Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
20 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Complete diversity in diversity jur'n
|
No diversity of citizenship jur’n if any P is a citizen of the same state as any D
|
|
|
Diversity req'ts
|
#1 Action must be between “citizens of different states” or between “a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country”
#2 Amount in controversy must exceed $75K |
|
|
State of citizenship (natural person)
|
U.S. state of her domicile
- Decedents, minors and incompetents: Look to THEIR citizenship, NOT the citizenship of their reps |
|
|
States of citizenship (corp)
|
#1 State where incorp, AND
#2 ONE state where the corp has its principal place of business (PPB) -- HQ (nerve center, where decisions are made), OR -- Corp does more production/service activity than anywhere else (muscle center) |
|
|
States of citizenship (uninc ass'ns)
|
Citizenship of ALL MEMBERS
|
|
|
Amount in controversy
|
- GOOD FAITH is ok, unless it is “clear to a legal certainty” that π cannot collect >$75K
- Ultimate recovery ≤$75K IRRELEVANT to jur’n - Aggregation is where P must add ≥2 claims to meet amount in controversy req’t (aggregate if it’s 1 P v. 1 D) - Value of injunction: Req’t usually satisfied if EITHER ONE of these two tests yields >$75K: -- P’s viewpoint: Does the encroachment decrease the value of P’s property by >$75K -- D’s viewpoint: Does it cost >$75K to comply w/ the injunction |
|
|
Supplemental jur'n
|
- Test: Claim must share a “common nucleus of operative fact” w/ the claim that invoked fed SM jur’n; this test is ALWAYS met when the claim arises from the same transaction/occurrence as the underlying case
- A non-federal, non-diversity claim can be heard in fed Ct if it meets “the test” UNLESS it is --- Asserted by P --- In a diversity of citizenship (not FQ) case, AND --- Would violate complete diversity |
|
|
Erie Doctrine
|
In diversity cases, Fed Ct must apply state SUBSTANTIVE law:
- Ask: Is there a federal law (Const, statute, FRCP, or FRE) on point that directly conflicts w/ state law? --- Yes: Apply Fed law as long as it is valid → This is b/c of the supremacy clause --- No: If the issue is substantive, must follow state law; analyze the facts per these three issues and come to a reasonable conclusion: ----- Outcome determinative: Would applying or ignoring the state rule affect outcome of case? If yes, probably a substantive rule → use state law ----- Balance of interest: Does either Fed or state system have strong interest in having its rule applied? ----- Avoid forum shopping: If Fed Ct ignores state law on this issue, will it cause parties to flock to Fed Ct? If so, should probably apply state law |
|
|
Proper venue
|
- Location actions: Cases regarding ownership/possession/injury RE must be filed in D where the land lies
- Transitory cases: In any case (FQ/diversity), P may lay venue in any district where --- All D reside, OR --- A substantial part of the claim arose |
|
|
Transfer of venue
|
General ®: Cases can only be transferred TO another Fed District where the case “could have been brought:” Can only be transferred to a Ct that has proper venue + personal jur’n over D
|
|
|
Service of process
|
Any method of service permitted by
- The FRCP: Personal service, substituted service, D's agent, waiver by mail - Law of the state in which it sits - Law of the state in which service is effected |
|
|
Joinder (necessary parties)
|
#1 Is the absentee necessary?
- Yes (joinable), IF: --- W/o absentee, cannot accord complete relief among those already joined (worried about multiple suits) --- *** Absentee’s interest will be harmed if she isn’t joined (practical harm), OR --- Absentee claims an interest which subjects a party (usually ∆) to possibility of multiple obligations #2 Assess whether the necessary party may be joined: - Yes (join her), if: --- There is personal jur’n over the party, AND --- She can be joined w/o messing up diversity #3 If she cannot be joined - There are only two choices --- #1 Ct must proceed w/o absentee party, OR --- #2 Ct must dismiss the case - Ct decides between the two by balancing these factors: --- Is there an alternative forum available where everybody can be joined (maybe in a state Ct)? --- The What is the real likelihood of harm to anybody if we proceed w/o absentee? --- Can the Ct do something to shape the order in the pending case to avoid any such harm? - If the Ct dismisses, we call the necessary party INDISPENSIBLE |
|
|
Counter-claims
|
Counter claim: Offensive claim against an OPPOSING party
#1 Compulsory: Counter-claims that arises from the same T/O - It must be filed w/ answer or else it’s waived; ∆ cannot sue on the claim in a separate claim #2 Permissive: - Does not arise from the same transaction as π’s claim - Does not have to be asserted in the pending case |
|
|
Cross-claims
|
An offensive claim against a co-party that MUST arise from the same transaction as the underlying action
|
|
|
Intervention
|
- Intervention of right: A must show A’s interest (same as that of a necessary party):
--- May be harmed if she is not joined, AND --- Is not adequately represented now - Permissive intervention: A’s claim/defense and the pending case have at least one common question; allowing intervention here is discretionary w/ the Ct |
|
|
Interpleader
|
One holding $/property wants to force all potential claimants into a single case to avoid multiple litigation and the threat of inconsistent results
|
|
|
Rule v. Statutory interpleader
|
#1 Diversity of citizenship
--- Under the Rule, treat as regular diversity case: stakeholder must be diverse from every claimant --- Under the statute, one claimant must be diverse from one other claimant; don’t even look @ the stakeholder’s citizenship #2 Amount in controversy: Rule (>$75K); Statute (>$500) #3 Service of process: Rule (regular); Statute (nationwide) #4 Venue: Rule (regular)’; Statute (where any claimant resides) |
|
|
Class action
|
- Initial req’ts
--- Numerosity: Too NUMEROUS for practicable joinder --- Commonality: Some question of law or fact in COMMON to the class --- Typicality: Rep’s claims/defenses typical of those of the class, AND --- Adequality: Representative adequate- will adequately and fairly represent class - Next step: Must fit the case w/in 1 of 3 types of class action: --- “Prejudice”: Class treatment is necessary to avoid harm either to class members or to the party opposing the class --- Injunction/declaratory judgment (NOT DAMAGES) sought b/c the class members were treated alike by the other party --- “Damages” ----- Common questions PREDOMINATE over individual questions ----- Class action is the SUPERIOR method for resolving the dispute |
|
|
Type 3 class
|
Ct MUST give the individual notice (usually by mail) to all reasonably identifiable members, telling them various things, including:
- They can opt out - They will be bound by the judgment if they do not opt out - They can enter a separate appearance thru counsel |
|
|
Defenses on MTD
|
7 defenses
#1 Lack of SM jur’n #2 Lack of personal jur’n #3 Improper venue #4 Insufficient process #5 Insufficient service of process #6 Failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted #7 Failure to join an indispensable party Timing - 2, 3, 4, 5: Must be put in the first defensive response - 6 & 7: Any time thru trial - 1: Any time |
