• 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

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/84

Click to flip

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;

84 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

What is Jurisdiction?

Power of the court to hear case, issue orders

What is Subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ)?


  • refers to the type of case a court can hear
  • A court must have SMJ and PJ to issue binding orders
  • PJ can be waived but SMJ cannot

What is PJ


  • refers to the power of the court to issue binding rulings over a party
  • A court must have SMJ and PJ to issue binding orders
  • PJ can be waived but SMJ cannot
  • Not π concern

Waiving PJ


  • Challenges to jdx occur atoutset: if not done, then objection to PJ waived.
  • Cannot Waive SMJ e.g., divorce action in Small Claims, © in state court

State Court


  • Court of general jdx
  • Concurrent jdx:statecourts have concurrent jdxwith most federal cases
  • State can hear ALMOST every case
  • Hear all but banckruptsy, ©, tax, admiralty Diversity jdx

Federal Courts
  • Limited Jdx
  • US Constitution created SCOTUS and permitted Congressto create other courts
  • Protect US laws, Constitution Exclusive jdx: b/k, ©,admiraltyDiversity jdx: levelplaying field, no local discriminationFederal Q

Diversity Jdx


  • Concept exists only in federal court
  • “Diversity” = SMJ, not the type of law but the type ofcitizens
  • 28 USC 1332: The district courts shall haveoriginal jdx ofall civilactions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75k and is btw (1) citizens ofdifferent states; (2) citizens of a state and aliens

28 USC 1332


  • Diversity
  • The district courts shall have original jdx of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75k and is btw (1) citizens of different states; (2) citizens of a state and aliens

Strawbridge v. Curtis


  • “It has long been the general rule that completediversity of parties is required in order that diversity jdx obtain; thatis, no party on one side may be a citizen of the same State as any party on theother side.”
  • Different citizenship on either side of “v”

Domicile/Citizenship


  • Domicile is one’s “true, fixed, and permanent home… to which he has the intention of returningwhenever he is absent therefrom.”
  • “Intention” = subjective, but supported by evidence
  • Where live and intention to stay

Where Corporations live? Citizenship?


  • Corporations have dual citizenship: state ofincorporation and Primary Place of Business is nerve center,
  • “place where a corporation’s officers direct, control and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” Usually: headquarters

Hertz v.Friend


  • Primary place of business is nerve center
  • “place where a corporation’s officers direct, control and coordinate the corporation’s activities.”
  • Usually: headquarters

Citizenship of non corporations? Partnerships? LLCs? etc.


  • collections of individuals, not separate legal entities as corporations are
  • Court treats them as groups of individual litigants.
  • domicile of all members must be considered for diversity
  • PCs (med, legal practices) are corporations and arecitizens of place of incorporations and PPB (not where members live)

Where are legal and medical practices citizens of?

PCs (med, legal practices) are corporations and are citizens of place of incorporations and Primary Place of Business (not where members live)

Stateless Person Citizenship?


  • NO DIVERSITY POSSIBLE bc domiciled abroad but US citizen
  • Diversity requires citizens of different states or citizens of state and foreign country
  • The ex-pat problem: US citizens living abroadpermanently are neither “citizens of a state” nor “citizens of a foreigncountry”

Amount incontroversy


  • Congress created not Constitution
  • fed courts shouldn’t hear trivial matters
  • $75k minimum - “Not so high as to convert the federal courts intocourts of big business or so low as to fritter away their time in the trial ofpetty controversies.”
  • If made in good faith = ok, unless legal certainty that the claim is really less than the $75k
  • Whenchallenged, it must be adequately founded in fact

St Paul Mercury v. Red Cab


  • Amount in controversy
  • Plaintiff’s claim for the required amount willgenerally be accepted if it appears to be made in good faith,
  • unlessit appears to a legal certainty that theclaim is really less than the jdx minimum amount.

Aggregating Claims


  • P can sue D for every claim she has, even if they aretotally unrelated, in order to meet the jdx minimum.
  • “AGGREGATING”If a single P meets the amount in controversy minimum,related P’s may join in even if their claims are less. “Supplemental jdx”But co-p's may notcombine claims to meet jdx minimum

FEDERAL Question
  • SMJ type 2
  • Exclusive jdx cases = fed Q: bankruptcy, copyright, admiralty,
  • Involving US ConstitutionOR Federal Statute (USC)
  • BASIS of jdx must bealleged in the complaint

Well Pleaded Complaint


  • Suit not defenses arise out of Constitution
  • Arises under Constitution & US laws when π statement of his own cause of action shows = based upon those laws…
  • not = enough π alleges anticipated defense to his cause of action…allegations show =very likely question under Constitution would arise, do not show suit…arises under the Constitution.

Mottley Rule


  • Invoke federal law in complaint
  • Not enough that federal law be raised as a defense
  • Basis for FedQ must be in π complaint – notanswer, not x-complaint
  • SMJ brought up sua sponte by SCOTUS!Why okay? BC SMJ never waived.

sua sponte

without formal prompting, on own

Embedded federalissue

Tiny exception to WPC rule“Does the state-law claim necessarily raise a statedfederal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum mayentertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federaland state judicial responsibilities?”Grable: Yes (tax lien, QT). Gunn v. Minton: No (legal mal, patent case underlying)

28 USC 1441 / Removal JDX
  • civil action brought in a state ct & district cts have original jdx -> may be removed by ∆ to district court embracing place where action = pending.
  • If either party wants a case within federal j/d to beheard in the a federal court, the case will be heard there.
  • EXCEPT: in state ∆ diversity case may notremove.

Removal and Remand


  • D files a NOTICE OF REMOVAL
  • Removal from state to federal court is automatic
  • P can challenge removal in federal court by motion toremand w/in 30 days of removal (tho no time limitif fed ct has no SMJ)
  • If federal court finds removal improper, it will remand case to state court

Service of Process


  • Defendant has no obligation toappear in court until he has been validly served with process
  • After P files complaint, mustgive D notice of the action
  • P’s obligation to serve summonsand complaint on D
  • Rules for service are technicaland must be followed exactly

Service of Process:14th Amendment


  • Rules have basis in U.S.Constitution
  • “No personal shall be deprived oflife, liberty, or property without due process of law”
  • Due process = fair procedures
  • Notice and opportunity to beheard
  • Method chosen must be “reasonablycalculated to give actual notice”

Service of Processand JDX


  • For a court to have authority to issue orders, it musthave SMJ over type of case and PJ over parties
  • No PJ until D served with process
  • In Pennoyer era, service was available only on in-statedefendants. Could not serve out-of-state D with process
  • Just b/c party served with process does not mean courthas SMJ or PJ!
  • When P files case, she submits self to j/d of court
  • D must have some contact with court for court to havePJ
  • States have general j/d over its residents
  • Long-arm statutes give courts j/d over out-of-stateD’s who transact business in a state or who have temporary presence in state

Types of Notice

  • Actual: in hand, personal delivery CCP 415.10
  • Substitute: left with someone ostensibly in charge,mailed afterwards CCP 415.20
  • Constructive: publication, posting. Need courtapproval first. CCP 415.50
  • Notice and Acknowledgment: Agreement to accept serviceCCP 415.30

SERVICE Rules


  • Out of state defendants: any manner allowed in stateor by first class mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. CCP 415.40
  • Nail and mail: UD actions only; requires order fromcourt; both posting and mailing required. CCP 415.45

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank


  • When notice is a person’s due, process which is a meregesture is not due process
  • What kind of notice must be given?
  • Notice reasonably calculated, under all thecircumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action andafford them an opportunity to present their objections
  • The means employed must be such as one desirous ofactually informing the person of the action

Service in FederalCourts


  • Can serve by any of the methods in FRCP OR by any method approved by the state where the federalcourt sits.
  • FRCP 4(e): personal service, sub service at home oroffice, delivery to agent for SOP

Objecting toService of Process


  • CA: Motion to quash. “Specially appear” before answerdue and object.
  • Federal court: 12(b) motion to dismiss forinsufficient service of process
  • Must object at outset; defects in service are waivedif answer filed
  • Collateral attack: can permit default to be taken andchallenge service then

TIP: READ CCP and FRCP service rules in preparation forfinal!

CCP


FRCP

PersonalJurisdiction


  • PJ refers to the power of the court to require aperson to appear and defend an action
  • Court must have SMJ and PJ – analyze separately (mighthave either, need both)
  • No PJ until D has been validly served with process
  • PJ must be challenged at outset or it is waived.
  • It’s only D’s PJ that is an issue
  • PJ reasonable when (1) D has contacts with state; (2) contacts purposeful or deliberate (3) claim arises out of contacts (4) j/d fair and reasonable

PJ CPAF

PJ Cargo Pants Are Fancy

Pennoyer v. Neff
  • “The authority of every tribunal is necessarilyrestricted by the territorial limits of the State in which it is established.”
  • “In rem” jdx: Could hookout-of-state defendants if they had property within the state
  • Service of process only valid in state – no authorityto serve process on out-of-state Ds

Int’l Shoe v. Washington: “Modern era begins”


  • p. 165: “due process requires only that in order tosubject a D to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within theterritory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that maintenance of the suit does notoffend traditional notions of fairplay and substantial justice.”
  • Remember this was the first case to look at PJ fromthe POV of contacts.
  • “Presence in the state…has never been doubted when theactivities of the corporation there have not only been continuousand systematic, but also giverise to theliabilities sued on.”
  • “Give rise” – specific j/d. Idea of “this case only”

General JDX


  • If you make yourself at home here, we will treat youlike a citizen = general j/d

Specific JDX
  • “There have been instances in which the continuous corporate operations within a state were thought so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities.”

Analyzing Contacts

1.Defendant must have certain minimum contacts with theforum state.


2.The suit must arise out of those contacts.


3.The exercise of jdx must be fairand reasonable




TIP: CONTACTS, CONTACTS, CONTACTS!“Purposefully availed.”


Cite case for fairness!

Daimler v. Bauman (2014)
  • General JDX
  • Most of law following Int’l Shoe focused on specific j/d
  • “Continuous and systematic…so as to be at home”discussed but didn’t catch on
  • “For an individual, the paradigm forum for theexercise of general j/d is the individual’s domicile; for a corporation, it isan equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded at home –place of incorp & PPB”

McGee v. Int’lLife:

  • McGee v. Int’l Life: “It is sufficient for purposes ofdue process that the suit was based on a contract which had a substantialconnection with the state.”
  • Int’l Life issued reinsurance premium to CA residentand mailed to CA
  • Accepted premiums from CA
  • Benef lived in CA

Purposeful Availment


  • Minimum contacts
  • “It is essential in each case that there be some actby which the defendant purposefullyavailed itself of theprivilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking thebenefits and protections of the law.” Hanson v. Denckla, p. 181Idea that Deft can choose to direct its contacts intostate
  • “J/D is proper…where the contactsproximately result from actionsby the D himself that create a substantial connection withthe forum state.”
  • Court must consider the burden onthe defendant, the interests of the forum state, and the plaintiff’s interestin obtaining relief.
  • Burden on D is severe

World Wide VW v. Woodson
  • Foreseeability alone has never been a sufficientbenchmark for PJ
  • D’s conduct and connection with the forum state aresuch that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there
  • PJ reasonable when (1) D has contacts with state; (2)contacts purposeful or deliberate (3) claim arises out of contacts (4) j/d fairand reasonable
  • Cross-country car wreck; defective car
  • Car, foreseeable that it would arrive in state
  • REVERSED
  • We find in the record a total absence of affiliatingcircumstances that are a necessary predicate to any exercise of j/d. Ds carryon no activity whatsoever in state. P seek to base j/d on one isolatedoccurrence.

Calder v. Jones, p.200


  • TV star (CA) sued National Enquirer (FL), editor andwriter (FL) for libelous article in CA. SCOTUS says yes to PJ over all.
  • “CA is focal point of story and of harm suffered.”
  • Defts “are notcharged with mere untargeted negligence. Rather, their intentional, allegedlytortious, actions were expresslyaimed at CA. [Defts] wrote andedited an article that they knew would have a potentially devastating impact upon [Pltf].” Ds knewarticle would be circulated in CA.

Sufficient Contacts


  • When activities have been knowingly directed to theforum state
  • Defamation: “effects” felt in CA
  • Defts shouldreasonably anticipate being haled into court there
  • Fairness factor – should someone who has been victimof libelous article have to travel out of state to seek redress?

Burger King v. Rudzewicz


  • D signed franchise agreement with BK. K had FL choiceof law. BK sues in FL
  • This franchise dispute grew directly out of a contractwhich had a substantial connection with State
  • Once it has been decided that D purposefullyestablished minimum contacts with the forum state, courts look to fairnessfactors. D must present compelling case that j/d not reasonable

Asahi Metal v. Superior Court

  • Stream of commerce
  • Argument for stream of commerce:products travel in marketplace and manufmakes $$
  • Manufhas “awareness” that its product will flow into marketplace
  • Fairness to consumer
  • States want to protect citizens
  • SCOTUS note enough PJ
  • “The substantial connection btwthe D and the forum state necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must comeabout by an action of the defendantpurposefully directed toward the forum state. The placement of a product intothe stream of commerce, without more, is not an act of the defendantpurposefully directed toward the forum state.”

Zippo Test


  • Internet and PJ
  • If D conducts activities (e.g.sales) thru an interactive site, it could be subject to PJ
  • If D’s website purely passive, noj/d. E.g., all informational, no sales
  • If some interactivity – visitorsexchange info but no sales: courts will look at nature and extent of activity

Jackson v. CANewspapers
  • P sues on-line paper fordefamation -- steroids
  • A federal court sitting indiversity has pjover a non-resident defendant only if an IL court would have j/d
  • No PJ. Paper not directed to IL.No minimum contacts. Website alone not enough. Ds could not foresee, much lesstarget, IL.
  • “Would offend notions of fairplay”

Long Arm Statutes
  • In order to exercise j/d over out-of-state D, statesmust have long-arm statute authorizing its exercise
  • Most common: PJ over all motorists entering state;over all businesses transacting bus in this state
  • CA: “as extensive as US Constitution permits”

FRCP4(k)(1)(A) / Federal Long Arm Statute
  • j/d exists over a defendant who is subject to the j/dof a court of general j/d in the state where the district court is located
  • Federal courts can only exercise PJ over a D if itsstate court could do so

Other Bases for PJ
  • Transient presence: D usuallysubject to PJ in any state where he is served personally while physicallypresent in that forum, if there voluntarily. Burnham v. S Ct
  • Consent: forum selection clause;other agreements
  • Waiver: failure to object to j/ddefects

Challenging PJ
  • Direct attack: Before answering--
  • CA:motion to quash; no PJ
  • Federal:Motion to dismiss 12(b)(2) – no PJ
  • Collateral attack: Afterjudgment: -- e.g., Int’l Life: When P comes to your state and tries to enforce,challenge lack of j/d in your home state (risky but often your home state sideswith you)

Venue


  • Which court within a court systemis the correct court
  • Venue often appropriate in morethan one place
  • Ensurethat case is litigated in court that is conveniently located and has someconnection to parties and case.

Where is venueproper? CCP 397
  • Almost always: where D lives
  • PI cases: where accident occurredor where D lives
  • Contract: where K entered, whereK to be performed, where D lives
  • Real property: for right, titleor interest to real property or injury to RP: where RP located

Federal VenueStatute: 28 USC 1391
  • A civil action may be brought in
  • (1)Ajudicial district in which any defendant resides;
  • (2)Ajudicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions givingrise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is thesubject of the action is situated
  • (3) If there is no district inwhich an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, anyjudicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personaljurisdiction with respect to such action.
  • (*Depends on state long-armstatute…if D subject to PJ in state, also subject in fed ct)

Challenges to Venue
  • Motion for Change of Venue: Pfiled in wrong court. There maybe SMJ and PJ, but not court designated for trial
  • Forumnon convenience: impartial trial cannot be held; convenience of witnesses andends of justice promoted by change. (Venue is proper where case filed butfairness supports transfer)
  • Judge can only transfer case toanother court in his court system
  • Venue waived if not raised

Challenges toVenue: Federal rule


  • Similar rule in Fed Ct:
  • 28 USC 1404: “For the convenienceof parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court maytransfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might havebeen brought or to any district or division to which all parties haveconsented.”

Pleadings


  • Pleadings are the formalallegations by the parties of their respective claims and defenses for thejudgment of the court
  • Complaints, demurrers, answers,cross-complaints

Pleading Comes Across Damn Cowardly

CCP 425.10:ELEMENTS OF COMPLAINT

Complaint- Facts & Demand

A complaint or x-cshall contain both of the following: (1) a statement of the facts constitutingthe cause of action in ordinary and concise language, and (2) a demand forjudgment for the relief to which the pleader claims to be entitled. Wherean action is brought to recover actual or punitive damages for personal injury,the amount shall not be stated.

FRCP 8

Complaint - Jdx support, action support, demand,


  • A pleading that states a claimfor relief must contain:
  • (1)ashort and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s j/d;
  • (2)Ashort and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled torelief; and
  • (3)Ademand for the relief sought.

HeightenedPleading: FRCP 9

Fraud or Mistake: In allegingfraud or mistake a party must state with particularity the circumstancesconstituting fraud or mistake.



  • “heightened pleading”
  • Same rule in CA
  • “Pleading with particularity” –punitive damages

Iqbal/Twombly
  • Plausible Pleading
  • Federal courts cannot imposeheightened pleading standards on any cases other than fraud or mistake (Leatherman)
  • But complaint must be plausible
  • P needs more than just astatement of the elements of the violation – needs facts to show wrongdoing
  • Return of WPC

Defendant’s Turn, Pleadings
  • Answer: admit, deny; affirmativedefense
  • Challenge the sufficiency of thecomplaint – demurrer (motion to dismiss), motion to strike
  • Specially appear to raise defects in service, jurisdiction. “Motion to quash”
  • Do nothing. Default

What is a default?
  • Defendant’s failure to file aresponse within the time allowed by law (30 d for state court, 21 d for federalcourt)
  • Default is not enteredautomatically – P must request it. “Notice of entry of default.”
  • After default entered, P mayapply for default judgment
  • When D’s default taken, onlyaction allowed is motion to set aside default (can’t defend)

CCP 473(b), 473.5/ Setting asidedefaults
  • Court mayset aside default if mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect…mustsetaside default if attorney’s mistake, inadvertence if accompanied by affidavitfrom lawyer
  • May set aside default if servicedid not result in actual notice
  • “Law abhors a forfeiture”
  • “Favors a full and fair hearingon the merits”

CCP 431.30 ANSWER

Answers -denial, defense, (no affirmative relief).


  • The answer to a complaint shallcontain:
  • (1)Thegeneral or specific denial of the material allegations of the complaintcontroverted by the defendant.
  • (2)Astatement of any new matter constituting a defense (“affirmative defense”)
  • (3)Affirmativerelief may not be claimed in the answer

AffirmativeDefenses FRCP 8(c)
  • Not a claim for relief but abasis to defeat the complaint. D can add factual allegations to support claims.
  • Statute of limitations
  • Comparative fault
  • Failure to mitigate
  • Set off
  • Statute of frauds
  • Res judicata

Cross-Complaints
  • Action by D against P or 3P foraffirmative relief
  • Compulsory: D v. P for same TOSTO
  • Permissive: any claim (unrelated)D has against P orany claim D has against third parties arising out of the matters raisedin complaint (TOSTO)
  • X-C is filed with answer. If not,must obtain leave of court to file later

Challenges toSufficiency of Complaint


  • Demurrer: failure to state acause of action; pleading uncertain – ambiguous or unintelligible
  • Motion to strike: “irrelevant,false, or improper matter”
  • P has right to amend beforeanswer filed or demurrer heard
  • Court takes as true allallegations in complaint, no matter how unlikely

Amending Pleading:CCP 472, 473
  • PLEADING may be amended once by theparty as of course before answer filed or before hearing on demurrer
  • If any party wants to amend anypleading after time has passed, must either obtain leave of court (liberaldiscretion) or stipulation of the parties
  • Federal Rule: FRCP 15: Amend onceas of right w/in 21 days of service or 21 days after service of responsivepleading or 12(b) motion
  • Rule in favor of liberality ofamendment

Discovery


  • Depositions, Interrogatories,RFA; Inspections of documents, things places; physical or mental examinations;simultaneous exchange of experts
  • Non-parties: deposition only; mayinclude deposubpoena for documents

Expert Discovery


  • Close to trial; simultaneousexchange; must disclose everything in the expert’s file if requested.
  • “Consulting expert” = expertlawyers has hired to help develop case. If not designated as an expert, heropinion protected by the work-product doctrine.

Discovery Standard
  • “Reasonably likely to lead to thediscovery of admissible evidence.”
  • Non-privileged (attorney-client;work product). CCP 2018.030
  • Self-executing
  • Court intervention and sanctionsfor failure to comply, misuse of discovery process
  • But must try to work outdisagreements first

Duty to AttemptResolution


  • “meet and confer” before filingany discovery motion
  • Failure to meet and confer canresult in sanctions even if moving party wins the discovery motion
  • Best way? “Knees under thetable.”

Attorney Client Privilege


  • Attorney-client: communicationsbetween client and attorney are absolutely privileged. But statements betweenwitnesses and lawyer not protected by privilege.
  • Work product: Absolute privilegefrom discovery for attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, legaltheories. Qualified protection for work done at direction of lawyer inanticipation of litigation

Work Product Privilege

Work product: Absolute privilege from discovery for attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal theories. Qualified protection for work done at direction of lawyer in anticipation of litigation

Physical or mentalexam
  • CCP 2032.01: Defendant gets onephysical exam of plaintiff if no diagnostic test and no pain and exam w/in 75miles of plaintiff’s residence. Limited to conditions “in controversy”
  • CCP 2032.320: Other than PIcases, need court approval for physical or mental exam “only for good cause”
  • No mental examination ifplaintiff states, “No claim is being made for mental and emotional distressover and above that usually associated with the physical injuries claimed” ANDplaintiff not calling an expert on emotional distress

Dismissals FED


  • Federal Court:
  • Voluntary dismissal: P may file anotice of dismissal before D serves answer or MSJ; or upon stipulation ofparties. Unless notice says otherwise, it is without prejudice (P can refile ifS/L has not run)
  • No court permission required
  • “With prejudice” = can’t refile

Dismissals State


  • State Court:
  • Voluntary dismissal: P may file anotice of dismissal at any time before trial. Does not need D’s permission. Ifw/o prejudice, P can refile ifS/L has not run
  • No court permission required
  • If case settles, P will berequired to dismiss “With prejudice” = can’t refile

Res Judicata

  • Finality of judgments
  • “One bite at the apple.”
  • If case dismissed with prejudice,either voluntarily or involuntarily (e.g., demurrer, failure to prosecute), orMSJ granted, tried by court or jury to verdict, it is over. And the trial orthat case or anything that could have been brought is barred by doctrine of resjudicata.

Summary Judgment


  • No triable issue of material fact
  • Nothing for trier of fact todecide
  • Moving party is entitled to j asa matter of law
  • Must be supported by admissibleevidence
  • Pleadings are not evidence
  • Judge does not weigh evidence
  • Moving party: prima facie casefor judgment
  • Oppo:raise a triable issue of fact
  • If motion is granted, it resultsin a judgment. Thus, no trial.
  • Either side can bring MSJ – P canargue no defense; D can argue P can’t prove one or more elements of c/a
  • “Motionfor Summary Adjudication” = ruling on some, but not all, c/a in complaint

State law infederal court/ Erie Doctrine


  • Erie doctrine: in diversitycases, federal court apply the substantive state law that would be used by thestate court where the federal court sits
  • May be the same as the state lawwhere the federal court sits, but not necessarily so
  • There is no “general federalcommon law.”
  • Federal court must ascertain lawof state or predict what it would be