Rb - Civ Pro

Front 1

Personal Jurisdiction
Statutory Limitations
+ Long Arm Statute

Back 1

Exists where DF is present and personally served with process, or where DF is domiciled in the forum state.

If neither domiciled or personally served (or consent), then look to state's long arm statute...
Assume state has one (or if it is the fact pattern).
Long Arm statute provides that jdx over non-residents may be exercised on any basis not inconsistent with the US Const. Jdx is proper under the statute if not Unconst.

Front 2

Personal Jurisdiction
Constitutional Limitations

Back 2

Jdx is Const when sufficient minimum contacts exist between the DF and the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
This standard requires two hurdles to be cleared: MINIMUM CONTACTS (Purposeful Availment, Foreseeable Suit, Interest in the forum) and REASONABLENESS (Look @ Df's burden, conceivability)

Front 3

PJ: Statutory Limits on PJ

Back 3

PJ exists when the forum has power over a particular DF.
Statutory Limits on In Personum Jdx: In personum jdx exists where the DF is present and personally served with process, or where the DF is domiciled in the forum states.
Parties can consent to PJ, but do not do so by "special appearance" to quash summons.

Front 4

PJ: Long Arm Statute

Back 4

A state's Long Arm Statute provides that jdx over nonresidents may be exercised on any basis not inconsistent with the US Const.
Under this statute, jdx is proper so ling as it is Constitutional.

Front 5

PJ: Constitutional Limits on PJ

Back 5

Jdx Constitutional when sufficient minimum contacts exist bw the DF and the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Requires Minimum Contacts and Reasonableness.

Front 6

Minimum Contacts

Back 6

Whether minimum contacts exist, making the exercise of jdx fair, involves a balancing test. The court will look at the Quality and Nature of the Df's contacts with the forum, their connection with the cause of action, and Interest of the forum in protecting its citizens.
-->Engaging in Systematic and Continuous activity in the state.
-->Purposefully availing itself to the benefits and protections of state law.
-->Reasonably anticipate its activities would give rise to a claim in the state (foreseeable).

Front 7

"Reasonableness" of Asserting PJ

Back 7

If it would not place an unreasonable burden on DF.
Look @ convenience of the parties (W locations). Unless it puts a severe disadvantage on one of the parties, it is ok.
Evidence relating to the transactions is in the forum state (ex: evidence giving rise to a breach of K is in the state).

Front 8

My Parents Frequently Forgot to Read Children's Stories

Back 8

Minimum contacts:
--Purposeful availment
--Foreseeability
Fair play and subst. justice:
--Relatedness
--Convenience
--State Interest

Front 9

Res Judicata
(Claim Preclusion. Bars a Claim)

Back 9

Once a final judgment on the merits has been rendered on a particular COA, the PL is barred by res judicata from trying the same COA in another lawsuit.
For res judicata to apply, there must be a FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS of the case.

A summary judgment motion is granted if, from the pleadings, no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

(Note: State and Federal COAs are dissimilar, likely, if Fed grants an MSJ and state denies MSJ where facts are the same. If so, then res judicata does not bar the claim.)

Front 10

Judgment on the Merits

Back 10

n involuntary dismissal upon jdx is NOT considered a judgment on the merits of the case.

(Ex: If Fed Ct dismisses case for lack of diversity or AIC for SMJ, no final judgment)

Front 11

Res Judicata
"same t/o" (FRCP)
"primary rights" (CA)

Back 11

Under FRCP, a party is generally required to assert all claims arising out of the same t/o that is the subject matter of the claim asserted by PL.

In contrast to the FRCP, CA follows the "primary rights" doctrine which COA's may be split into separate lawsuits as long as the COA does not give rise to an invasion of a single primary right (right not to be injured, right not to be defamed).

Front 12

Erie Doctrine

Back 12

A Fed Ct exercising diversity jdx is required to apply the Substantive law of the State in which it is sitting but apply Fed Procedural law.
While no clear rule differentiates substantive from procedural rules, generally, federal statutes or rules dealing with procedural matters will be applied over contrary state law.

However, a federal procedural rule will not be applied in diversity cases when it's effect would toll the SOL (the state's limitation statute will apply).

Front 13

Relation Back Doctrine
(Erroneously named party in original complaint)

Back 13

(Does the expiration of the SOL before the service of the amended complaint bar the action?)

Amendments relate back to the date that the original pleading was filed when the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the amendment was set forth in the original pleading.
New Parties may be added if the party has received notice of the action so that she will not be prejudiced in maintaining her defense on the merits and Knew or Should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's Identity, the action would have been brought against her.
These requirements must have occurred w/i 21 days of the filing of the original complaint.

Front 14

Diversity Jdx- AIC

Back 14

In order to exercise diversity jdx, at least $75k in damages, exclusive of interests and costs, must be pled in good faith by the party bringing the action.

Good faith means that there must be a legally tenable possibility that the recovery will exceed the jdx'l amount.

Front 15

Diversity Jdx
Corps

Back 15

There must be complete diversity bw the opposing parties. If the DF and one PL are citizens of the same state, there is no diversity of citizenship jdx.

Citizenship of Corporations: For diversity purposes, a Corp is deemed a citizen of any state of its incorporation, which has been interpreted to mean every state of its incorporation and the one state in which it has its principal place of business.

Front 16

Third Party PL v.
Third Party DF

--> State Y DF(3Pπ) seeks indemnity/contribution from a State X DF(TPΔ), PL in State X as well.

Back 16

Diversity of Citizenship is still found where 3Pπ and 3PΔ are from different states. Original π could not bring a claim against TPΔ b/c it would destroy diversity (they both are from State X).

Unless there were some other independent basis to bring the claim (FQ).

There is no need for Suppl Jdx where the 3Pπ and 3PΔ are diverse.

Furthermore, even if they weren't diverse, the Fed Court would still have discretion to hear the case, provided the claim arises from a Common Nucleus of Operative Fact, which is usually considered to mean the same T/O (Suppl Jdx).

Joinder is favored in this instance by Fed Courts to serve judicial economy.

Front 17

Right to Jury Trial

Back 17

The 7th Am preserves the right to a jury trial in Fed Cts in all suits of Common Law.

Where damages are claimed as part of an action seeking an injunction, a jury trial cannot be denied on the damages issue on the ground that they are incidental to equitable relief.

Legal and Equitable Claims Joined in a Single Action: Where legal and equitable claims are joined in a single action involving common facts issues, the legal claim should be tried for the jury before the equitable claims are tried by the judge (CA is opposite).

Front 18

Summary Judgment

Back 18

Summary judgment must be granted if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Front 19

Collateral Estoppel

Back 19

A judgment for PL or DF is conclusive in a subsequent action on a different COA bw them or their privies as to issues actually litigated and essential to the judgment in the first action.
(A question of Damages is not essential to court's judgment!!)

The issue of fact must have been subject of trial, with evidence presented and a decision rendered by the trier of fact.
Also, persons who were neither parties nor in privity with a party cannot be bound by a judgment because that would violate Due Process rights. (not party, not privy, no notice = no collateral estoppel)

Front 20

Res Judicata

Back 20

Final judgment on the merits bars a subsequent cause of action in a later lawsuit.

Res Judicata is limited to parties and will not bar a COA if the same parties are not before the court.
(If different parties, no res judicata bar!)
Or privies of interest no notified

Also bars subsequent COAs which should have been asserted in the earlier lawsuit! (where injury came from same t/o)

Front 21

Removal (by a DF)

Back 21

Under FRCP, a DF may remove an action that could have originally been brought by PL in the Federal Court. (If satisfies diversity or is a FQ, may be removed)

Removal jdx can be based on diversity jdx or FQ jdx.

Front 22

Remand (by a PL)

Back 22

A PL may file a motion to have a case remanded back to state court. The court MUST remand whenever it is shown that there was no Fed SMJ.

Front 23

Compulsory Counterclaim

Back 23

DF must raise all claims against the PL which arise out of the same T/O, or else they are waived.

Front 24

Supplemental Jdx

Back 24

SJ extends to compulsory counterclaims. No Indep. Basis for SMJ is necessary to support a counterclaim, provided that the claim arises from a COMMON NUCLEUS OF OPERATIVE FACT.

A CNOOF is usually considered to mean the same T/O.

Front 25

Suppl Jdx - Claims

Back 25

SJ applies to a state claim if the Fed and State claim derive from a CNOOF and are such that the PL would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.

Front 26

Suppl Jdx - Parties

Back 26

In the absence of an indep basis for SMJ (ex: no div or FQ), the Fed Ct may allow the PL to join additional parties not originally named, provided that add'l claims are TRANSACTIONALLY RELATED to the original jdx-invoking claim, and the original jdx-invoking claim is not based on diversity.

Fed Ct will not hear the state claim where no diversity or FQ, and:
1) claim is novel or complex,
2) state claim predominates over Fed, OR
3) Fed claim has been dismissed.

Front 27

Collateral Estoppel: Non-Mutuality

Back 27

While traditional mutuality rules forbid use of collateral estoppel against a person who was not a party, modern rules apply collateral estoppel to a nonparty when:
1) the identical issue was decided in the 1st case
2) there was a final judgment on the merits
3) pty against whom the collateral estoppel is applied had a fair oppy to be heard in the earlier case, AND
4) it would be unfair or inequitable to apply collateral estoppel.

Front 28

Minimum Contacts - Foreseeability - owning property in a state

Back 28

By merely owning property in a state, it is not foreseeable that you be involved in a lawsuit in that state. Assertion of personal dx would therefore by improper.

(But by owning ppy in the state you do purposefully avail yourself to the benefits and protections of ownership in that state)

Front 29

Voluntary Appearance/Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Back 29

Most states allow special appearance through which a DF can object to the Court's exercise of jdx without consenting to jdx.

If the DF files a motion to quash before or at the same time as filing an answer, demurrer, or motion to strike, the DF will have preserved jdxl objection.

In contrast, in CA, a DF may not object to PJ in an affirmative defense in the answer, then proceed to litigate the action and raise the objection at or close to trial.

Front 30

Waiver of SMJ

Back 30

Lack of SMJ can NEVER be waived and can be raised at anytime.

A DF cannot waive SMJ by defending.

Front 31

MSJ

Back 31

A motion for summary judgment should be granted if no triable issues of fact exist.

FRCP=failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

CA=failure to plead facts constituting a COA.

Front 32

FRCP Notice Pleading &
CA Ultimate Facts Pleading

Back 32

Under the FRCP, notice pleading only requires that the DF receive notice of the action, not the specific legal actions it will have to defend against.

CA's system of fact/code pleading requires the pleading of ultimate facts to support each element of each COA.

Front 33

Res Judicata

Back 33

Final judgment on the merits bars a party from trying the same COA in a later lawsuit; however, res judicata applies only to parties in the earlier action in the same configuration.

Front 34

Collateral Estoppel

Back 34

Coll Estoppel bars relitigation of issues which were actually litigated AND essential to the judgment.

It may be used as a "sword" if the party against whom the judgment is used had a fair and full oppy to be heard and inequity would not result if the doctrine is applied.

Equitable if could foresee multiple suits, P couldnt be joined easily, and no inconsistent judgments on the record.

Front 35

Res Judicata - Splitting COAs

Back 35

Most courts do not allow a PL to sue for personal injuries & ppy damage in separate actions.

However, CA adheres to the PRIMARY RIGHTS doctrine, where lawsuits may be split so long as they dont invade on a single primary right.
(Coll estoppel will require the granting of a MSJ where the same parties actually litigated and the same issues and liab has been determined)

So, if PL alleged negligence and personal injury, negligence will be presumed in case 2 for property damages.

Front 36

Compulsory Joinder

Back 36

A pty whose absence prevents a Ct from rendering an effective judgment or would cause serious prejudice to other parties.
Arises from same t/o.

Front 37

Intervention of Right

Back 37

Under broad Federal Rule, intervention is allowed when the intervenor has an interest in the decision of the lawsuit.
Direct involvement in an accident is NOT sufficient to permit intervention of right.

Front 38

Permissive Intervention

Back 38

Permissive intervention is available when the applicant's claim or defense in the main action of a common question of law or fact and joinder will not destroy complete diversity.

Front 39

Cross-Claims

Back 39

A co-party is allowed to claim against another party on his side if the claim relates to the transaction or property involved in the original action.

Front 40

Res Judicata -- Same Configuratin

Back 40

Once final judgment on the merits has been rendered on a particular cause of action, the PL is barred from trying the same COA on a later lawsuit.

It is not enough that the same litigants were also parties of the previous case, they must have been in the same configuration of one asserting a claim against the other.

Must be same claimant (PL) vs. Same DF (DF).

Front 41

Collateral Estoppel

Back 41

A judgment in a subsequent action as to issues ACTUALLY LITIGATED and ESSENTIAL to judgment in the first action.

Front 42

Counterclaims
Compulsory Counterclaims
(CA Cross-Complaints)

Back 42

If a counterclaim arises out of the same t/o as one of the PL's claims, it is a compulsory counterclaim and must be pleaded or it will be barred.

It must be asserted in the previous action, or else barred in a subsequent one.

Front 43

Coll Est/Res Jud
Party to a Previous Case
(executor/Independent Contractor)

Back 43

An executor for an estate will be considered a party for the previous case.

Coll Est: Issue must be essential to the judgment in previous case. (Ex: issue of negligence of an IC is not essential where an agency is sufficient to satisfy judgment in the previous case.)
Mutuality: Ex: where court determined the IC was negligent in the previous case but company not liable b/c not determined to be their agent.)

Front 44

AIC over $75000

Back 44

May aggregate claims only if jointly liable to PL, total must exceed 75k.

AIC must be a good faith allegation exceeding $75k, exclusive of interests and costs.
May also add the value of an INJUNCTION! (Value or right protected, or value of injury to be prevented)
Look at DFs separately and see if they can be brought in, unless you can aggregate.

Complaint will be dismissed only if there is NO LEGAL POSSIBILITY that recovery will exceed jdxl amount.

Front 45

SJ

Back 45

A Fed Court has discretion to exercise pendant jdx over a state law claim if the two claims derive from a CNOOF and are such that PL would ordinarily be expected to try all in one proceeding.

Front 46

State is not a proper DF when...

Back 46

The 11th AM prohibits a Fed Ct from hearing a private party's claims against a state govt.

The state may waive this immunity.
(PL may amend their complaint to take state out).

Front 47

Sufficient Pleadings

Back 47

Short statement of grounds for the court's jdx, the CLAIM the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for relief.

A party can move for a more definitive statement.

CA Distinction: Were FACTS sufficiently pleaded?

Front 48

Class Actions
NCAT

Back 48

Certification of class actions require Numerosity, Common Questions, Typicality and Fair and Adequate Representation.

Numerosity= where joinder of all members is impracticable.
(Ex: 26 inmates plus future inmates, inconsistent results)

Front 49

Venue
Transfer

Back 49

Venue is proper where any DF resides, events occurred, or in diversity cases, where any DF is subject to PJ.

To Transfer to another venue, the transferee court must have SMJ, PJ, and Venue.

Court MAY transfer for convenience factors.

Front 50

Mootness - Class Actions Exception

Back 50

There must be a genuine case or controversy. If a matter is resolved, it is dismissed as being moot.

Exceptions:
- Capable of Repetition, or
- in Class Actions, if other member's claims are still viable.