Federal Jurisdiction And Civil Procedure (Mee 2013)

Front 1

Personal jurisdiction

Back 1

C's power over parties. Key question: can P sue D in this state?

Two-step analysis: (1) satisfy state long-arm statute AND (2) satisfy constitutional due process.

Front 2

In personam jurisdiction

Back 2

State statutes allow PJ over Ds who are (1) served with process in the state or (2) are domiciled in the state or (3) do certain things in the state (tortious act, conduct business).

Front 3

Constitutional analysis

Back 3

Does D have "such minimum contacts with the forum so that jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"?

KEY CONCEPTS: contact, relatedness, and fairness

Front 4

Contact

Back 4

Two factors: purposeful availment and foreseeability (foreseeable d would get sued in forum).

Front 5

Relatedness

Back 5

Does P's claim arise from D's contact with the forum state?

If yes, C might uphold PJ even if D doesn't have a lot of contact with the forum. Where claim related to D's contact with forum, it's SPECIFIC PJ.

If claim doesn't stem from contact with forum, PJ only if C has general PJ, which requires continuous and systematic ties (domicile for human; business where formed or principal place of business).

Front 6

Fairness

Back 6

Factors: convenience; state interest in providing forum for citizens; and plaintiff's interest

Front 7

Summary of constitutional test

Back 7

Contact: purposeful availment, foreseeability
Relatedness: general v. specific
Fairness: convenience, state's interest, P's interest

Front 8

Subject matter jurisdiciton

Back 8

C's power over the case.

Federal courts can hear: (1) diversity of citizenship and (2) federal question

Front 9

Diversity of citizenship

Back 9

Two requirements: (1) case is between (a) "citizens of different states" (diversity) or (b) a citizen of a state and a citizen of foreign country

AND

(2) amount in controversy exceeds 75k.

Front 10

Domicile

Back 10

Determines citizenship.

Two factors: (1) presence in state and (2) intent to make it permanent home.

Corporation: (1) where state incorporated AND (2) the ONE state with principal place of business.

Front 11

Equitable relief and 75k requirement for diversity

Back 11

Two tests; if either is met, it's OK:

P's viewpoint: does lack of injunction/equitable relief decrease value by more than 75k?

D's view: would it cost D more than 75k to comply with injunction?

Front 12

Federal question

Back 12

Complaint must show a right/interest founded substantially on a federal law.

Party citizenship/amount in controversy is irrelevant.

Front 13

Well pleaded complaint rule

Back 13

Not enough that federal issue is raised by complaint; claim itself must "arise under" federal law.

Front 14

Supplemental jurisdiction

Back 14

Works only after a case is in federal court (through diversity or FQ).

Test: new claim must share a "common nucleus of operative fact" with the claim that invoked SMJ.

Always met by claims that arise from same transaction/occurrence.

BUT, in diversity case, P cannot use supplemental jurisdiction to overcome a lack of diversity.

Front 15

Non-federal, non-diversity claim can be heard in federal if it shares common nucleus of operative fact UNLESS it is

Back 15

(1) asserted by P; (2) diversity case; AND (3) is against a citizen of same state as P.

Front 16

Removal

Back 16

D sued in state court might be able to remove case to federal court. ONLY transfer state to federal. If improper, federal court remands.

Cases that meet diversity or federal question requirements can be removed.

EXCEPTION in diversity cases: (1) no removal if any D is citizen of forum; (2) no removal more than one year after case filed.

Front 17

Erie doctrine

Back 17

Federal court in a diversity case applies state substantive law.

If federal constitution, statute, FRCP, FRE directly conflicts with state law, federal law applies. Justification: arguably procedural.

Front 18

Venue

Back 18

Tells which federal court case heard in; depends on federal district.

Venue is proper where either all Ds reside or a substantial part of the claim arose.

Where all Ds reside in different districts of the same state, venue is proper in district where any one of them resides.

Domicile determines where reside; corporations go by PJ rules.

Front 19

Transfer of venue

Back 19

Federal district court may transfer case to another federal district court where the case COULD HAVE BEEN FILED.

Exception: may transfer to any district at all if (1) all the parties consent; and (2) there's cause for the transfer. Cs nervous about this; overrides P's choice of forum.

Front 20

Forum non conveniens

Back 20

C dismisses or stays case; transfer is impossible: more convenient court is in a different judicial system/country.

Other court must be adequate.

Front 21

Service of process

Back 21

Deliver PROCESS to D; consists of (1) summons and (2) copy of the complaint.

Any party over 18 may serve process.

Front 22

Types of service

Back 22

Personal service--papers given to D personally anywhere.

Substituted service--left at usual abode. Must serve someone of suitable age/discretion who resides there.

Service on D's agent--permissible if within scope of agency.

State law options are available.

Front 23

Waiver of service by mail

Back 23

Mailing D copy of complaint + two copies of waiver form with prepaid means of returning form. If D executes and mails waiver to P within 30 days, D waives formal service.

Front 24

Rule 11

Back 24

Attorney must sign all pleadings, written motions and papers. Certifies that to best of knowledge/belief after reasonable inquiry (1) paper isn't for improper purpose; (2) legal contentions are warranted by law; and (3) factual contentions and denials of factual contentions have evidentiary support.

Front 25

Complaint requirements

Back 25

(1) statement of grounds of SMJ; (2) short and plain statement of facts supporting a plausible claim; (3) demand for relief sought.

Front 26

Three matters that must be pleaded with particularity or specificity

Back 26

Fraud, mistake, and special damages

Front 27

D's response to complaint

Back 27

Must respond by motion or by answer within 21 days after service of process.

Front 28

Rule 12(b) defenses

Back 28

(1) lack of SMJ
(2) lack of PJ
(3) improper venue
(4) insufficiency of process
(5) insufficient service of process
(6) failure to state a claim
(7) failure to join indispensable party

2, 3, 4, 5 are waivable: must be put in the first Rule 12 response (whether motion or answer) or else they're waived.

Front 29

Answer

Back 29

Pleading; must serve within 21 days of process. If made Rule 12 motion and it's denied, must serve answer within 14 days after C rules on motion.

Respond to allegation of complaint: admit, deny, state that you lack sufficient information to admit/deny. Also, raise affirmative defenses.

Front 30

Counterclaim

Back 30

Claim against opposing party. Two types: (1) compulsory--arises in same transaction/occurrence and must be filed in pending case or its waived; (2) permissive--not same transaction/occurrence.

Front 31

Crossclaim

Back 31

Claim against coparty; must arise from same T/O as underlying action. Permissive; don't have to file it in this case.

Front 32

Right to amend pleadings

Back 32

P has a right to amend once within 21 days after D serves first Rule 12 response.

D has right to amend once within 21 days of serving his answer.

If there's no right to amend, may seek leave of court to do so, which is granted if "justice so requires." Factors: delay, prejudice, futility of amendment.

Front 33

Amending pleadings after statute of limitations has run ("relation back")

Back 33

Amended pleadings "relate back" if they concern the same conduct or T/O as original pleading.

Front 34

Discovery: required disclosures

Back 34

Initial disclosures (persons, electronic info, documents likely to have discoverable information to support claims/defenses), experts, and pretrial information about trial evidence (documents and witnesses).

Front 35

Discovery tools

Back 35

Not used until after Rule 26(f) conference: depositions (may be anyone), interrogatories to another party, requests to produce, physical or mental examination (only through court order), request for admission to another party.

Note: duty to supplement.

Front 36

Scope of discovery

Back 36

Standard: may discover anything relevant to a claim or defense. BROADER THAN WHAT IS MERELY ADMISSIBLE.

Cannot discover privileged communications, work product generally.

Front 37

Privilege log

Back 37

If you withhold discovery/seek protective order, must expressly and particularly describe the materials in log.

Front 38

Enforcement of discovery rules

Back 38

Partial violation--if objections are not upheld, this is a partial violation.

Total violation--receiving party completely fails to attend deposition, respond to interrogatories, etc.

Front 39

RAMBO sanctions

Back 39

Available for total violation or for partial violation (after party defies additional order compelling answer).

Types of sanctions: establishment order, strike pleadings of disobedient party, disallow evidence from disobedient party, dismiss P's case if bad faith shown, enter default judgment against D if bad faith shown.

Front 40

Necessary and indispensable parties

Back 40

Nonparties might be forced to join case.

Tests:
(1) without X court cannot accord complete relief among parties;
(2) X's interest may be harmed if isn't joined; or
(3) X claims an interest which subjects party to risk of multiple obligations.

Front 41

If party is necessary/indispensable, C must find

Back 41

(1) PJ over him and (2) joining him will not defeat diversity.

If can't join, C proceeds without him or dismisses the case.

Front 42

Impleader

Back 42

Defending party wants to bring in third-party D that may owe indemnity or contribution to defending party on the underlying claim. May implead within 14 days of serving answer or with court permission later.

Front 43

Intervention

Back 43

Absentee wants to join pending suit; application must be timely.

Intervention of right: interest may be harmed if not joined and is not adequately represented now.

Permissive intervention: claim/defense and pending case have at least one common question.

Front 44

Class action requirements

Back 44

(1) numerosity--too many class members for practicable joinder; (2) commonality--questions of law/fact common to the class; (3) typicality--claims/defenses are typical of class; and (4) representative is adequate--class representative will fairly/adequately represent the class.

Front 45

Types of class actions

Back 45

(1) prejudice--class treatment necessary to avoid harm either to class members or non-class party. Example: many claimants to a fund.

(2) Injunction or declaratory judgment sought because class was treated alike by other party.

(3) "Damages": (a) common questions predominate over individual questions AND (b) class action is the superior method to handle the dispute.

Front 46

Type 3 class action

Back 46

C must notify class members they are in a class. Requires individual notice to all reasonably identifiable members.

Front 47

12(b)(6) failure to state a claim

Back 47

Tests sufficiency of P's allegation. Question: "Assuming facts were true, would P win a judgment?"

Front 48

Summary judgment

Back 48

Must show (1) no genuine dispute on a material fact and (2) party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

C views evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party.

Front 49

Rule 26(f) conference

Back 49

At least 21 days before scheduling conference, parties discuss claims, defense, and settlement. Must form discovery plan, etc.

Front 50

Pretrial conference

Back 50

Process case and foster settlement. Final pretrial conference determines issues to be tried and evidence to be proferred. This is recorded in pretrial conference order which supersedes the pleadings.

Front 51

Right to jury trial in federal court

Back 51

7A preserves right to jury in civil actions at law (not equity claims). If suit involves both law/equity, jury decides facts underlying damages claim butnot equity claim.

Front 52

Peremptory strikes

Back 52

Must be used in race and gender neutral way.

Front 53

Motion for judgment as a matter of law

Back 53

Standard: reasonable person could not disagree on the result.

Can only be brought after the other side has been heard at trial. C views evidence in the light most favorable to nonmoving party.

Front 54

Renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law

Back 54

Same as JMOL, but comes up after trial. PREREQUISITE: must move for JMOL at trial.

Front 55

New trial motion

Back 55

Judgment entered, but errors at trial require new trial. Move within 28 days of judgment.

Grounds: prejudicial error (e.g., wrong jury instruction); new evidence that could not have been obtained with due diligence for original trial; prejudicial misconduct of party or attorney or juror; judgment is against weight of evidence.

Less drastic than JMOL because same party may still win.

Front 56

Final judgment rule

Back 56

May appeal only from final judgment, which means ultimate decision by trial court on the merits of the entire case. File notice of appeal with trial court within 30 days of final judgment.

Front 57

Interlocutory review

Back 57

May be appealable even though not final judgment

Reviewable as of right: orders granting, modifying, refusing injunctions, appointing receivers, findings of patent infringement where only an accounting is left for trial court; orders affecting possession of property.

Interlocutory appeals act: allows appeal of nonfinal order if trial judge certifies it involves controlling issue of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and COA agrees to hear it.

"Collateral order" exception:

Front 58

Claim preclusion (res judicata)

Back 58

Test: (1) cases were brought by same claimant against the same defendant; (2) one of the cases ended in a valid final judgment on the merits.

It's a final judgment on the merits unless judgment was based on jurisdiction, venue, or indispensable parties.

Front 59

Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel)

Back 59

Precludes relitigation of a particular issue litigated and determined before.

Test: (1) prior case ended in valid judgment on merits; (2) same issue was litigated/determined in prior case; (3) issue was essential to judgment in prior case; (4) may assert issue preclusion only against party to prior case ; (5) party to prior case may assert issue preclusion if not unfair.