Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/63

Click to flip

63 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
personal jurisdiction: list
- in personam
- in rem
- quasi in rem
modern test of jurisdiction
MINIMUM CONTACTS.
Look for jurisdictional statutes. CA: long arm statute
minimum contacts test
- CAUSE of action
- ACTIVITY quality & nature
- purposeful AVAILMENT
- FORESEEABILITY
- did D INITIATE contact?
- BURDEN on parties
- CHOICE of law
- INTEREST of the state
- MULTIPLICITY of suits
- ALTERNATIVE forum?
- EVIDENCE
- WITNESSES
choice of law: options
- state law in federal court
- federal common law in federal court
- federal law in state court
federal subject matter jx: test
- federal question?
- diversity
supplemental jx: types
- pendent jx
- ancillary jx
pendent jx
As long as there's a substantial fed claim, you can join a state claim. Has to stem from the same thing
ancillary jx
If the primary claim is federal, the court can hear related (ancillary) matters.
civ pro big picture
- personal jx?
- subject matter jx?
- notice?
- venue?
- pleadings issues?
- claims & parties properly joined?
- discovery issues
- pretrial
- trial
- motions (trial & post-trial)
- final judgment (res judicata, etc.)
removal
from state court to federal court.

- federal question
- diversity AND jx in state court was proper!
notice
test: REASONABLE DILIGENCE

Fed:
- personal service
- place of abode with person of reasonable age & discretion
- delivery to agent
venue: diversity
- any state where a D resides
- substantial part of acts took place
- any D is subject to personal jx (when case commenced)
venue: fed question
- where any D resides
- substantial part of acts took place
- any district where any D may be found
pleading
CA & FED: notice pleading

Complaint: P must
- be REAL PARTY in interest
- have CAPACITY
- have STANDING
- set forth at least one CAUSE OF ACTION/special damages/prayer for relief
Challenging the complaint
- lack of JX
- improper venue: motion to TRANSFER
- insufficiency of PROCESS
- judgment on the PLEADINGS
- failure to join INDISPENSABLE party
- failure to state a CLAIM
- motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT
- motion to STRIKE
- motion for more DEFINITE statement
summary judgment
no triable issue of material fact exists as a matter of law
motion to strike
irrelevant
impertinent
scandalous allegations
answer
Denials:
- general
- specific
- qualified

affirmative defenses

counterclaims
joinder: types
- permissive
- necessary
- indispensable
indispensable joinder
Necessary to render an effective judgment, but party is unavailable!
class action: requirements
- definable class of which P is a member
- judicial economy
- potential P's too numerous for joinder
- common legal theory
- named P must be typical of class
- named parties must adequately represent class
- Rule 23(b)
Fed Rule 23(b)
for class action

23(b)(1): individual suits would result in conflicting adjudications or would hurt interest of non-parties

23(b)(2): injunctive/declaratory relief necessarily applies to entire class

23(b)(3): class suit is fairest & most efficient. Common questions must predominate over individual questions.
intervention: standards
- broad rule
- strict rule (CA!)
- fed rule
intervention: strict rule
intervenor must have direct interest in success of party before the court

California rule
intervention: fed rule
must have:
- statutory right
- question of fact
- law common to claim
- subject matter jx
- venue
interpleader: standards
- general rule
- federal rule
interpleader: general rule
- stakeholder facing adverse, competing & overlapping claims
- stakeholder must be disinterested in outcome of the suit
- stakeholder not independently liable to either claimant on other claims
interpleader: federal rules
stakeholder facing claims:
- adverse
- competing
- overlapping
- multiple
- vexation litigation

Court must have personal jx over D's

Fed. Interpleader Act

Rule 22
fed. interpleader act
- debt deposited with court
- minimal diversity required
- $500 in controversy
- nationwide service of process
- venue proper
- easy to obtain state ct. injunctions
Fed. Rule 22
For Fed. interpleader

- debt not deposited with ct.
- federal question or total diversity
- $75,000 in controversy
- regular service of process & venue
- hard to get injunctions in state ct.
impleader
D can implead non-party from whom D is entitled indemnification.

Need ancillary jx!
discovery: types
- depsotion
- admission
- document
- interrogatory
- examination (mental/physical)
- subpoena
discovery: scope/limitations
- must be relevant
- privileged matters not discoverable
- atty work product usually not discoverable (exceptions!)
- oppressive discovery may be curtailed by protective orders

Rule 26
discovery: Rule 26
Discovery requires:
- disclosure of witness information
- tangible evidence
- damage computations
- insurance agreements
- expert W testimony
- W list
sanctions for non-compliance with discovery
- contempt
- pleadings stricken
- default
- adverse finding of fact
- costs
adjudications without trial
- motion to dismiss
- voluntary dismissal
- involuntary dismissal
- default judgment
possible jury verdicts
- general verdict
- special verdict
- general verdict with interrogatories
determining right to a jury trial
fed: 7th Am
state: 7th Am doesn't apply. State rule?

RELATION BACK: would there have been a right to jury trial in 1791? If unclear, consider:
- nature of action
- remedy
- legal or equitable
- practical abilities & limitations of jury (highly technical/complex litigation?)

P must make timely demand!
determining right to a jury trial: nature of action
Draw analogy to something that existed in 1791 and see what they would have done with that.
determining right to a jury trial: remedy
not determinative! (thanks a lot!)
determining right to a jury trial: legal vs. equitable
JUDGE DETERMINES LEGAL ISSUES. Jury can only determine equitable issues!

depends on the nature of the underlying issue, not how the atty spins it.
jury trial: if there are legal & equitable issues
Judge tries legal issues first!

EXCEPTION: P would be irreparably harmed if equitable claims are delayed.
trial & post-trial motions: list
- nonsuit
- motion for judgment as a matter of law
- renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law
- motion for new trial
- motion for relief from judgment
motion for nonsuit
WHEN: after P presents her case

P has failed to show a right to relief.
motion for judgment as a matter of law
WHEN: after opposing party has presented their case, but before submission to the jury.

Viewed in light most favorable to the opposing party!

If denied, you can renew after the jury verdict. That's a judgment NOV.
judgment NOV
WHEN: 10 days after judgment, only if motion for judgment as a matter of law was made before verdict.

Renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. NO evidence on which the jury could find for the non-moving party.
motion for new trial
Court feels injustice has occurred and can grant modification of the verdict in whole or in part.
- remittitur
- additur (not Fed!)
remittitur
P agrees to lesser damages or court will grant new trial
additur
D agrees to greater damages or court will grant new trial.

FED: not allowed!
motion for relief from judgment
Grounds exist for reopening case in court's discretion
- jury misconduct
- accident or surprise
- newly discovered evidence
- fraud
- mistake
- inadvertence
- excusable neglect
- errors of law
- insufficient evidence
when you can appeal
after final judgment!
res judicata vs. collateral estoppel
res judicata: we already decided that cause of action

collateral estoppel: we already decided that issue
res judicata
Same:
- primary rights
- evidence
- transaction or occurence

There was a judgment on the merits.
CA: not final until appeal concluded
collateral estoppel
- necessary to first action
- identical issues
- actually litigated

D can always use as a shield
P generally can't use as a sword (exceptions - list)
collateral estoppel: when P can use as a sword
Not usually!

- P could not have joined earlier action
- not foreseeable that other suits might arise
- judgment asserted by P consistent with prior judgments
- full & fair adjudication
judgments from other jurisdictions
full faith & credit!

Only applies to:
- final judgments
- default & consent judgments
- judgments not subject to collateral attack

Foreign countries: voluntary (unless treaty)
Civ Pro issue spotting
- does the court have personal jx over the defendant & subject matter?
- pleadings issues
- claims/parties properly joined?
- discovery issues
- pretrial conference
- trial
- trial & post-trial motions
- final judgment
Issue spotting: claims & parties properly joined?
- joinder of claims
- joinder of parties
- class action
- intervention
- interpleader
- impleader
issue spotting: trial
- right to a jury trial
- jury selection
- verdicts
issue spotting: final judgment
- res judicata
- collateral estoppel
- full faith & credit
in personam jx
gives the court power over Defendant; enforceable in other states
in rem jx
gives the court power over PROPERTY located in the state
quasi in rem jx
gives the court power to determine the rights of particular persons respecting specific property within the court's control