Civpro

Front 1

Constitutional limits of personal jurisdiction

Back 1

1) Such minimum contacts
2) Does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

Front 2

Minimum contacts

Back 2

1) Purposefully availed
2) Activities in forum made it foreseeable that D may be haled into court

Front 3

Fairness

Back 3

1) Claim is related to D's contact with the forum (specific jx)
2) Systematic and continuous activity in forum (general jx)
3) Forum is "so gravely difficult and inconvenient"
4) Forum state's legitimate interest
5) P's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
6) Interest in efficiency
7) Shared interest of the states in furthering social policies

Front 4

Supplemental jurisdiction

Back 4

Claim arises from common nucleus of operative fact

Front 5

Erie doctrine

Back 5

A federal court in diversity will apply its own procedural law, but must apply the substantive law and conflicts of law rules of the state

Front 6

"Arguably procedural" federal directive on point?

Back 6

1) Outcome determinative
2) Balance of interests
3) Deterrence of forum shopping

Front 7

CA conflict of laws (torts)

Back 7

Governmental interest approach: if laws conflict, balance the states' interests

Front 8

Choice-of-law clauses

Back 8

1) Substantial relationship between parties or transaction to the choses law? Yes: enforceable
2) Enforceability overridden by CA policy interest?
3) Unenforceable: use government interest approach

Front 9

CA jurisdictional classifications

Back 9

1) Limited civil cases
2) Unlimited civil cases

Front 10

Federal court venue

Back 10

1) Any D resides if all Ds reside in same state
2) Substantial part of events or admissions or substantial part of property
3a) Solely on diversity: any D subject to PJx
3b) Not solely on diversity: where any D may be found

Front 11

CA venue

Back 11

1) Local actions: location of land
2) Transitory: Where any D resides
3) Any county if no D resides in CA
4) Contracts: where K was formed or be performed
5) Personal injury: location of injury

Front 12

CA transfer of venue by court

Back 12

1) Would not be impartial trial
2) Convenience of witnesses and ends of justice
3) No judge qualified to act

Front 13

Federal intervention in state proceeding

Back 13

1) Great and immediate irreparable injury
2) Bad faith prosecution
3) Harassment or other unusual circumstances requiring equity

Front 14

Federal service of process

Back 14

1) Personal service
2) Usual abode
3) Authorized agent
4) Mail and waiver of process

Front 15

CA service of process

Back 15

1) Personal delivery
2) Substituted service followed by mailing
3) Service by mail
4) Service by publication

Front 16

Federal Rule 12(b) defenses

Back 16

1) Lack of subject matter jurisdiction
2) Lack of personal jurisdiction
3) Improper venue
4) Insufficiency of process
5) Insufficiency of service of process
6) Failure to state a claim
7) Failure to join a required party

Front 17

CA general demurrer

Back 17

1) Failure to state a claim
2) Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

Front 18

CA special demurrer

Back 18

1) Lack of legal capacity
2) Existence of other pending action
3) Defect or misjoinder of parties
4) Uncertain pleading
5) Failure to plead oral or written contract
6) Failure to file certain required certificates

Front 19

Motion to quash service of summons

Back 19

Objection to court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. Filed before or same time as answer.

Front 20

Anti-SLAPP motion to strike

Back 20

1) D shows complaint arises out of activity protected by 1A
2) P has burden of showing probability of prevailing on merits
3) D can SLAPP back (malicious prosecution action)

Front 21

Timing of answer in federal court

Back 21

No Rule 12: 21 days
Served by mail: 60 days
Rule 12: 14 days after denial
More definite statement: 14 days

Front 22

Timing of answer in CA court

Back 22

No demurrer or motion to strike: 30 days
After demurrer or motion to strike: 10 days

Front 23

Compulsory counterclaim

Back 23

If it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as P's claim

Front 24

Permissive counterclaim

Back 24

Any non-compulsory claim. Must meet jurisdictional requirements in federal court.

Front 25

Compulsory joinder

Back 25

1) Complete relief cannot be given to parties in absence
2) Disposition in his absence may impair his ability to protect his interest
3) Absence would expose parties to substantial risk of double or inconsistent obligations

Front 26

Permissive joinder

Back 26

1) Some claim is made out of each P and against each D relating to or arising out of the same series of occurrences or transactions
2) Question of fact or law common to all parties

Front 27

Class action

Back 27

1) Numerous class
2) Common questions
3) Typicality
4) Fair and adequate representation
5a) Risk of inconsistent results
5b) Injunctive or declaratory relief appropriate
5c) Common questions predominate and class action is superior to alternate methods of adjudication

Front 28

Federal diversity in class action

Back 28

1) Citizenship of representatives only
2) One class member's claims must be above $75k

Front 29

Class Action Fairness Act

Back 29

Subject matter jurisdiction if:
1) Any class member diverse from any D
2) Aggregate exceeds $5M
3) 100+ members

Front 30

Class actions in CA

Back 30

1) Ascertainable class
2) Well-defined community of interest among class members

Front 31

Interpleader

Back 31

Rule 22 Regular Rules; Statutory Simpler Standards
Rule: Regular diversity
Section 1335: minimum diversity and $500

Front 32

Rule 26 diclosures

Back 32

1) Initial
2) Expert testimony
3) Pretrial

Front 33

JMOL

Back 33

Evidence is such that reasonable persons could not disagree

Front 34

Motion for new trial: grounds

Back 34

1) Misconduct
2) Newly discovered evidence
3) Unfair accident or surprise
4) Excessive or inadequate damages
5) Insufficient evidence to justify verdict
6) Verdict is against the law
7) Error in the law

Front 35

Summary judgment

Back 35

No genuine dispute of material facts exists

Front 36

Claim preclusion

Back 36

1) Earlier judgment valid, final, and on the merits
2) Same claimant against the same D
3) Same cause of action
4) Actually litigated or could have been litigated in prior action
5)

Front 37

"Cause of action": Fed vs. CA

Back 37

Fed: Arising out of same transaction or occurrence
CA: Primary rights doctrine

Front 38

Offensive, non-mutual issue preclusion fairness factors

Back 38

1) Could party trying to use issue preclusion intervened in first suit?
2) Did party have incentive to litigate in earlier suit?
3) Are there multiple, prior inconsistent judgments?
4) Are there any procedural opportunities available to D that were not available in the first suit?