the members seek injunctive or declaratory relief.
|
|
|
23(b)(3):
|
questions of law or fact predominate, and class action is superior to other methods of adjudication. Notice is mandatory and members must be afforded the opportunity to opt out.
|
|
|
Who bears the cost of notice to the members of his class?
|
P. Notice is set forth in FRCP 23(c)(2).
|
|
|
The Test for whom a client-attorney privilege should extend that includes only the necessary decision makers:
|
Control group test. Rejecte in Upjohn.
|
|
|
The information an attorney prepared in anticipation of litigation, including but not limited to the statements taken from witnesses, notes taken at meetings with witnesses or other people knowledgable about the matter in dispute, and memoranda summarizing the legal research that is protected much like client-attorney privilege.
|
work-product.
|
|
|
The work product doctrine protects :
|
material prepared in anticipation of litigation.
|
|
|
The Attorney-client privilege protects:
|
communications made in connection w/legal advice of any kind, whether or not related to litigation, inluding nformation from other sources than the client, mostly witness statements.
|
|
|
Work product doctrine can be overcome if:
|
The information cannot be obtained by other means or can only be obtained w/great difficulty.
|
|
|
If information falls outside the protection of any privilege or trial preparation immunity, the remedy for the producing party:
|
to seek a protective order from the court barring discovery of the material or restricting its use and dissemination by the party to whom the information is produced.
|
|
|
In a motion for summary judgment, which party has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of fact?
|
The moving party.
|
|
|
Provides a mechanism under which the D is able to test the sufficiency of the P's allegations as a matter of law. The truth of P's allegations is assumed for the purposes of the motion and the question is whether there is a cause of action on those assumed facts.
|
Dismissal for Failure to state a Claim (Demurrer in State courts) FRCP 12(b)(6)
|
|
|
Motion that challenges the legal sufficiency of a party's factual allegations or legal contentions:
|
Motion for judgment on the pleadings FRCP 12(c).
|
|
|
What is a 12(b)(6) motion and when can it be made?
|
Dismissal for Failure to state a Claim (Demurrer in States). May be made before pleadings are complete.
|
|
|
what is a 12(c) motion and when can it be made?
|
Motion for judgment on the pleadings. Either party may move for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are complete.
|
|
|
The necessary prerequisite to the right to maintain an equitable remedy:
|
The absence of an adequate remedy at law. In order to maintain a suit on a cause of action cognizable at law, P must show that the issues of equity are so complex that only a court of equity can unravel them.
|
|
|
To determine if a right to a jury trial, available as a right in cases at law is appropriate, the court:
|
Will look to English law to determine if the action sought t is equitable or lawful in nature. If lawful, the seventh amendment entitles P to a jury trial.
|
|
|
Claim preclusion is known as:
|
res judicata.
|
|
|
claim preclusion or res judicata means:
|
An existing judgment is conclusive of the rights of the parties in any subsequent suit on the same claim. Bars relitigation of all issues actually decided and that might have been decided. Requires identity of the parties or their privities.
|
|
|
Issue Preclusion is also called:
|
Collateral Estoppel
|
|
|
Issue preclusion or collateral estoppel is:
|
Final decision of a court on an issue actually litigated is conclusive of that issue in any subsequent suit. It applies to a cause of action different from that involved in the original controversy. It does not apply to matters which could have been litigated but were not.
Affirmative defense that must be pleaded. |
|
|
Defensive issue preclusion:
|
P is estopped from asserting a claim the P had previously litigated and lost against another D.
|
|
|
Offensive Issue Preclusion:
|
P is seeking to estop a D from relitigating the issues which the D previously litigated and lost against another P. Court will apply the fairness factors:
|
|
|
The fairness factors:
|
1) Could P have easily joined in earlier action? 2) Did D in prior action have little incentive to defend? 3) Was prior suit that is relied upon for estoppel consistent with previous judgments? (train accident example)
4) Does the second action afford D procedural opportunities unavailable in first action that could cause a different result? |
|
|
Direct Issue Preclusion (Direct Estoppel):
|
The issue precluded in a second action is on the same claim.
|
|
|
Collateral Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel):
|
Second action is brought on a different claim.
|
|
|
What are the requirements for Issue Preclusion (Bernhardt Factors):
|
1) Issue in the second case must be same issue as the first; 2) Final judgment on the merits; 3)the doctrine is asserted a party or a party in privity with a party to the prior litigation; 4)Did party against whom plea is asserted have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior litigation?
|
|
|
the subrequirements of the first Berhart factor; the issue in the second action is the same as in the first:
|
1) the issue was actually litigated; 2)the particular issue was actually decided; 3)the issue was necessary to the decision.
|
|
|
A party in privity is one that:
|
1) control; 2) successor in interest; 3) had their interests represented.
|
|
|
Mutuality doctrine (Court abandoned in Blonder-Tongue):
|
Estoppel of a judgment must be mutual. In order to take advantage of a judgment one must have been so related to the case that he would have been bound by the case had it gone the other way.
|
|
|
Law of the Case:
|
An issue litigated in one stage of the case, should not be relitigated in a later stage.
|
|
|
Rationale or policy reason for Collateral estoppel and res judicata:has the dual purpose of...
|
1) protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privity and 2) promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation.
|
|
|
When a valid and final personal judgment is rendered in favor of the P, the claim is joined w/the judgment:
|
merger.
|
|
|
when a valid and final judgment is rendered in favor of the D, the judgment has this effect on a subsequent action on the claim.
|
Barred.
|
|
|
FRCP 4(e):
|
service: must be reasonably calculated to reach the D.
|
|
|
FRCP 4(k):
|
General jurisdiction for the federal courts.Jurisdiction is the entire United States.
|
|
|
FRCP 4(m):
|
Time Limit for Service: w/120 days of filing complaint.
|
|
|
FRCP 7:
|
Pleadings and motions.
|
|
|
FRCP 8:
|
General rules of pleading, claims of relief, forms of denials, affimative defenses,construction.
|
|
|
FRCP 9(b):
|
Special matters that must be pleaded w/particularity: fraud or mistake.
|
|
|
FRCP 12(b):
|
Every defense to a claim to law or fact or claim or relief shall be stated in the pleading except those defenses made by motion.
|
|
|
12(b) motions:
|
1) personal jurisdiction; 2)subject matter jurisdiction; 3) improper venue; 4)insufficiency of process; 5)insufficiency of service; 6)failure to state a claim; 7)failure to join an indispensible party.
|
|
|
FRCP 12(c):
|
Motion for judgment on the pleadings.
|
|
|
FRCP 12(e):
|
Motion for a more definitive statement.
|
|
|
FRCP 12(f):
|
motion to strike
|
|
|
FRCP 12(g):
|
Motion of consolidate defenses.
|
|
|
FRCP 12(h):
|
Waiver or preservation of defenses. Lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient service or process is waived if omitted from a motion nor included in the responsive pleadings.
|
|
|
FRCP 13(a):
|
Compusory counter claims:if out of transaction or occurrence that is subject matter of the of opposing party's claim and does not require party's the court can't get jurisdiction over
|
|
|
FRCP 13(b):
|
Permissive counter claim; not arising out of transaction or occurrence.
|
|
|
FRCP 13(g):
|
cross claim. must have an independant basis for court's jurisdiction or arise out of transaction or occurrence.
|
|
|
FRCP 14(a):
|
When a D may bring in a third party.
|
|
|
FRCP 15:
|
Amendments to the pleadings; to conform to the evidence; relation back-arose out of transaction or occurrence; supplemental pleadings
|
|
|
FRCP 23(a):
|
Class action prerequisites: 1) numerosity, 2) commonality, 3) typicality, 4) adequacy or representation
|
|
|
FRCP 23(b):
|
types of class actions that are maintainable: (b)(1)-suits by individual members would lead to varying results or dispositive of the interests of those not party; (b)(2) Parties seek injunctive or declaratory relief, (b)(3) questions of law or fact are common and predominate and class action is superior means of adjudication.
|
|
|
FRCP 26(b):
|
Discovery Scope and limits: any matter not privileged, material prepared in anticipation of litigation upon a showing of substantial need or undue hardship
|
|
|
FRCP 26(c):
|
Discovery and Protective order: any order which justice requires to protect a person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden or expense.
|
|
|
1331:
|
Federal Question Jurisdiction: District courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States
|
|
|
1332(a)(b):
|
Diversity of Citizenship
(a): Matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. (b): When finally adjudged and P is entitled to less than $75,000, district court may deny costs to the P, and may impose costs to P. |
|
|
1335:
|
Interpleader
|
|
|
1367:
|
Supplemental Jurisdiction
|
|
|
1391(a)(b):
|
(a) venue based on diversity: 1) judicial district where any D resides, 2) substantial part of events occurs, or property is located, 3) D is subject to personal jurisdiction; (b)venue not based on diversity
|
|
|
1397:
|
Interpleader
|
|
|
1404:
|
Transfer of venue:
|
|
|
1406:
|
Transfer of venue to cure defects. if venue filed in improper venue court shall disimiss or transfer to proper venue.
|
|
|
1441:
|
Removal of claims in state court to federal court.
|
|
|
1652:
|
State laws as rules of decision.
|
|
|
2361:
|
Process and procedure for interpleader.
|
|
|
What are the ways a court may obtain jurisdiction over a D:
|
1) D resides in state, 2) D found and personally served w/in the state, 3) minimum contacts with forum state of systematic and continuous nature, 4)consistent w/fair play and substantial justice, 5) contacts with or related to the controversy, 6) consent or waiver
|
