Civil Procedure Cases

Front 1

Kentopp v. Kentopp

Back 1

Testate’s will devises piece of land to grandchildren. π files to have land partitioned in District and administrator files in county court. A jurisdiction question.

Front 2

Haywood v. Drown (2009)

Back 2

N.Y.’s Correction Law §24 against the federal Supremacy clause - embittered inmates

Front 4

Haas v. Wieboldt Stores, Inc.

Back 4

∆ changed the date of shareholder’s mtg to avoid sending out proxy solicitations of π as required by federal law.

Front 5

Morris v. Hobart

Back 5

Parties settled during  a Title VII discrimination lawsuit. After ∆ breached, π trys to bring suit in Fed court. ∆ say there is no SMJ.

Front 6

Carden v. Arkoma Associates

Back 6

After π brings suit in fed. court, ∆ argues no diversity jurisdiction b/c one of the limited partners reside in the same state as ∆.

Front 7

O’Brien v. Jansen

Back 7

Two college students got into a fight. π tries to bring suit for battery and IIED in fed. court, but there is a question as to which state ∆ was a citizen.

Front 8

Central Fiber Corp. v. Site Services, Ltd.

Back 8

∆ motioned to dismiss for want of Fed. SMJ b/c amount of damages pled were not above the amended amount of $75K (amended in 10/96, complaint was 12/96)

Front 9

The Hertz Corp. v. Friend (2010)

Back 9

Nerve-Center Test Adopted, no specific or relevant facts given.

Front 10

Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain (1989)

Back 10

π, a IL resident, sues a Venezuelan corp., four Venezuelan citizens, and a US citizen who is domiciled in Venezuela.

Front 11

Intec USA, LLC v. Engle

Back 11

One of π's is a citizen of New Zealand, but has permanate domicile in U.S. Under 28 U.S.C. §1332, he has state citizenship, but the court addresses whether he retains his foreign citizenship, and would therefore be unable to bring suit in federal court for want of SMJ.

Front 12

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs (1966)

Back 12

π was hired to open a mine co. after another closed down. The laid off workers of the other co stopped him and ruined his livelyhood. He sues the union.

Front 13

McLaurin v. Prater

Back 13

Prisonguard (∆) punches inmate for stealing another inmate's cigarettes, but it was needlessly. Π sues on Fed. Q (8th amendment), and state law assault, battery etc . . . (pendent jurisdiction).

Front 14

Serrano-Moran v. Grau-Gaztambide

Back 14

π's son was kidnapped and beaten by police officers, and later died. π sues both police (fed Q) and hospital for medical malpractice (state tort), in federal court, claiming pendent jurisidiction. (TC > dismissed state action, APC: Affirmed).

Front 15

Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc. (1999)

Back 15

π files complaint (breach of K/fraud) in state court, but doesn't serve summons for another 15 days. ∆ motions to remove to federal court, but only has 30 days under § 1446(b). Does 30 days start with complaint or summons?

Front 16

Bailey v. Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Back 16

π's decedent died from a narcotic overdose from a patch; π sues multiple ∆s, and serves them on different days. Does the 30 days under §1446(b) start with the first ∆ or the last ∆?

Front 17

Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc.

Back 17

∆ notices to remove claiming complete diversity, and eight months go by. The district court then realizes both parties are from CA, and remand the case to state court. [DC: R; ∆ appeals; H: R&R]

Front 18

Watson v. Philip Morris (2007)

Back 18

∆ was allegedly selling normal cigarettes, but advertising them as light; π brings suit in state court, and ∆ notices removal under FQ (Federal Government's method of testing).

Front 19

Strawbridge v. Curtis (1806)

Front 20

Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng'r & Mfg. (2005)

Back 20

∆ bought π's house from IRS after they has seized it to pay for ∆'s tax debt. 5 yrs later, ∆ brings action in state court to reclaim title, claiming that the IRS didn't inform of the seizure properly. ∆ removes, and π objects. [DC∆ (fed. SMJ), ACH: Aff.; H: Aff.]

Front 21

Bennett v. Southwest Airlines Co.

Back 21

Following a plane crash, suit is brought (unclear who the πs are) against Southwest, who removes, claiming federal Q b/c of federal airline regulations. [DCgives to AC for interlocutory appeal; H: R&R, give to state court]

Front 22

Ankenbrandt v. Richards (1992)

Back 22

Mother (π) sues ex-husband and his new wife (∆) for alleged physical and sexual abuse of her children in federal court. [∆ motions to dismiss (G), ACH: Aff. H: Aff.]

Front 23

Haney v. Olin Corp.

Back 23

∆s tried to evade the summons by seeing the officer and running back into the house.

Front 24

Weiss v. Glemp

Back 24

π (a rabbi) had been tried to sue a pollack (∆) for some time, but had been unsuccessful bringing suit. While on a pastoral visit to Seatle, he attempted to serve him, but ∆ didn't come to the door, and his secretary declined to accept them. The officer left them on a windowsill. [TC ∆; H: Aff - Service not proper]

Front 25

Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. v. Brenneke

Back 25

∆ tries to evade service by not answering the door and refusing to admit it really happened.[DC π - valid service]

Front 26

Charin v. Cogan

Back 26

∆1 service was left with doorman and followed up w/ a mailed service; ∆2&3 service was left with receptionist [H: Valid service]

Front 27

Coleman v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors

Back 27

π brings Title VII discrimination claim against former employer, but doesn't serve them properly, and so the motion is dismissed, and now the SOL has run. [DC ∆; H: Aff.]

Front 28

Rio Properties Inc. v. Rio International Interlink

Back 28

π sues for trademark infringement, and ∆ evades it, has no physical address. Π tries to serve to third party, and the attorney, then they file for permission to email ∆ service (G). [TC default judgement for π, H: aff]

Front 29

Green v. Lindsey (1982)

Back 29

∆s posted notice of forcible entry or detainer on tenants (πs) doors,which they allegely never received. After their homes are entered, they claim a violation of the 14th amendment's due process clause. [∆m SJ (G), π appeals, ACH: R&R, ∆ appeals, H: Aff]

Front 30

Tulsa Professional Collection Serv. Inc. v. Pope (1988)

Back 30

π (collection agency) fails to contact executor within SOL period (2 months), but wasn't given notice. [TC∆; π app., OK Supreme: Aff; π app., H: R&R]

Front 31

Andover v. State Financial Services, Inc.

Back 31

π deliquent on property taxes, ∆(city) mailed foreclosure notice barring redemption via certified mail, but πs building under construction and they never got it. A construction worker signed but then lost it. [TC ∆; π app., ACH: R&R, ∆ app. MA Supreme H: R&R]

Front 32

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950)

Back 32

n/a

Front 33

International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945)

Back 33

∆, a DE corp. w/ PPB in MO, had 11-13 salesman in the state of WA (π), but weren't paying taxes associated w/ running a business b/c they said they were not "present" in the State. [Supreme C of WA π; ∆ appeals, H: Aff - WA had PJ]

Front 34

Kentopp v. Kentopp

Back 34

County courts have authority to handle everything pertaining to a decedent's estate. If two courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the court which acquires it first retains it over the other.

Front 35

Haywood v. Drown (2009)

Back 35

State Law can’t go over the top of the federal hierarchy - the Supremacy Clause. U.S. Const. Art VI, cl. 2

Front 37

Haas v. Wieboldt Stores, Inc.

Back 37

28 U.S.C. § 1331 - Fed. Question jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under laws. Violations of federal statutes can be tried in federal courts.

Front 38

Morris v. Hobart

Back 38

“A case arises under fed. law if it’s ‘well-pleaded complaint established either that 1) fed. law creates the cause of action or that 2) the π’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of fed. law.”

Front 39

Carden v. Arkoma Associates

Back 39

To win a diversity SMJ case, a limited partnership must show “complete diversity.” For this, every one of the partners (general & limited) must reside in a different state than the potential ∆.  

Front 40

O’Brien v. Jansen

Back 40

Citizenship, as far as diversity jurisdiction is concerned, equates to domicile, which is defined as “residence in fact, coupled w/ the intent to make the place of residence one’s home. Domicile is changed by 1) physically residing in another state, and 2) intention to remain there indefinitely.

Front 41

Central Fiber Corp. v. Site Services, Ltd.

Back 41

28 U.S.C. § 1332 - Effective ninety days following 10/19/96 (i.e. starting on 1/19/97ish) amount required for diversity jurisdiction is $75K (as opposed to the previous amount of $50K.

Front 42

The Hertz Corp. v. Friend (2010)

Back 42

28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) “A corp. shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State” where it’s “high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corp.’s activities.” The ‘nerve center’ will typically be found at a corp.’s headquarters.

Front 43

Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain (1989)

Back 43

28 U.S.C. § 1332 - Lists diversity/alienation situations where federal SMJ is granted. If it's not listed, it can't happen (ex. In this case, because one of the ∆s was a "stateless" citizen, there can be no complete diversity SMJ)

Front 44

Intec USA, LLC v. Engle

Back 44

28 U.S.C. § 1332 - No federal SMJ if both parties are aliens (or any partner of the parties). If an individual is an alien who is permately dominciled in the states, he has dual citizenship and is therefore unable to bring suit against another alien.

Front 45

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs (1966)

Back 45

For a United States district court to have pendent jurisdiction over a state-law cause of action, state and federal claims must arise from the same "common nucleus of operative fact" and the plaintiff must expect to try them all at once.

Front 46

McLaurin v. Prater

Back 46

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) - courts can deny supplemental jurisidction ONLY in four circumstances. The word shall = mandatory. "Absent of circumstances described in sub (b) and (c), § 1367 requires the district court to accept supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims."

Front 47

Serrano-Moran v. Grau-Gaztambide

Back 47

28 U.S.C. § 1367 - if a concurrent state claim is to be tried in federal court with a federal claim using pendent jurisdiction, it must share a common nucleous, and be related to the federal claim.

Front 48

Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc. (1999)

Back 48

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) - "Removal notice shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the ∆." 4 Possibilities: 1) S+C together = runs @ once, 2) S, then C = runs w/ C, 3) S to ∆, C to court, runs when C is available to ∆, 4) C, then S, runs w/ S.

Front 49

Bailey v. Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Back 49

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) - This court adopted the LAST ∆ RULE - "permits each ∆, upon formal service of process, thirty days to file a notice of removal."

Front 50

Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc.

Back 50

28 U.S.C. § 1441, 1447(c) - π only has 30 days to object to ∆'s notice of removal - The Forum ∆ Rule.

Front 51

Watson v. Philip Morris (2007)

Back 51

none

Front 52

Strawbridge v. Curtis (1806)

Back 52

Chief Justice Marshall provides the doctrine of COMPLETE DIVERSITY

Front 53

Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng'r & Mfg. (2005)

Back 53

There is no clear-cut rule to determine whether federal issues embedded in state-law claims between nondiverse parties should be granted fed. SMJ; the courts will look at each case and examine policy reasons whether or not to grant SMJ.

Front 54

Bennett v. Southwest Airlines Co.

Back 54

For a federal issues in a state-law action to have fed. SMJ, the question arising under must be substantial and not easily handled by state law. There must be a legitimate question arising under federal law.

Front 55

Ankenbrandt v. Richards (1992)

Back 55

The domestic relations exceptions divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees. No domestic relationship decrees in federal court.

Front 56

Haney v. Olin Corp.

Back 56

If an officer makes reasonable attempts to serve someone, their childish attempts to evade said serve are ineffectual; they will be legally viewed as served. F.S. § 48.031(1)(a)

Front 57

Weiss v. Glemp

Back 57

Failing to come to the door does not constitute evasion of service.

Front 58

Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. v. Brenneke

Back 58

"A process server [may] merely leave the papers in the ∆'s presence or physical proximity" if the ∆ is being evasive.

Front 59

Charin v. Cogan

Back 59

Sevice may be left by a person of suitable age @ the place of ∆'s business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode when it is coupled with a actual mailing to their last known address. CPLR 308(2).

Front 60

Coleman v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors

Back 60

If the presence of many hardships for the π to overcome, a district court may excuse the π's failure to serve the complaint and summons within the 120 days provided by FRCP 4(m). It's at the judge's discretion, and he can deny it if he feels it is warranted.

Front 61

Rio Properties Inc. v. Rio International Interlink

Back 61

If the traditional means of service do not apply to a particular ∆, a judge may exercise his/her discretion and approve other means, such as email.

Front 62

Green v. Lindsey (1982)

Back 62

If people don't get actual notice of judicial or other government proceedings, there may be a violation of the 5th or 14th amendments due process clauses. 5th Amendment - "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"; 14th Amendment - "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Front 63

Tulsa Professional Collection Serv. Inc. v. Pope (1988)

Back 63

If a creditor is known or "reasonably ascertainable," the 14th amendment requires they be given notice "by mail or other means as certain to ensure acutal notice."

Front 64

Andover v. State Financial Services, Inc.

Back 64

While actual notice is usually required, if a noticee is unreachable and is aware of his messed up mail system, but is not taking steps to overcome it, his due process will not have been violated if the noticor has delivered him certified mail.

Front 65

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950)

Back 65

"An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonable calculated, under all of the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the aciton and afford them an opportunity to present their objections."

Front 66

International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945)

Back 66

14th Amendment due process dictates that a corperate ∆ is only subjected to lawsuits if it has "minimum contacts and so long as the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."