Federal Civil Procedure I

Front 1

Specific Jurisdiction

Back 1

arises when cause of action IS related to D's contact with the forum state

Front 2

General Jurisdiction

Back 2

arises when cause of action ISN'T related to D's forum contact

Front 3

When "general jurisdiction" is claimed, the D must have:

Back 3

"systematic & continuous" contact with the forum to justify jurisdiction over her.

* the assertion of jurisdiction must not violate our traditional conception of fair play & substantial justice.

Front 4

Specific Jurisdiction is much LESS rigorous

Back 4

.

Front 5

In a product-liability case, forum state jurisdiction over a non-present D exists only if the non-present D:

Back 5

made an effort to market in-state, to the extent that he "should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." (WW Volkswagen)

*mere foreseeability is NOT enough to confer jurisdiction when there is only a single foreign tortious act with in-state consequences (Flashcard #177)

Front 6

Mnemonic OUTLINE OF COURSE:

Back 6

SPiNS V. RoW

S:subject matter jurisdiction
P:personal jurisdiction
N:notice
S:service of process
V:venue
R:removal
W:waiver

Front 7

Mnemonic OUTLINE OF COURSE CONT'D:

Back 7

PADS J. PoD

P:pleadings
A:applicable law (Erie)
D:discovery
S:summary judgment
J:jury issues
P:post-trial motions
D:dismissals

Front 8

Mnemonic OUTLINE OF COURSE CONT'D (2):

Back 8

CoX AIR JIJI CARA

C:counterclaims
X:cross claims ("x"-cross)
A:ancillary jurisdiction
I:impleader
R:real property
J:joinder/parties
I:intervention
J:joinder/claims
I:interpleader
CA:class action
R:res judicata
A:appeals

Front 9

What is the difference between "venue" and "jurisdiction"?

Back 9

Jurisdiction
-refers to the POWER of the court to hear a case

Venue
-refers to the APPROPRIATE PLACE for the trial

Front 10

Whenever a federal court is asked to transfer a case to a different district (federal courts do not dismiss action for forum non conveniens, they transfer them to another district) the court has to consider three factors beyond "in the interest of justice."

What are they?

Back 10

It has to determine whether the action could have been brought in the transferee district in the first place. Thus, it must consider:
1)Does PERSONAL JURISDICTION lie in the transferee district?
2)Is the district a proper place for VENUE?
3)Was SERVICE OF PROCESS possible in the transferee district?

*Note that the defendant CANNOT waive these requirements on a motion to transfer a case!

**Mnemonic:

"you can't transfer without the "Vice PresidentS"" (VP'S- venue, personal jurisdiction, & service).

Front 11

PROPER VENUE

In a federal diversity case, proper venue exists in:

Back 11

1) any judicial district where any D resides

2)where a substantial part of the claim-creating events occurred, or, if neither of those two alternatives provides a venue,

3)then where any D "may be found" - that is, where he'd be subject to personal jurisdiction.

Front 12

Before a court may hear a case, it must have:

Back 12

-Personal Jurisdiction over the parties

-Subject Matter Jurisdiction over the cause of action, &

-Notice and Venue requirements must be met.

Front 13

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Modern Test:

Back 13

"D must have certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

(International Shoe)

*Remember, service of process requirements must be satisfied.

Front 14

MNEMONICS

Sufficient minimum contacts?

Back 14

Think "CAPFI BLIMFEW":

C:cause of action (where did the cause of action arise?)

A:activities (scrutinize these activities in forum state: quality & nature; systematic v. sporatic; direct v. indirect; dangerous activities.)

P:purposeful availment (has D purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the forum's laws?)

F:foreseeability (could D foresee or expect to defend in forum state?) (WW Volkswagen).

I:initiate (did D initiate contact with forum state?)


--Fair Play & Substantial Justice--


B:burden of Parties (if jurisdiction is asserted, what would be the burden on the parties?) (economic & time burdens; relative burdens on P&D).

L:law (what forum's law will be applied to this case?)

I:interest of State (in providing a forum for its residents & protecting health and safety concerns)

M:multiplicity of suits (CoA result in total resolution of suit?)

F:forum (alternate forum available? Fair & convenient?)

E:evidence (where's the bulk of the evidence?)

W:witnesses (where are th

Front 15

Can claims asserted by multiple parties be aggregated?

Back 15

Generally NO.

Exception:
-when the two claims arise form a COMMON & UNDIVIDED RIGHT, TITLE, or INTEREST.

Front 16

Does commission of an in-state tortious act satisfy the "minimum contacts" requirement of due process?

Back 16

Yes.

Front 17

Permissive Joinder of Defendants:

Back 17

-common question of law or fact

-cause of action arose from the same transaction or occurrence.

Front 18

When venue is improper, either the D or the court may move for change of venue

Back 18

-the court could dismiss the action for improper venue, but it doesn't have to; instead it may transfer it.

-The transfer may be made only to a district "in which it could have been brought."

*this means that the transferee court must have been a proper court for personal jurisdiction and service of process.

Front 19

In most states, what happens if the D fails to move for a change of venue in his first appearance?

Back 19

he will be deemed to have waived his right to do so.

(same in Fed. Ct.)

Front 20

Can subject matter jurisdiction be waived?

Back 20

NO!

*However, Personal Jurisdiction and process defects (e.g.: improper venue) can be waived.

Front 21

Can state courts transfer cases to other states?

Back 21

No.

They must dismiss the suit.

*NOTE: you must find valid jurisdiction before you consider venue!!

Front 22

State courts can "conditionally dismiss" the case

Back 22

That is, the state court could dismiss the case upon condition that D promise not to challenge jurisdiction in the more convenient forum.

Front 23

Under Federal forum non conveniens, a federal district court can transfer to any other district in the country so long as:

Back 23

1) to do so is "in the interest of justice," and

2) the case could have been brought in the transferee court originally.

Front 24

When a Diversity case is transferred between district courts on the grounds of Convenience, the transferee district must apply the law the transferor district would have applied.

(unless it was improper venue in the first place).

Back 24

Rationale:
-the rights of the parties should not change just because the courtroom changed.

Related Issue:
-if the case involved a federal question and was transferred to another circuit, the transferee court would be Free to consider the law of the transferor court but would Not be bound to apply another circuit's view of federal law.

Front 25

Is removal possible from Fed. Ct. to State Ct.?

Back 25

NO.

*removal is only possible from state court to Fed. Ct.

Front 26

In general, any action brought in a state court that could have been brought originally in federal district court is removable at the Defendant's option.

Back 26

-However, in a Diversity suit, if a defendant is a citizen of the state where the action is brought, the action is NOT removable!

*Removal is possible in a Diversity case ONLY when NO joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state where the action is pending.

Front 27

*The original P cannot remove a case from State to Fed. Ct., even if the D files a counterclaim that would invoke federal jurisdiction and satisfy the removal requirements.

Back 27

.

Front 28

Eire Doctrine

Back 28

-held that a Fed. Ct. hearing a diversity case should follow the substantive law of the forum state.

-As a result, the Supreme Ct. put to rest the idea that there was general federal common law, and put an end to "forum shopping."

*NOTE:
-there still remains a body of unique fed. law in matters that arise clearly under fed. questions.

Front 29

In Federal Diversity Cases:

If a procedure is covered by a FRCP and a contrary state law:

Back 29

The FRCP controls (Hanna v. Plumer)

Front 30

In Federal Diversity Cases:

If a procedure issue is NOT covered by a FRCP:

Back 30

the "balancing test" must be used, weighing the importance of state policy, the importance of federal policy, and the extent to which the outcome of the case will be affected.

(the greater the effect, the more likely it is that the state law will control)

The test is: Is the effect "OUTCOME DETERMINITIVE"?

**if the issue is substantive, state law controls under Erie.

Front 31

Goal of the Erie Doctrine:

Back 31

-Discourage forum-shopping, and

-Avoid inequitable administration of the laws.

Front 32

Rules of Decision Act

(1789)

Back 32

-Fed Cts. must apply "the laws of the several states, except where the Constitution, Treaties or Statutes of the U.S. shall otherwise require or provide.

Front 33

Rules Enabling Act

(1934)

Back 33

State law must be followed whenever "substantive rights" are affected.

Front 34

Are "substantive rights" the same thing under ERIE as the are under HANNA?

Back 34

NO!

They were designed to control very diff. situations.

Front 35

Erie interpreted the 1789 Rules of Decision Act:

Back 35

-Erie is cited when there's NO FEDERAL PROCEDURAL RULE ON POINT, only the body of decisions by federal judges.

-In that case, the balancing test ("Byrd") must be used and federal law will apply if the state's interest is weaker than the overall federal policy.

**if the issue is substantive, state law applies in any case.

Front 36

Hanna, on the other hand, involved the 1934 Rules Enabling Act:

Back 36

-Hanna controls when there IS A FEDERAL PROCEDURAL RULE ON POINT and a CONTRARY STATE RULE.

-The Enabling Act provides that the Federal Rule MUST be applied UNLESS it "abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substantive right" (and no fed. rule has ever done that)

Front 37

*If there is a direct conflict between a federal procedural rule & an state rule, the federal rule MUST be applied REGARDLESS of a contrary state law, as long as the federal rule is valid.

(The federal rule is presumed valid, even if it leads to a different result than the state rule!!)

Back 37

.

Front 38

IN SUM:

Erie applies ONLY when there is NO controlling federal statute.

Back 38

If there is a controlling federal statute or rule, it takes precedence over the contrary state law under Hana.

Front 39

In Federal Diversity cases, the court must apply the conflict of law rules of the state in which it sits

Back 39

this is because a conflict of laws rule is considered substantive, not procedural.

Front 40

Once a federal court decides it must apply the substantive laws of a given state, it must determine what those laws are.

To do so, it must determine:

Back 40

How the highest court of the state would settle the legal issue in question if faced with it today.

Front 41

PLEADINGS

Back 41

must require signiture

Front 42

There are three normal Pleadings in federal courts:

Back 42

*Remember "CAR"
--------------------------------------

1) C:complaint (P states his cause of action)

2) A:answer (D denies any or all of Ps allegations & sets forth defenses against P)

3) R:reply (if necessary) (P answers Ds counterclaim)


*this is called a "two-tier" formula, because, in most actions, there are usually only two tiers. (complaints & answers)

Front 43

Pleadings today serve only to NOTIFY the other party of a party's claims, so the other party can prepare for trial.

Back 43

(at common law, they had to be very detailed, not today)

Front 44

Three things which must be in a complaint:

Back 44

Remember "JCR"
--------------------------------------

1) J:jurisdiction

2) C:claim (short and plain statement of claim)

3) R:relief (a demand for the relief sought)

Front 45

3rd-Party Complaint:

Back 45

a complaint the D files against a non-party when the D claims that party may be liable to him for all or part of the Ps claim against him.

Front 46

FRCP 12(b)(6):

Back 46

failure to sate a claim for which relief can be granted.

Front 47

JOINDER OF CLAIMS

Back 47

no procedural limit on the # of claims joined against an opposing party

Front 48

Compulsory Counterclaims

Back 48

Requires the assertion of counterclaims that arise from the transaction which give rise to the original claim.

*must be asserted in the suit, or they will be lost!

Front 49

Permissive Counterclaims

Back 49

Permits the assertion of any counterclaim regardless of its relationship with the opposing party's claim.

*This "permissive" counterclaim can be asserted or not at the Ds discretion.

NOTE:
-no penalty imposed to prevent D from saving a permissive counterclaim for Subsequent Litigation, but supplemental jurisdiction does not support unrelated counterclaims.

Front 50

Cross-Claims

Back 50

Rule 13(g) limits cross-claims to those arising from the transaction which gives rise to the claim against the co-parties, and a cross-claim may be a claim over contribution or indemnity.

Front 51

Is joinder of pleas proper whenever the same transaction forms the basis of two or more causes of action?

Back 51

Yes!

Front 52

Counterclaims & Cross-Claims:

Back 52

P files suit against D
-D can counterclaim

P files suit against D1 and D2
-D1 and D2 can file counterclaims against P
-D1 and D2 can file cross-claims against each other

P files suit against D
-D can file a 3rd Party complaint against a third party


*If it gets too confusing for the court, the court can separate it into multiple trials.

*Once Ds file cross-claims against each other, they become opposite parties. (they are entitled to do this under Rule 13)

Front 53

Twin Aims of Erie

Back 53

1) Forum-shopping

2) Inequitable administration of the law

Front 54

Outcome determinative Test

Back 54

would outcome be diff in state court v. fed ct?

-if yes, apply state law

Front 55

Balancing Interest Test

Back 55

Who has more interest in the case, the state or the federal court?

Front 56

Service of Process

Back 56

Think "CAPS"

C:constructive notice (notice in newspaper- when actual notice cant be done)

A:agent of D

P:personal service

S:substitutive service

Front 57

Defendant's Response

Back 57

Remember "Response MAM"

M:motion
A:answer
M:made within 20 days

Front 58

D's motion or answer can consist of:

Back 58

Remember "Some People Vote Insufficient In Frantic Failure"

S:subject matter jurisdiction
P:personal jurisdicion
V:venue (improper)
I:insufficient process
I:insufficient service of process
F:failure to sate claim
F:failure to join an absentee

Front 59

in Discovery, for work product the opposing party must:

Back 59

"Suck Up to the judge"

S:substantial need, AND
U:undue hardship

Front 60

Deposition

Back 60

sworn oral testimony

Front 61

Interrogatories

Back 61

written questions answered in writing (25 max)

Front 62

trial by jury

Back 62

1791

Front 63

Intervention

Back 63

-must have interest in the claim

-must be timely

-assert subject matter jurisdiction